this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
40 points (97.6% liked)

Australia

4751 readers
428 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone
40
Australia’s strongest gun reform since the Port Arthur massacre has become law. Here’s what you need to know (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 6 days ago by Valasian@lemmy.world to c/australia@aussie.zone
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MisterFrog@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

gun number limit is also a kneejerk reaction

Please explain how limiting how many guns people can have isn't sensible.

Honestly, why do we allow "recreation" as a legitimate reason at all? Like, sorry, but when a hobby endangers the community, then it should be allowed. People will mental gymnastic a reason why it's unfair to stop them enjoying their hobby, but I remain rather unconvinced.

I'm not across the new laws, but the limiting the number of guns someone can legally own part just doesn't scream knee-jerk to me.

[–] Tau@aussie.zone 3 points 3 days ago

It's a feeling based idea to assuage the public rather than a logic based one. If someone has four guns already there is little difference between what damage they are likely to be able to cause with those four vs what they could do with five, six, or seven (and the difference is less significant again if they already have ten). The limits seem rather arbitrary instead of evidence based and would not stop a repetition of the Bondi massacre, they appear instead to just be a quick decision made to show the government is doing something in reaction to a tragedy (something must be done, this is something therefore we must do it...).