Australia's different. It's an island. They could expend gignormous amount of money to go door to door, search all homes (This is probably not an issue in Australia) and grab all guns ; then open all imported crates in ports and be rid of guns completely.

America is too full of guns for that to be feasible. Plus they'd enter via the southern border anyway. Or by "fishing boats". Not forgeting that the police would be shot trying to search people's home.

Lets not forget that the majority of Australia's citizens, like Canada, live in primarily 3-4 major cities all along the coast. Rest of the country is wild lands.

You're ignoring an important fact. 2 actually. 1: Australia is pretty empty, yeah... that means there's a lot of open coastal area to land a smuggling boat. 2: a certain subset of the Australian civilian population actually NEED guns as part of their livelihood. Primarily Farmers and Ranchers, though conservationists/hunters who work on the invasive feral pig population count too. They require firearms to defend their fields/flocks from wild animals, and "Long-range High-caliber rifle shot" is honestly the best safe way to deal with a feral hog... of which there are up to 40 million and must be culled regularly so they don't COMPLETELY cook the Aussie biosphere.

Yep. I didn't know about these problems in Australia.
I hope the government won't require regular photographs of killed hogs to justify continued possession of firearms :p

Tasmania is almost an island. Australia has multiple time zones and makes the American midwest look like a quaint sandbox.

Kjartan, Kjartan, Kjartan...

First off, FUCK antisemitism.

That being said, You're taking COMPLETELY the wrong message away from this tragedy, being so desperate to defend some imaginary right for everyone to own, carry, and use deadly weapons as they please. That only leads to more guaranteed death and misery.

Just think how many Australian lives have been saved by their restrictions on the avilability of guns. Would that the US had even a fraction of Australia's common sense. How could the solution to this problem be so obvious and work so well for the Australians, and so opposed by us?

Next, your anti Islamic racism is showing again. Don't forget that the hero of this incident was an Islamic man.

This whole post and your entire narrative are absolutely wrong-headed and revolting.

And no one is proposing that Australia take away all of their citizen'sguns, only more tight and sensible controls on them.

So you're saying you have no answers? There's no shame in admitting that. If I had a way to keep these loons from murdering people, you bet I'd be yelling it from the rooftops.

Read what I wrote again. It's pretty damn clear. You don't seem to be comprehending what I actually said.

But you don't actually have an answer. You have a supposition, which is nice but isn't actually an answer to the problem at hand... And you have a hand-wave for a real and present issue of antisemitic hate crimes perpetrated by people who are members of a fundamentalist religious sect.

Oh, and you have some apparent display of racism, in that you treat the religion of Islam as if it's an ethnic group, rather than... A religion. And as you seem to think of things in that ethno-religious view, you assume everyone else is as well. Meanwhile the Russian couple and the Syrian man who were attempting to stop the INDIAN NATIONAL AND HIS SON (who were radicalized by a fundamentalist Islamic sect) points a portrait of a different sort than the one you seem to have in mind.

Of course, one could point out that the true target of this antisemitic attack was a controversial and generally shunned Israeli figure well known for his desire to expand the borders and forcibly remove all Arabic people from 'Palestinian' lands and you have a very messy picture indeed. But that *I* have to bring up these details instead of you?

Call it a partial answer, then. I don't believe that anything could ever be a 100% answer to this problem anywhere.

And oh, come on.

I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that this was meant to be an attack on Israel or some unnamed Israeli, though I agree with your estimate of them.

Also, why did you put Palestinian in quotes?

I can't find the link I was looking for, which was the source of the 'controversial' example I was going to site, so I have to leave that as anecdotal until I can find what I was looking for.

But i stand by the two other points I made. Islam is not a race, and framing any critique of it as racially motivated? Is itself racist. There's no getting around that fact. If you're not ready to admit to that bit of internal bias yet, I understand, but you do need to know that your treating a religion as if it is an ethnicity speaks only as to your perception of Islam as 'the religion of not-whites'.

As for why Palestinian was in quotes is because literally until a little after the formation of Israel, 'Palestinian' mean Jewish. It was only after they returned that the Arabs who had lived in the area decided that THEY were the real 'Palestinians'. People like to ignore that fact because it makes the narrative 'cleaner', in the same way Americans like to forget the fact that we all live on land that originally belonged to a very different people.

It's a comforting narrative, but not a helpful one.

*sigh* Typical.
What our gun laws do.
They keep the no. Of guns in our country drastically low.
They limit the types of guns civilians can acquire.
They limit who can acquire guns and how they can use them.

This means that very few criminals have guns, have the ability to even get them. This gives our police a huge advantage.
You give everyone a gun to defend themselves, and suddenly you accidentally armed a bunch of crims and nutters.

This is the worst mass shooting we’ve had since Port Arthur. Three decades. Not a bad run. Our gun laws seem to work pretty well. What happened is more to do with the perpetrators than our laws.

That said, Albo is an idiot, our gun laws do not need to be tightened.

Now, obviously, this would never work in the US. You have far too many guns.

So, are you saying that the murderer should have been able to acquire six guns? They had four of them with them. That number of guns directly enabled the two shooters being able to kill so many people.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a wonderful thing that mass-murders are few and far between in Australia. I like the place! But as far as it being difficult for criminals to get guns, maybe not all THAT difficult:
https://reason.com/2016/03/22/austr.....ted-a-violent/
So far, good social programs that drive fewer people to desperation, seem to be a much better deterrent to crime than gun laws.

Yeah, Good social programs are a much better deterrent, though the fact that your regular desperate person cannot just go and easily pick up a gun definitely helps.

Don't forget man guy who helped stop the terrorists was Islamic as well and he got shot for his efforts. Survived as well though thank god

Kudos to that guy! Truly a hero. Lucky for him he didn't use a knife or gun to stop the shooter, or he'd have been arrested and charged, too.

I got doubts there but who knows, different countries with different laws etc. I don't have the time or the energy to knock what they have going on

There's no such thing as a buy-back. You can't buy back something you never had. A mandatory buy-back is confiscation by another name.

During the last round of gun bans, the rural Aussies kept theirs IIRC.

It’s at the point I don’t care anymore. If defending myself and those I care about makes me a criminal, then fuck it. I’m gonna carry whatever gets the job done and stock my house with it.
Hell, I might even start indulging in vigilantism if things got bad like that around me.
We don’t have those problems in my region yet, just a looot of gangbangers.
America is at a division on this. Some places want more guns to repel the bad guys, other places can differentiate between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy.
I’m just at the point I don’t care about the rules, especially since they change with the wind.
I’m protecting me and mine.

In my country we have a very strict gunlaw. And guess what. Our news are not that much about public shoot-outs, since not ever idiot is able to get a weapon. Only way would be through illegal ways, where not everyone has a clue how to get into contact with those. So, yeah, stronger gunlaws can work out. You make it harder for those lunatics to get weapons in the next supermarket. If you have a weapon, the ammunition and the weapon must be seperated in 2 different safes, which are also in 2 different rooms also. Also you must have a valid reason to own a gun. The reason "I want to have one" doesn't count. Compared you find in my country less children getting shot by the police for carrying a toygun, then in the US.

What is it with religious fundamentalists like the cretins responsible, who think that murdering innocent people will help their cause? Satan knows it just makes the civil rights struggle an even more uphill trudge.

There's also the misguided logic of blaming all Jews for Israel's atrocities, given that there are plenty of Jews who oppose that behavior on principle, especially since they can see the similarity between that and the holocaust.

Also, gotta hand it to the guy who stopped them. I suppose he's got enough decency to understand how messed up such behavior is, despite his own faith. Buy him a (alcohol-free) beer then.

Maybe it needs to be said too, good social programs and robust community outreach is a better way to prevent crime, rather than weapon bans or trying to criminalize self-defense. And hey, invest in marital arts/combatives too, something to help stay trim and improve survivability in close quarters.

Karno... the idea that Muslims are some sort of weird fanatic religion that wants to shoot all Jews/Christians/etc (which you seem to be suggesting in your introduction) is not correct. MOST of the gun violence here in America (mass shootings, including church shootings) is carried out by White Christian-based males. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2025 -- it's kind of sad that the US is the only place with enough mass shootings to have individual pages on yearly mass shootings in Wikipedia.) Even Brazil and Mexico have fewer mass shootings.

Australia's population is roughly 12 times smaller than that of the US. The number of Muslims in the country (Australia) is roughly 4 percent. There are more Muslims in America than there are in Australia and New Zealand. In England the number of Muslims is around 6 percent of the population (numbers scraped from the Internet.)

As others have pointed out, having an armed population doesn't stop these crimes (and in most cases the perp is shot by police -- when civilians are involved in taking down the perp they are generally unarmed)...and as Netreek else pointed out, if it's harder for your average nutter to get their hands on a gun, the number of deaths is greatly reduced.

Having a gun would certainly help if you needed to hunt for food (though being a gardener would be a better strategy, since you don't have to scout around for a good hiding place and then wait and wait and hope you don't miss) but as Italy in the time of the Medicis shows (and the Wild West, for that matter), an armed populace is NOT a polite populace. It's an excuse for hormonal thrill and attention seekers to gain notoriety by being the "best swordsman" (which is done not by playing chess but by killing others) or "best gunslinger."

If you want to stay safe, make friends. Make connections. Walk around your neighborhood (which also makes your neighborhood safer.)

But thinking that one religion is made up of terrorists and that banning them and giving everyone guns will make things safer... no, that's not what happens. Take a deep dive into the de Medicis and the Japanese shogunates (and samaurai) or read Mark Twain's account of his life in Silver City.