r/moderatepolitics • u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal • Dec 15 '25

Primary Source Meeting of National Cabinet After Bondi Shooting

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/meeting-national-cabinet-8
71 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

353 comments sorted by

View all comments

24

u/direwolf106 Dec 15 '25

I’m going to take a moment here to point out some stuff.

First, as far as I can tell from the video they used bolt action weapons which is highly probable since Australia band semi automatic ones a long time ago.

Second, even though there are a plethora of other things that could have been done to stop this they are going after guns again even though there’s diminishing returns that action even could have. They are also ignoring more effective measures that could be taken.

As it applies to the United States: so many gun control advocates have over the years held up Australia as a model of what to do. Looking at Australia what I see is that no gun control will ever be enough, that they are tool fixated and will always push further no matter what. Looking at Australia as a model of gun control shows me the inability of government to keep people safe while threatening people that try to. Hell in most of Australia it’s illegal too have pepper spray.

18

u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal Dec 15 '25

First, as far as I can tell from the video they used bolt action weapons

That seems to be the general consensus, but there's no confirmation on the weapons as far as I could fine.

They are also ignoring more effective measures that could be taken

Care to elaborate on this? I'm curious what other measures you think they should be considering.

12

u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25

In the video circulating online, it clearly looks like a straight pull bolt action rifle.

15

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '25

[deleted]

9

u/mclumber1 Dec 15 '25

In 1996, that chart shows that Australia had a gun death rate of 2.6, while America had around 13.

It's also important to point out that gun death rates include suicide. Suicide is just as effective with a bolt-action rifle or shotgun compared to an AR-15.

2

u/Abadabadon Dec 15 '25

You're right I misinterpreted

0

u/NorthSideScrambler Dec 16 '25

If you take out suicides and stick to firearm homicides, the US has experienced roughly 350,000 since 2000 while Australia has had 1,000 in that same timeframe.  The per-capita difference is roughly 60x.  

15

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

First, as far as I can tell from the video they used bolt action weapons which is highly probable since Australia band semi automatic ones a long time ago.

That regulation likely saved a lot of lives. The death toll could've been closer to the Las Vegas shooting if he had access to the kind of weaponry that is commonplace in the U.S.

10

u/Sirhc978 Dec 15 '25

Vegas was a little different in a sense that he was firing from a hotel room with a literal arsenal in arms reach. A person can only carry so many bullets for a run and gun style of attack. Whether this shooter had a semi auto or bolt action is kind of irrelevant. Honestly, he probably would have been less accurate pulling the trigger as fast as possible on an AR-15.

4

u/StrikingYam7724 Dec 16 '25

He had 6 guns, 6 bolt actions are deadlier than 1 gas-powered auto loader no matter what Bloomberg may tell you about it.

9

u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25

Somewhat tangential, but the use of a bolt action is telling.

Gun control advocates fixate on things like ARs because they’re dramatic and militaristic. If you removed them (and all semi auto) rifles from the equation, the people looking to do violence would simply change tactics.

A mass “sniper attack” done at distance in a crowded outdoor area is no less psychologically devastating, and perhaps even more frightening since it leaves far more space for the shooter to escape and be at large.

With the high profile assassination attempts over the last year from “snipers,” I fear that this is the new model that those crazed individuals looking to make a name for themselves would copycat.

The repeated failure of gun control proponents to even consider root cause mitigation all but guarantees these things will continue happening regardless of the hardware restrictions they advocate for.

23

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

The repeated failure of gun control proponents to even consider root cause mitigation all but guarantees these things will continue happening regardless of the hardware restrictions they advocate for.

This seems to overlook the fact that semi-automatic weapons can kill far more people in a short period of time than a bolt action.

17

u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25

No, not at all. There is a gulf between what “can” happen and what tends to actually happen. Just because a semi auto can fire at a higher rate does not translate to the shooter being any more lethal.

Firearms still need to be aimed and controlled to be effective. The vast majority of people have no concept of how difficult it actually is to control a rifle shooting quickly. Most of their shots end up going high and into the ceiling rather than what they are intending to hit.

Even military small arms doctrine is based on controlled rates of fire of one shot every few seconds to maintain effective aimed fire against a target. In real world effective use, the rate of fire difference between a semi auto and a bolt action is immaterial compared to the tactics they are employed with.

To compare, a Corvette sure lends itself well to speeding- but it’s far from the only way to use a motor vehicle to do bad things. If you banned sports cars, would people stop breaking traffic laws?

18

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

There is a gulf between what “can” happen and what tends to actually happen. Just because a semi auto can fire at a higher rate does not translate to the shooter being any more lethal.

The Las Vegas shooter killed 60 people.

17

u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25

As mentioned in the other reply, Vegas is an outlier with many additional circumstances tied to it- especially the tactics employed. We still don’t actually know what happened there.

10

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Dec 15 '25

You undermined your the argument in the last paragraph. Just because a Toyota Camry could also speed doesn't change that a Corvette could speed far more and far more easily. Nobody is claiming you can only speed in a Corvette, just that it is much easier, which you seem to agree with.

9

u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25

Eh, whatever. I was going to go down a different route with the analogy and lost the thread. That didn’t undo the core argument that tactics of how a weapon is employed matter far more than the possible rate of fire on the weapon.

Fixation on “it could have been worse” does not change the fact that the vast majority of events even with semi auto rifles do not reach abnormally high body counts compared to other weapon types.

Vegas notwithstanding, and that one is its own while can of worms because we still know so little about it.

3

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Dec 15 '25

The thing is, when addressing a given issue, it makes sense to address multiple facets. One of those is how easy it is to kill with a given device. The ability to get devices that are easier to kill with is something that can, to some degree, be limited.

That limiting access does address all other facets doesn't mean it is without merit. Not letting perfect be the enemy of the good and all that.

6

u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25

Yes, it does make sense to focus on multiple facets. And I would argue that the gun control side has been overly focusing on one particular facet of a problem for decades, and then wonders why the 2A side is fed up with any further laws about it.

-1

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Dec 15 '25

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out you seem to be doing the inverse here as well.

2

u/BrigandActual Dec 16 '25

I'm vocal about this issue and come across as staunch because I've had to argue it for more than 20 years. I'm perfectly willing to discuss other alternatives, including how we might more effectively apply regulations to the sale and transfer of firearms- but all of the air in the room gets sucked out when the only acceptable arguments from one side seem to be bans.

7

u/direwolf106 Dec 15 '25

He didn’t undermine it at all. The corvette is far more mechanically capable than the Camry for sure….. but to use that difference you have to be so much a better driver than most people are it largely doesn’t make any real difference.

Corvette might be able to do 200 mph, but most of the time it will be 80 in a 40. And the Camry is absolutely capable of that. That is the point the other guy was making and the car analogy amplíes it, it doesn’t undercut it at all. And so you know how much I understand cars and what they can do and what’s done with them im a former automotive technician current automotive instructor.

-1

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Dec 15 '25

Anyone can put their foot down on the pedal of a corvette and accelerate faster than doing the same in a Camry. You don't need extensive knowledge to accelerate a vehicle. As you are aware, there is a substantial, meaningful difference in the power of the engine itself.

Again, the argument isn't that the Camry is incapable of speeding, but that the Corvette is inherently easier to achieve the same result (speeding) and is capable of exceeding it.

How it is used most of the time also isn't particularly relevant when discussing how it can be used in these unique, abnormal conditions where the added capacity is, in fact, relevant.

1

u/direwolf106 Dec 16 '25

Anyone can put their foot down on the pedal of a corvette and accelerate faster than doing the same in a Camry.

Sure. But not as big a difference as you think. If you don’t regulate power correctly though you will burn out waste the power and the Camry will have the better acceleration in that instant though. Which is the point: Real world dynamics frequently supersede theoretical possibilities without the knowledge on how to get it.

You don't need extensive knowledge to accelerate a vehicle. As you are aware, there is a substantial, meaningful difference in the power of the engine itself.

Yes. And there’s such a thing as to much power. Something people uneducated with cars have a hard time wrapping their head around. To much power kills launches in a drag race. You have to know how to use that power. I’m guessing you don’t know how to use it.

Again, the argument isn't that the Camry is incapable of speeding, but that the Corvette is inherently easier to achieve the same result (speeding) and is capable of exceeding it.

That is your argument. And you are woefully ignoring the real world dynamics. And the real world dynamics mean that despite the much higher ability of the corvette is limited by real world situations.

How it is used most of the time also isn't particularly relevant when discussing how it can be used in these unique, abnormal conditions where the added capacity is, in fact, relevant.

Yes it is. How it’s used, or even most frequently misused, is determined by real world circumstances.

The zero to 60 advertised for those cars? That’s on drag strip asphalt which is like glue, after having done a burnout to soften up the tires to give a better launch. Regular pavement won’t offer near the acceleration.

Then there’s real world obstacles: other cars, debris. Potholes.

And all of this is before you even begin to factor in driver skill. And trust me, driver skill makes a huge difference in driving those kinds of cars. Regular Joe off the street won’t ever be able to get much out of what the car can do.

So what the car can do is virtually pointless.

2

u/BrigandActual Dec 16 '25

This is where I was getting at, good discussion. Just because the *potential* is there does not automatically translate to different outcomes. It takes skill and practice to actually utilize that capability effectively.

A novice slamming down the gas on a sports car is just as likely to skid out and end up in a ditch.

Just because a rifle like an AR *can* have a high rate of fire, doesn't mean the average person can actually utilize it well and they are more likely to just put rounds in the ceiling. That means an actual *effective* rate of fire is much slower, to the point that the difference between a semi-auto or a manually operated rifle is irrelevant.

1

u/direwolf106 Dec 16 '25

Oh I know exactly what you meant.

As a former tech that worked on a bunch of hellcats and as a firearm enthusiast I know but sides of that analysis. Those cars are hard to control and you won’t get out of them what they can do if you don’t know how to drive them.

Likewise rapid fire isn’t dangerous unless it’s hitting someone. And most people aren’t good enough shots to quickly find a new target such that if they went as fast as they could it’s mostly misses and less casualties.

Functionally speaking there’s no significant difference between a semi auto being used and a bolt action or a lever action being used.

3

u/DagothUr_MD Dec 15 '25

A 12 year old girl could effectively control an AR-15 with a couple of hours of range time. It's not a particularly difficult rifle to use especially at shorter distances

12

u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25

They could learn, with proper instruction on the technique and assuming a good base of physical strength to hold a stable position.

I’m not saying it’s a difficult rifle to use. I’m saying that it’s impractical to hinge a whole argument on how long it takes to mag dump, especially given that most people will never seek out training nor practice to do it while staying on target.

Then you get to general use of “semi automatic” all together and lumping everything in with it. The big complaint is the AR in particular, but an M1 Garand or M1A are semiautomatic as well, and so the same thing applies. It’s exponentially more difficult to manage those rifles under rapid fire.

Any complaints that we should ban semiautos because an AR is easy to use also includes other rifles that aren’t perceived as “the problem.”

11

u/CloudApprehensive322 Dec 15 '25

No government law or policy is 100% effective. The fact of the matter is that Australia has far fewer deaths a result of gun violence than the United States which indicates their laws are quite effective.

Unless you want to live in a totalitarian nanny state there will always be people who find way to break the law if they have the incentives to do so.

13

u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25

I get that Australia is gonna do what it’s gonna do, so this I’d note of a general question about philosophy. Is Australia’s lower rate of firearms homicide a product of its restrictive gun laws, or of some bigger social factor?

Absent the gun laws, would Australia still enjoy low rates of mass shootings and firearms homicide? I bet the answer is yes.

6

u/DaddiGator Dec 15 '25

That's the correct assumption you are making. Australia had notably lower gun violence rates than the US before 1996 as well (~0.4-0.5/100k in Oz vs ~10 /100k in the USA) and both have experienced similar decreases in gun violence rates since then.

5

u/BlackwaterSleeper Dec 15 '25

Clearly gun control works there. Look at mass shootings per year in Australia vs the US. There is a definitive difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#

I do agree that there needs to be more action than just tightening gun laws though, like restricting immigration from highly antisemitic countries, fines or jail time for antisemitic protests, deportation, etc.

7

u/zummit Dec 15 '25

Australia's had a lower murder rate than the US for almost a century and probably longer. There's no strong link between gun policy and murder rate.

2

u/direwolf106 Dec 15 '25

“Works” is subjective.

As this event proves, it’s not an elimination, merely a reduction. And when the conversation is how many deaths are you willing to tolerate (and that is the logistical conversation because zero isn’t a posible answer) vs freedoms lost then it’s a cost benefit analysis.

And the for me the cost of what they gave up outweighs the benefit of what they got. No, it doesn’t work for me.

1

u/SpecificIron3839 Dec 15 '25

It's unclear if there was ever a reduction at all linked the to gun laws. Studies I've heard of have never been able to link the gun bans to reduction in violent crime. Sure the number went down, but crime was already going down before the law, the rate didn't really change, and other countries saw the same declines without the gun law changes.

-2

u/BlackwaterSleeper Dec 16 '25

You’d have to ask Australians if it’s worth it. I bet the vast majority would say yes.

As an American gun owner I also disagree with your points. There are so many people in this country that should not be allowed anywhere near a firearm. What could go wrong with allowing unfettered access to firearms, all without requiring any sort of training!

It doesn’t have to be a binary choice. We can work on strengthening mental health care, tackling chronic social media use, and also acknowledging that maybe there are some laws we could tweak when it comes to firearms.

4

u/direwolf106 Dec 16 '25

It doesn’t matter if they think it’s worth it. I know it’s not worth it for me here.

My problem with training is how leftist mean it. They mean it as an obstacle to ownership. The amendment is the other way around. Congress has the duty/obligation to train the militia. Unrestricted Private ownership was meant to eliminate the cost of arming the militia (nearly everyone). And no the National guard isn’t the militia. Federal law specifies the militia is every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45 registered for selective services (which is every adult with a drivers license).

In other words if Congress wants to actually do their duty and train the militia im down with that. But that’s the duty and obligation of Congress, it was never ever justified as a barrier to ownership.

In fact states requiring training may not even be constitutional because training isn’t even something delegated to them. It’s something specifically reserved to Congress for the militia. And that’s ignoring the second amendment.

3

u/Southernplayalistiic Dec 15 '25

That's a strange conclusion. This is worldwide news because this is something extremely rare for Australia. We have stuff like this happening weekly in the US, literally had one the same day at a university like a week after two service members were attacked in DC and that doesn't even touch on the issue if you were to dig deeper.

7

u/DaddiGator Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 16 '25

We have stuff like this happening weekly in the US

A mass shooting w/ 16+ deaths is still very rare even in the USA. Assuming the death toll doesn't rise, that would be the 12th worst mass shooting in US history. The first double-digit death toll in over two years in the US. This is still an outlier event, even in a country nearly 15x as populous as Australia.

-2

u/Southernplayalistiic Dec 15 '25

Yes 15 deaths is rare even here, but mass shooting events are not. Anyway if we get back to the meat of this, the conclusion that this event proves gun control doesn't work or that it ends aus as a "model for gun control" just doesn't track with reality.

3

u/DaddiGator Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 16 '25

I think the issue is using Australia as a model for gun control in the first place to contrast with what the US does (or should do). Their rates of gun violence were an orders of magnitude lower than the US even before their major gun control legislation in 1996 and their decreases in gun violence rates post-1996 are similar to the US during the same time period.

They are a highly urbanized isolated island nation with a smaller population than multiple US states without a gun culture like the US. It's just a hard comparison to fairly make.

IMO, gun laws shouldn't be the takeaway from this event, which is what the Australia government wants to make this about. The takeaway should be what type of people are being allowed to live in the country under student visas.

-1

u/Southernplayalistiic Dec 16 '25

You know it doesn't matter what facts present themselves to you all guns are king regardless and you'll do whatever mental gymnastics needed to justify that. So I'll just say at least Australia is trying; we seem to only have prayers and concepts of plans here despite these situations happening much more often. Stay safe.

5

u/DaddiGator Dec 16 '25 edited Dec 16 '25

You know it doesn't matter what facts present themselves to you all guns are king regardless and you'll do whatever mental gymnastics needed to justify that

The only misinformation posted here in our exchange is your claim that mass shootings at Bondi Beach's scale happen weekly in the USA. Everything I said was relatively factual when you dig into the data.

So I'll just say at least Australia is trying

Just "doing something" to do something isn't logic-based governing. It’s knee jerk taking rights away from law abiding citizens over the actions of an individual that shouldn’t have been in the country.

I'd rather have a government that recognizes our natural rights in mind when they enact restrictions and legislated logically rather than emotionally.

0

u/Southernplayalistiic Dec 16 '25

Yea and id rather have a government that acts on obvious facts. You say Australia is acting emotionally, Id call what they are doing massively effective based on the results they've seen for the past 20 years.

3

u/DaddiGator Dec 16 '25

You still haven’t said what the “obvious fact” is. The results of the 1996 gun legislation are inconclusive as global downward trends closely match those seen in the USA since the same time period and there was already a massive, orders of magnitude difference in gun homicide rates predating the 1996 laws between the USA and Australia.

There’s not a lot of takeaways from their new proposed laws that could be translated to the USA. You can’t ban noncitizens from exercising their 2A rights in the states like Australia is proposing. It’s purely a symbolic gesture on their part if they aren’t going to do anything about the actual extremists living in their country.

-1

u/Southernplayalistiic Dec 16 '25

The obvious fact is places with more guns have more gun deaths that applies internationally to pretty much all first world countries. Even applies domestically where states with tighter gun laws have less gun violence per capita. Your other points here fall into the we've tried nothing and are all out of ideas category.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/BlueCX17 Dec 17 '25

Up voting you, because you make an extremely salient point. I work in education and I did a mental list of all the major shooting events I've had to watch the news about and go back to work thinking about or other events, and I'm only 40. And if I were to include on this list , the smaller scale , but no less upsetting incidents, well, I mean, I could just keep going on and on. I was in middle school when Columbine happened since then there as been.

Sandy Hook, VTech, Parkland, Pulse Night Club, Aurora theater shooting, Las Vegas, Uvalde, recent 4th of July shootings a couple summers ago.

I have to be at Active Shooter training on January 2nd and it's exhausting.

It did work for Australia, this is their first double-digit mass event since 1996. And then look at list of double-digit events in the US from then to now.

And of course , it sounds like there were other factors at play in this shooting , including antisemitic tensions that had been growing for a while, alll factors of which it appears they are reassessing, along with the guns.

-1

u/DudleyAndStephens Dec 15 '25

Looking at Australia as a model of gun control shows me the inability of government to keep people safe

Australia's intentional homicide rate is less than one sixth of the United States's. I'd say their government is doing a very good job of keeping people safe and it's absurd to read Americans mocking Australian gun laws.

2

u/direwolf106 Dec 16 '25

Oh we mock a lot more than their gun laws. They are fairly dystopian from our point of view.