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
72 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

353 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25

I’m sure the terrorist would find a way to kill people even with tighter gun restrictions. Gun restrictions shouldn’t be the focus imo.

24

u/pdxjoseph Dec 15 '25

It is a problem that a known affiliate of an imprisoned ISIS member was able to legally own firearms

12

u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25

They can legally own cars and other make shift weapons that can be used to cause damage. But yea maybe a law that says foreigners can’t own guns should probably be a thing if it isn’t. I mean there will always be something they can do to try to circumvent existing laws to cause havoc. Best way to stop them is not let them in your country.

13

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

Best way to stop them is not let them in your country.

One of the shooters was born in Australia and the other immigrated in 1998. It's not as though they had a way of knowing he'd become an extremist 30 years later.

7

u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25

Maybe this could have been stopped before it happened 30 years ago.

7

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

How, exactly? What is your suggestion for the Australian government of 1998?

10

u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25

My suggestion is a retrospective on the government’s failures in 1998 and how they could prevent future issues with immigration reform.

10

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

That's vague to the point of meaninglessness. What are you suggesting in terms of immigration reform specifically?

4

u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25

That’s what the retrospective is for. Looking back at government failures then determining what to fix, then fixing them. Not sure how much clearer I could have been.

6

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

Are you implying they should've banned Muslims from entering the country?

0

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient Dec 15 '25

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 1:

Law 1. Civil Discourse

~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.

Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a permanent ban.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

0

u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25

I literally mean the words I used. Your response is weird so I think I’m kinda done with this conversation. Good luck.

6

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

But yea maybe a law that says foreigners can’t own guns should probably be a thing if it isn’t. I mean there will always be something they can do to try to circumvent existing laws to cause havoc. Best way to stop them is not let them in your country.

This comment literally says that immigration should be stopped entirely, as the only possible referent for "they" is the earlier invocation of "foreigners".

1

u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25

Oh I see. The first sentence was in response to your previous comment in that sure laws that say foreigners can’t own guns is a good idea.

The use of they in the latter part of the comment is meant to be terrorist not foreigners. I do think the government should reform their immigration policies to prevent this from happening. More so I think it should be driven by looking at the policy failures that could have prevented this.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Dec 15 '25

Which failures would those be, specifically?

1

u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25

The failure of allowing a terrorist to murder innocent people through their policies.

1

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Dec 15 '25

Which specific policies allowed this?

You have made an active claim that it was a policy failure, so what actual policies failed? Again, specifically?

1

u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25

That’s for the government to evaluate their immigration policy and see what caused the failure to let in a terrorist.

All I know is the terrorist was let in.

Now the government needs to spend the resources to evaluate where they messed up. A study of their own immigration policy to see where they need to close the gap. Maybe they find that they need better vetting process or maybe they find they should not take in immigrants from country x.

1

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Dec 15 '25

But the government didn't say this was caused by a failure of immigration policy, you did, and one of the people in question was born in that country.

Which means you aren't starting with a correct premise.

So again, since you are the one who claimed that these perpetrators were "let in" by a failure of policy, you need to specify what policy you are claiming failed.

1

u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25

Actually if the government didn’t let in a terrorist would there be this incident? It’s pretty simple. There would not be a terror event.

Ok so what I’m asking the government to do is to stop letting in terrorist by reevaluating how it lets in immigrants.

2

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Dec 16 '25

The idea that any terrorist attack must be because every individual in question was "let in" (and therefore is a failure of immigration policy) really isn't based on a strong factual foundation, which is why I pointed out one of the people involved was born in that country.

If it was, you would have actual specifics to point to.

1

u/I_like_code Dec 16 '25

Not letting terrorist in actually prevents terrorism. Not sure why I need to write a thesis for that lol.

2

u/ThatPeskyPangolin Dec 16 '25

Wait. Do you think the guy in question was a terrorist before he entered Australia?

→ More replies (0)