Two extremists in Sydney killed with just three guns, but our law-abiding farmers, hunters and sporting club members could pay the price for their crimes.
In the wake of the Bondi Beach attacks, the Victorian Government is rushing a review of gun laws.
Federal reforms now push the states to implement limits on firearm ownership and tighter import controls.
But these measures are a reaction to terrorism, not a solution to it. Australia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.
I recently hosted a forum with Ken Lay, the respected former Chief Commissioner of Police, who is conducting Victoria’s review.
Attendees included elite shooters, hunters, farmers managing vermin, members of shooting clubs, and a gun shop owner.
Their insights highlighted how disconnected the proposed limits could be from the realities of responsible gun ownership.
Let’s look at just one of the proposed reforms – restrictions on the number of firearms for licence holders.
One of the elite shooters explained that competing at the highest level requires seven guns for just one discipline, and up to 20 across multiple disciplines and clubs.
While some hope exemptions for sporting shooters will be included, the rushed federal legislation offers no guarantees.
However, the impact extends beyond elite shooters.
One local hunter explained she not only pursues her chosen sport but also supplies food for her family and controls pests on her family farm.
A gun cap, like NSW has implemented in a rushed manner, would make it impossible to manage these responsibilities effectively.
As she rightfully pointed out, different tasks require different firearms.
Using the most powerful gun for every job is neither safe
nor practical.
A projectile suitable for a sambar deer may over-penetrate a rabbit, creating unnecessary risk.
Yet, in restricting guns, we are forcing gun owners to choose the most powerful options to meet all needs when safer options exist with less restriction.
Junior licence holders face similar issues.
In Victoria, our young licence holders cannot own a gun – their firearms must be in their parents’ names.
Elite shooters often start young.
Under strict caps, parents could not provide the firearms their children need to develop, while maintaining their own involvement.
Caps inhibit family participation many in our community currently enjoy.
Family heirlooms and hand-me-downs would also need to be surrendered under new restrictions, further eroding the connection between generations of responsible shooters.
Transportation is another challenge.
To compete in state or national events, some shooters move 1500 rounds of ammunition, a logistical impossibility under the stricter suggested rules.
The forum with Mr Lay highlighted a stark reality: to allow law abiding farmers, hunters, sporting shooters and families to continue their activities, the government would already need multiple exemptions.
Yet none of this addresses the root problem: extremism.
The Bondi attackers used just three guns between them. Restricting law-abiding citizens does nothing to prevent such acts.
As one participant told Mr Lay: “Our recreational pursuits and livelihood are in your hands.
Please don’t let us become the unintended victims of two nutcases in Sydney.”
Victoria must take a measured approach.
We need targeted solutions to combat extremism, not restrictions that punish law-abiding citizens and farmers who need different firearms to do what they need to do as safely as possible.
In regulating firearms, precision matters as much as responsibility.
Let’s ensure the cure is not worse than the disease.
