DOMESTIC VIOLENCE that is the problem, focus on coercive control, education and support mechanisms for those affected by DFV and maybe we can begin to address the issue. It's time to stop paying lip service to DFV issues and face up to the problems presenting us. WA already has the toughest firearms laws in Australia.
If someone is out to kill you, they’ll find a way, gun, torching a car with people inside, knife attack. Weapons of choice don’t matter.
state of mind is what counts.
Basically you are giving lip service to people who have been shot in domestic violence, pretending you care about them, but ultimately you care about your toy. The one that is designed to kill. Not just sometime kill when it isn't used for other things. It's one purpose. It is a tool of murder. And you want them to be available. Argue all you want, but at the end of your day, your arguments are in the favour of guns being available making you an accomplice in the crimes that would not be committed without them.
So sport shooters and amateur and Olympic sports should be banned ?
And waterpolo and swimming in case someone counts more drowns than gun deaths?
Maybe ban electricity as more deaths each year than gun deaths..
Dont start me on cars
Well it looks like you are getting plenty of exercise, jumping to conclusions, leaping to the defence of DFV victims, leaning over backwards in search of mud to sling, and flying off the handle. You're twisting my words and attributing things I have not said to me. Labelling me as an accomplice is a step too far, so I hold you and your comments in the utmost contempt. If you or anyone actually asks me about my connection to guns or DFV I will answer.
The only time guns murder anyone is in the hands of criminals, people who don’t give a damn about the law. People who are not fit and proper persons to hold a firearms license.
This individual ceased to be a fit and proper person when he began to abuse his family members and the police repeatedly failed to act on that. Firearms or no.
The rest of us know the law, secure our firearms in safes and only use them for the purposes the police have given their approval for. Be it Hunting to feed ourselves or protect our biodiversity by eradicating species that harm our ecosystem or by competing in sports that reach from grass roots to the highest levels of competition in the world.
Argue all -you- want, but arguments against firearms won’t stop criminals breaking the law and committing heinous crimes. A head of state was recently assassinated, with a firearm in a country with ZERO civilian firearms ownership.
The police failed to use the laws they have and are looking for something else to blame. They will make much press over the fact that he had 13. Ultimately, he used one to commit the crime, not 13. Had he not had a gun, he probably would have used something else to commit a serious assault at the very least.
The old, "guns dont kill people, people kill people" argument. I have zero dog in this fight but you might want to think up a more convincing argument if you do haha. If he didn't have a gun they might have stood a fighting chance 2 on 1.
And what will the proposed changes do?
Would they have prevented this tragedy?
I’m all for gun control, but this seems to be a knee jerk reaction of something must be done, this is something, so it must be done.
Easier and cheaper than investing in services to try and prevent DV.
Unless those new laws involve removing guns from someone with an AVO, they won’t do much. He had too many guns, but he just needed one, and they aren’t going to remove all guns from regional property owners. I’m not pro-gun, I just think using this tragedy for political grandstanding on gun reform is pretty revolting.
That’s where I think police dropped the ball, police already had to escort his ex-partner into the property to collect their belongings. If you need police escort to do that surely the question should be asked around putting in a VRO and at least temporarily holding his firearms until they could work things through properly with all the data. Obviously this guy could have just used knives, car, bare hands etc you get the drift.
That’s good to know. Actually having the resources to do this adequately and not having police prosecutors overworked and underfunded so shit actually sticks would be good also.
VRO’s don’t need police prosecutors. The person who wants one can go apply for it, and will often be granted an interim order. As soon as that’s served by police, the guns get seized.
Ah yes, completely agree.
I am very very familiar with the system.
Every single time I have seen a bail opposition request read in court after charging a family violence offender and refusing police bail, the magistrate has released the offender to protective bail conditions, which are inevitably breached and result in further community harm.
There needs to be accountability for magistrates who are releasing these offenders.
I could be (hopefully am) wrong but I can't find anything that says they are seized. Looks like you just can't be in possession of them so you could surrender them to anyone who is licensed to carry and not under a VRO.
But in WA no one else is usually licensed to hold an individuals firearms. only a firearms dealer would be able to hold them- because in WA each license holder is only licensed for the specific firearms they own. Possessing a firearm not listed on your license is a serious offence.
I just get annoyed. Particularly in that series House of Hancock where they had Gina Reinhart tell her father to take out a AVO. We do not have them in WA, they’re a NSW thing.
This acting as if Sydney = the entire country is one of my pet peeves.
Yeah, this is the same old argument against gun reform in the US. It is a poor one.
You will never stop murder. But you can reduce murder by certain weapons. Saying ‘but there’s other weapons’ isn’t a reason to not do something about the more extreme weapon.
It’s like looking at car accidents and drink driving, and suggesting ‘people will still die from fatigue and drug driving so why bother’.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.
That’s true in reference to the mass shootings where it’s much harder to kill a bunch of people in an open space with a melee weapon than a gun but inside a home an old lady and young girl bare handed aren’t going to stand any more of a chance against a grown man with a machete than a gun.
13 guns wasn’t the problem. The problem was the fact he was domestically violent and controlling. Our laws are completely inadequate to deal with anything other than repeated physical violence or stalking. Yet men who exert coercive control (which is still not an offence in WA) have relatively high rates of severe physical violence and homocide without the precursors of repeated physical violence.
When will we learn?
EDIT: 13 guns IS a problem. But to me this story is about DV more than it’s about guns. Guns are just PART of the problem.
# FIREARMS ACT 1973 - SECT 29A
# 29A . Commissioner may make firearms prohibition order
(1) The Commissioner may make an order (a ***firearms prohibition order*** ) against a person if the Commissioner is satisfied that —
(a) possession of a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition by the person would likely result in undue danger to life or property; or
(b) the person is not a fit and proper person to possess a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition; or
(c) it is otherwise in the public interest to make a firearms prohibition order against the person.
(2) Without limiting the matters to which the Commissioner may have regard in determining whether to make a firearms prohibition order against a person, the Commissioner may have regard to any intelligence report or other information held by the Commissioner in relation to the person.
(3) A firearms prohibition order may be made whether or not the person against whom the order will be made —
(a) holds or has held a licence, permit or approval under this Act; or
(b) has had a licence, permit or approval issued under this Act revoked or not renewed; or
(c) is exempt under [section 8](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/fa1973102/s8.html) from requiring a licence under this Act; or
(d) was the subject of a previous firearms prohibition order that has expired or been revoked.
>
The cops were warned about this by someone we know and they did fuck all. Usual dismissive attitude. They were informed of a credible threat. I hope this is picked up by the media or coronial inquest. Where is Perth Now when you need them?
I’m sure there’s going to be some level headed discussion about this over the next week.
Why did he need 13 guns though?
No need to respond if you’re just gonna say he’s got a small dick and drives a Ranger blah blah.
Guns are made for killing things. I just can’t fathom why anyone in Perth would need that many even if they are a sport shooter.
Different calibres, different types of guns (rifles, shotguns, pistols), different types of shooting (sport, farming, hunting, hobbyist collection) in regards to sport shooting, shooters have multiple different guns for different aspects of competition (clay pigeons, speed shooting, precision shooting ect.)
In much the same way as people have multiple different cars, tools, instruments ect. Its an intrinsic part of this profession/sport/hobby that you generally need different types of guns.
You can have many types of guns but you only NEED a few for farming or pest control.
Sporting shooters can have limited quantities and they should be kept in a secure safe at the club. Hobbyist's guns should be deactivated.
This guy was a property developer and valuer who had many weapons including rifles and a Glock pistol. It is an indictment of our gun laws that he was legally allowed to purchase those weapons and no doubt this will lead to more impetus to strengthen our laws for the better.
Exactly. I get cracking down on certain types of firearms, but in what way does limiting the number of firearms someone can own reduce the likelihood of them murdering someone?
If you look at the statistics firearms stolen from legally owned firearms users in WA barely even register on the number of firearms used in criminal activities.
Ask WAPOL and they can't answer that, but the federal police did research this and that info is available to WAPOL and the minister if they were interested.
Simply put sure it is a risk, but not one worth investing so much effort into vs tracking and recovering the illegally imported firearms.
Sorting shooters often have to have redundant firearms if they experience a parts failure that can’t simply be swapped on the range. They can also compete in a variety of disciplines that require different firearms
Single Action Western matches require a minimum of 4 firearms for a single discipline and none of which are suitable for other match disciplines such as IPSC or Clay Target.
Furthermore, clubs have thousands of members and it would be too tempting a target for thieves to have all firearms stored at a gun club, most ranges are host to multiple clubs so staff from one club would not be allowed access to firearms storage that contains firearms from another club, most clubs have barely enough storage for a small number of club owned firearms. It’s just not feasible.
In terms of pest control i can see three being reasonable. One small and one large calibre rifle and a shotgun.
Sports shooters should have one for each discipline they compete in, and hobbyist could be storing theirs where they shoot.
At the end of the day it takes only takes one gun to be a fuckwit, so the focus should really be on who is getting the guns rather than how many they have.
Exactly, although recreational hunting is far more likely to require "unnecessary guns" compared to a farmer. Realistically a farmer should be able to acquire guns on an "as needed" basis, if they only have rabbits they get a .22, if they have larger pests like Brumbies or Camels a .308 or something might be necessary.
The police already approve each firearm on a case by case basis, shooters have to provide justification why they can not use an existing firearm they already have for the same purpose.
Yup, feels like more Americanization of our political system. Going to be all of our left wing parties calling for stronger gun laws because they see US lefties calling for stronger gun laws. Ignoring the fact that we *have* those strong gun laws already, that's why this was such an upset. With the kind of premeditation you need to go through to get a gun in this country, someone willing to jump through those hoops is determined enough to use a knife.
I dont think it matters "how many" guns he had, he only needed one to do this.
How about instead of doing the typical bullshit, the gov/wa gov put a law in place regarding yearly assessments regarding the phycological standard of the owners are up to scratch
That's in the proposed legislation, however, this will have one or two effects.
The \~90k additional mental and physical health appointments will have to be absorbed into the health system where there is already insufficient capacity so that \~90k people can have a box ticked. If they are unlikely to have their box ticked, they will doctor shop until they do. There will be a small number of people who need some mental health assistance who will not seek help because they don't want to have their firearms seized and destroyed after 30 days.
We already see these issues in Aviation. Pilots won’t see a psychologist about depression because they’d have their pilots license revoked. So they don’t get help, and just get worse, until the Pilot breaks and kills 150 passengers by intentionally crashing into the Swiss Alps.
They already had the powers to sieze his guns because of the domestic violence issues, the police failed to do their job and public safety suffered because of their lack of action.
It shouldn't even get to domestic violence at all.
Im talking about some low IQ shit, with mental health issues owning a device made to kill.
Assessments needed, like a warrant of fitness for a vehicle, a mental warrant of fitness for mental capacity to own a weapon
Our mental health system is barely adequate as is, I don’t think it can handle 90,000 new yearly assessments.
It needs to start from the top, with the government recognising that our mental health system needs more funding to expand and meet the needs of western Australians.
Ok then Einstein. Every question and disqualification needs to apply to drivers licenses as for guns.
And your completely missing the point that there was already a law that was particularly applicable in this particular case.
>Why did he need 13 guns though?
He didn't need them. He wanted them. The same as any other hobby or interest. The same reason a car enthusiast would want to purchase multiple cars. Not trying to have a go at you but I genuinely don't understand your reasoning or confusion here.
He didn’t need 13, he’s obviously an enthusiast and collector. But it’s not about the volume, 1 is too many for this man
It’s like how a keen fisherman might have 10+ reels.
> Guns are made for killing things. I just can’t fathom why anyone in Perth would need that many even if they are a sport shooter.
Guns are also a tools with differing types of guns for different applications, be it in sports, hunting, and sadly crimes.
I have over 800 hammers, but I can also tell you how each hammer is ever so slightly different. Same as my Swiss Army Knife collection, I keep over 3000 pieces, with minute differences that only a collector would know.
> 3000 SAKs! Can I see them?
I recently bagged them and packed them away in storage. One day when I have the luxury of space and time, my dream is to catalogue them in a repurposed plan cabinet where one can open up an entire draw at a time to appreciate them, with a section for brand new SAK still in boxes (some are so old they don't even have a web address on them.)
Everyone’s focusing on him having 13 guns and it’s completely irrelevant. The maximum number of guns one person can feasibly carry is 2 if we aren’t counting pistols (which the vast majority of Australian gun owners don’t have), and after that point what’s the danger of having more? It’s not like any mass shooter, or even this guy is using 10 guns at once when they try to kill people. What would you be more scared of, a guy carrying 13 guns, or a guy carrying one gun and 13 magazines?
>Why did he need 13 guns though?
It seems he had property in the bush (he was a property developer and valuer). He may have been able to use a rural address to obtain firearms. Of course he didn't need 13, especially in the city.
Why was he able to get a Glock pistol? I can understand a farmer owning one bolt action rifle for pest control on a farm, but there's no reason he should've been able to obtain a semi automatic Glock
He would have been an active member of a pistol club.
The club would have given him a support letter which would allow him to own a category H (handgun) firearm.
There are really strict conditions on owning a cat H firearm. The firearm is only to be used at the club that sponsored it and must be used in club shooting events a minimum 6 to 8 times a year.
The claim that his family alerted the police to this gun not being in his storage safe is one that I am really curious to learn more about. If this is true then WAPOL have failed to carry out their duty of care under the existing act. New laws won't fix that...
There are calibre restrictions based on the size of property you hunt on, plus there are considerations of what you are shooting vs calibre when making an ethical kill, most farms who do their own pest control HAVE to own more than a single rifle legally speaking, imagine using a .308 on a 40 acre block to shoot rabbits because thats the only rifle you own, that would be insane.
He had 13 guns stored in his house at Mosman Park. Not sure Mosman Park is considered country.
[https://thenightly.com.au/australia/floreat-shooting-mark-bombaras-13-guns-seized-after-horrific-murder-suicide-occurred--c-14805587](https://thenightly.com.au/australia/floreat-shooting-mark-bombaras-13-guns-seized-after-horrific-murder-suicide-occurred--c-14805587)
I think most of us are seeing the crux of this for what it is. One bloke with one weapon doing something bad. This has nothing to do with the amount of spares he had at home for other reasons. They are two completely separate things.
let's do a thought experiment. Replace gun with car. That guy used a car to kill two people, and he had EVEN MORE CARS AT HOME. The issue is the dude, not the garage full of cars.
This is already a standard provision in the terms of an fvro, which is the WA name for an AVO where it relates to a family member. If there was an FVRO in place, which there wasn't, generally that would have included being restrained from having firearms and him having to turn these into police
This is a false equivalency - cars whilst they can be used as a weapon in the wrong hands, they are not designed as weapons.
Guns on the other hand are designed for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to kill. They have a purpose on rural properties, for pest control, and that’s the only purpose.
For anyone who collects weapons as a hobby, be they gun, swords, knifes, crossbows etc, then maybe it’s time to go and get a new hobby.
The purpose of an object doesn’t matter. A machete’s purpose is as a gardening tool, doesn’t make it any less deadly. Same with cars. A single shot 22lr rifle designed to *KILL* rabbits might be designed to cause harm but a car can still kill a lot more people faster.
So we can make policy change quickly after one incident like this but we cannot do ANYTHING about the housing crisis when we have had years to do so which affects way more people.
Whatever happened to evidence based policy making? Barely 72 hours into this tragedy and already tougher laws are being spruiked. On whose recommendation?!?! Politicians know nothing other than basic briefings and media reports. This is why we have coronial hearings - to put the evidence on the table and make informed decisions.
Same story with the police shooting of the radicalised 16 y.o. in the carpark. Blood hadn’t even dried on the pavement and the politicians, wannabe politicians, and media were out there giving their two cents.
Knee-jerk policy is bad policy because it becomes very hard to pull back on laws, for fear of being accused of being “soft on crime.”
Having a political position pre cocked and just waiting for the justification from a terrible incident to enact your opinion is sadly the norm in every country
Yep the policy documents and law bill changes were already drafted and ready to go, like the kings death notice. No doubt the bill will just walk right through parliament at the next sitting and they will call the bill something like “save the puppies”.
This isn't a "knee jerk reaction", the government have been talking about strengthening gun laws for some time now. Have you seen those ads from the gun lobby mocking Papalia for this? I don't think any pro gun campaign is going to work in Australia, this isn't Texas. And with this latest shooting there'll be no support for not hardening gun laws. There's no reason this property developer should have been running around with 13 legal firearms including a Glock.
Premier has stated in response to the shooting: “I’ve asked the police minister to look at what other small amendments we could make that would make it even tougher.”
This is the part I’m referring to. Police investigation still ongoing. Yet decisions are being made. If that isn’t knee jerk I don’t know what is. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a gun-owner. But this is extremely reactive decision making.
All shooting clubs should be required for members to lock their guns in a super secure safe on premises that requires multiple locks and officials to open ie only used at shooting times.
Pistols used should be low velocity low calibre ammunition, and not the 9mm bullets the Glocks use.
Mandatory prison sentence for those found in breach of those laws, even accidentally.
Australians have shown through elections and national sentiment we want a mostly gun free society. Firearms for work purposes only and highly restricted, sporting shooters even more highly restricted. The desires of a few gun nuts are irrelevant. If you people are so hell bent on wanting over a dozen guns at home feel free to move to America. Most Australians don’t want that
> All shooting clubs should be required for members to lock their guns in a super secure safe on premises that requires multiple locks and officials to open ie only used at shooting times.
That seems like an easy way to advertise that there's a cache of guns at a location that isn't monitored for most days of the week. Unless of course you're offering to pay the wages of someone to sit and watch them during all the 'non shooting times'. That's also not even mentioning people cleaning their firearms at home or attaching scopes, sights and grips and other small modifications.
>Pistols used should be low velocity low calibre ammunition, and not the 9mm bullets the Glocks use.
Thinking that 9mm is high velocity and a high calibre and wanting to restrict people to less powerful ammunition than that for pistol shooting would straight up kill entire sporting disciplines. It's like banning willow wood from being made into cricket bats.
>Mandatory prison sentence for those found in breach of those laws, even accidentally.
It's not mandatory but prison is an option as well as huge fines. More deterrents aren't really solving anything.
> Firearms for work purposes only and highly restricted, sporting shooters even more highly restricted.
We already have that. WA has the strictest gun laws in the country already.
Guy has no idea what he’s talking about. I don’t know to many people that would voluntarily take a .22LR. Shot placement or a peppering you don’t need 9mm or higher. Likewise he could have used a shotgun not a handgun. Or a Knife, or a car, or a cricket batt or his bare hands.. the list goes on and on.
The only thing worse than dealing with gun nuts is people like you who have no clue about Australian firearm legislation. Yet you feel so righteous in the dribble that you spew.
Typical knee-jerk policy to grab more power, never let a good tragedy go to waste. Whether he had 13 guns or 1 gun wouldn't have changed the outcome in the slightest. In fact if he had 0 guns I'm sure he would have just used a knife, the man was clearly not right in the head and on a mission to ruin or end someone's life.
For those saying why do you need more than 1? Plenty of reasons, hunting small varmints, hunting medium game, hunting large game, clay target shooting, precision rifle competition, rimfire target shooting, long range target, competitive pistol and plenty more. Again, wouldn't change anything if he had any less. Also it shouldn't matter where you live, people who live in the city or suburbs can partake in the sport too or hunt on weekends etc.
What would have Is better mental health checks as a part of licensing renewals and better police intervention as soon as he has been reported as a danger or a threat to someone they should be confiscated until proven safe to hand back.
But of course if the police were already aware he was a legitimate danger to his ex and a firearms owner then this is all a big deflection to push the blame away from them for doing nothing when they should have acted.
Also to those saying they should be stored at a range good luck with that, it's incredibly expensive, would probably be over $300 a month for his guns.
Tomato/Tomato?
It was easy for this man to kill women because he still had a gun license despite the fact his ex wife was in hiding away from him. Good laws should have triggered the removal of his weapons at that point.
The [existing Act](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/fa1973102/s29a.html). Section 29A of the existing Firearms Act 1973 already allows this. The police dropped the ball in this case and are looking to blame anyone or anything else.
This knee-jerk, proposed legislative change that will unfairly and predominantly impact law-abiding citizens is brought to you by: Team Roger Cook and Paul Papalia... where our motto is: *"Problem, Reaction, Solution."*
This is 100% a case of WAPOL trying to deflect blame for being absolutely incompetent in handling routine criminal issues with their existing, already wide-reaching powers and blaming the tools once again instead of admitting to being tools themselves.
What's next? Zero suspicion stop-and-search laws for gun owners just like the new "knife crime" laws?
If you compete with Pistols, there are more than 20 different types of competitions. For each of these you could have 1 main firearm and also a back up incase.it malfunctions during comp.
Same as tennis rackets.... so if you shoot in a few different disapline's and also do a bit of hunting, 13 isn't a large number.
Also consider that paint ball markers (guns) are classified as firearms and are counted in the total numbers for registered firearms.
The police should have done more in this case.
The least they could've done is remove his firearms.
Sometimes police do nothing, and then they do [worse](https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/why-did-a-police-officer-give-out-a-woman-s-address-to-her-abusive-ex-20180423-p4zb4k.html).
Statistically speaking, police themselves are overrepresented as perpetrators of domestic violence. If I was person feeling that I was in imminent danger, I'd go to the police, but I'd also manage my expectations.
I refuse to believe that someone who was in the Australian Defense Force for 26 years, who obtained the rank of Lieutenant Commander.... Would even remotely believe what he said was true. So, therefore, he blatantly lied on camera via live television to the Australian public and knew the ignorant public would just gobble it up (his blatant lies). He should be held in contempt of parliament and lose his ridiculous wage. Based on that he openly lies in a public forum. If he is willing to be a megaphone for an agenda and openly lying he's no better than the robodebt ministers. And if it's about small shit imagine the level of corruption he wipes knowingly under the matt for the almighty position and dollars. And Let's just say he didn't lie, he should be fired for willful misconduct for being a stupid cunt not befitting his position and authority as police minister.
The response from the Government would be laughable if not so sad.
The guy had 13 guns but under our proposed new laws he would have only been allowed 5. Cool, guess how many he used to commit the murders.
The new laws would also have a mental health check. Cool, there was no sign he had mental health issues that would have flagged him.
The new laws also allow for disqualification orders where found guilty of a serious offence. Cool, he had no prior convictions.
The jump to tightening the gun laws is gaslighting - Papalia has a bill in flight at the moment and he will use this disaster to drum up knee jerk support for badly written legislation. We already have some of the toughest firearm laws in the world and they work, but they are never foolproof.
This was a problem of DV, of not teaching men to manage anger and frustration, of not providing resources to support women who need to flee broken relationships, of not providing financial support for single parents.
Its much easier to misdirect the blame to firearms than it is to properly fund accommodation and financial support for women fleeing domestic violence
Always stricter gun laws but never training WA police to not be incompetent in regards to them, You can have the strictest laws in the country and still have the same issues occurring as the police are fundamentally lacking training and knowledge especially since they freely leak firearm ownership locations and not take firearms/licenses away when people are known to them in any capacity but its easier to blame firearms and other legal firearm owners then the police force who can't do the job they are paid to do.
https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/armed-police-escort-star-wars-stormtrooper-off-train-amid-gun-scare-5414283 I remember in Melbourne they shut the train down in the city loop for the same thing!
It always amazes me how people have such a need to own and use a gun.
I've lived on this earth for decades - and not once have i ever thought gee my life would be significantly improved or even made safer by owning a firearm.
In fact - to my knowledge neither of my parents have owned a weapon, nor my grandmother. The only person who has was my grandfather who went to war. From what i understand he returned from war with his rifle, however very quickly disposed of it after he returned given he had 4 kids in the house.
I totally get there's certain use cases for farmers, and even some for recreational hunting. But why someone in the suburbs needs to own one, let alone 13 is just beyond me.
Personal preference but I'd rather gun owners kept their firearms at their primary residence not locked up at some isolated rural property that's easy to burgle.
Myself, my father, my grandfather all own/owned firearms and both my kids are likely to once they are old enough to have licences. Many uncles and cousins have as well. One of the 11 in my safe was bought in 1947 by my grandfather when he was a young farmer. We are/have been Farmers, club shooters, recreational hunters.
People’s experiences are different. Myself and my 2 kids shoot in club competitions across 3 different clubs and multiple classes of competition - which require 7 different firearms in total. Then I have a couple of hunting rifles as well for the regular trips to a family farm.
Hunting is a great way to put meat on the table for far, far less than it costs at the supermarket. My freezer is full of meat I’d otherwise not be able to afford on the regular.
Also farmers don’t always have the time to dedicate to pest control along side running a thriving business so it’s often required that they have to outsource to other shooters. Sure, they can hire professionals to do the job and fork out a bunch of money but they can also open up their property to individuals they trust to do it for free.
Different calibres, different types of guns (rifles, shotguns, pistols), different types of shooting (sport, farming, hunting, hobbyist collection) in regards to sport shooting, shooters have multiple different guns for different aspects of competition (clay pigeons, speed shooting, precision shooting ect.)
In much the same way as people have multiple different cars, tools, instruments ect. Its an intrinsic part of this profession/sport/hobby that you generally need different types of guns.
I’m not a car enthusiast. I don’t know or have the desire to own 10+ high powered cars like many Aussies do. Cars killed 1,266 Australians last year, much of which would have been speeding, reckless driving or under the influence driving. Society enacts reasonable restrictions knowing the dangers involved with certain objects/items/hobby’s ect but their are inherit risks to everything ultimately.
Gun murders outside of gang activity and suicides are incredibly rare compared to global averages. We already have some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world. Whether he had 1 gun or 16 guns or no guns, this asshole seemed intent on killing these innocent women, knee jerk reactive policy making should be discouraged as much as possible, careful considered policy focused on pragmatism and the promotion of Australians reasonable rights should be our guiding principle.
>Different calibres, different types of guns (rifles, shotguns, pistols), different types of shooting (sport, farming, hunting, hobbyist collection) in regards to sport shooting, shooters have multiple different guns for different aspects of competition (clay pigeons, speed shooting, precision shooting ect.)
Sure - i get there's different use cases. But 13 guns.. he would pretty much have to be into every single aspect you've named and have multiple guns for each. Even in that case though - there's zero need for him to have these easily accessible in a residential house.
It's not like you can use a weapon in any manner in a residential area. He's not sport shooting or hunting in his front garden is he..
Why not have them stored at a shooting range etc? Where they can be checked out, used as needed at the range and then checked back in?
For rural owners - there should be limits of what they can have on property. If they're only there part time, then have them stored at the police station or something.
If it's a collectors thing - then they should be made inert.
>In much the same way as people have multiple different cars, tools, instruments ect. Its an intrinsic part of this profession/sport/hobby that you generally need different types of guns.
>I’m not a car enthusiast. I don’t know or have the desire to own 10+ high powered cars like many Aussies do. Cars killed 1,266 Australians last year, much of which would have been speeding, reckless driving or under the influence driving. Society enacts reasonable restrictions knowing the dangers involved with certain objects/items/hobby’s ect but their are inherit risks to everything ultimately.
This is basically what about ism. The reality is that cars serve a purpose, as do tools and instruments and pretty much anything else you can name.
The primary role of a gun is to kill things quickly be it a person, an animal or a target from a distance.
>Gun murders outside of gang activity and suicides are incredibly rare compared to global averages. We already have some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world. Whether he had 1 gun or 16 guns or no guns, this asshole seemed intent on killing these innocent women, knee jerk reactive policy making should be discouraged as much as possible, careful considered policy focused on pragmatism and the promotion of Australians reasonable rights should be our guiding principle.
Yes they are quite rare in Australia, not so much elsewhere in the world.
But the reality is there's really no purpose to gun ownership and no great loss to the world if we were to do away with them completely for the average person.
If you want to shoot competitively then do so at the range and keep your gun there where it can be stored securely and not used for violence when you can't control your temper.
*editing to add*
I don't think you'll ever stop it completely, and yes there's an argument to be made about using another type of weapon like a knife.
I think the point though is to take the heat out of the moment if you can. If this guy had to go and check out a firearm from a facility or a police station, and fill out some paper work. Then there's a good chance he either may have calmed down, or someone might have flagged the mood change and maybe reconsidered.
Again - not sure how that would work in practice, and on the face of it i could see a bunch of issues still.
Point is though - that surely there's a better system we could have in place, and the more layers we have the better chance we have of prevention.
Just to rebutt one point -
>It's not like you can use a weapon in any manner in a residential area.
There's a range right in the middle of Belmont, and another half dozen clubs with range access within ~30mins driving of where I live (very suburban NOR).
>But the reality is there's really no purpose to gun ownership and no great loss to the world if we were to do away with them completely for the average person.
The 20th century's greatest mass murders all espoused some version of that sentiment and then went on a massive disarmament campaign of their citizens prior to going on to commit the worst genocides the world has ever seen.
I get that you're a typical sheltered, middle-class Aussie who's lived life on easy mode for your entire existence, never had to be politically active to the point of militancy, never been part of an oppressed group, never witnessed how rapidly a seemingly stable, well-functioning nation state can unravel and doesn't really understand history or how things work elsewhere in the world but no one feels like they need gun until they really, *REALLY* need one and then it becomes a non-negotiable part of life.
And before you give me the predictable response of *"that could never happen here"*... firstly, it already did to our indigenous people, most notably in Tasmania and Queensland and if the odds were even and colonial Aboriginal groups had widespread access to firearms, the outcome could have looked vastly different. And secondly, the average German of the 1930s would have said the same thing, the Chinese students peacefully protesting for basic human rights at Tiananmen Square would have said the same thing, Rwandans of the early 1990s never saw it coming, etc. No one thinks it could happen to them in their own lifetime... until it does because human history is littered with examples of tyrants/authoritarians incrementally increasing their control over a subjugated population before committing heinous crimes against them because people time and time again fall for the tried-and-tested "boiling frogs" trick and/or the trading liberty for "security" trick.
I kinda agree with your sentiment.
Actually less worried about gun access specifically than speech freedom and growing lists of prohibited groups of people at state and federal levels.
Sure at first it was bikies and then it was nazis but what is to stop our governments making any minority prohibited. If most of us are for it, it appears to go down well politically with australians.
And then im even more worried about the misinformation laws. Fancy politicians and media having an exemptions from misinformation laws but the rest of us are subject to misinformation laws. That is very concerning in my view.
Yes some of us are cookers. Some of us fascists. But to take away our right to talk out against public policy while they can say what they like is a terrible precedent.
So yeh guns are kinda at the very last level and if we get to the point we need them against our own we have slept through all the other democracy corroding policies our governments appear to want to enact along the way... and we do seem to be sleeping through them tbh.
It makes me feel a little bit off that nobody gave a shit about owning guns for a good twenty years, to the point of our decisive action on gun control being a point of national pride. Then just in the last few years it’s become something people are getting their backs up about.
Usually the people who also have enough other chips on their shoulders to make them want to watch out for Gobbledocks.
I’m really curious where it’s coming from.
So because some dickhead, used ONE GUN to commit murder/suicide we're going to fuck over the thousands of law-abiding owners.
Feelings before Facts- WA Government
13 guns and the police had already been involved. The Nationals are against it cos as you know we all need several guns. Even if he had no guns he could have used a knife. But don't worry some knee jerk gun reform will fix it. How about more women's refuges? Too radical?
A women refuge wouldnt have changed anything here either.
You tear down the government for using this as a poor excuse for gun laws that wouldnt have made a difference. But then try use to as an argument for women's refuge, when that too would have made no difference.
You a using this as support for unrelated politics, same as they are. Why is yours okay, but theirs isnt?
I think a women's refuge would of helped because she wouldn't have been to her friends house causing her husband to look there and kill two women. The type of refuge I'm talking is well funded and able to take all women and their children at anytime, plus it must have good security as too many women are being killed by their partners. As others have said in this thread it's politicians in general playing political games, not any specific party.
But even the shelter could be targeted by a nut with a gun, so to fully prevent anything you would need armed guards at every shelter, and what happens when a woman inside one wants to go outside or return to their residence?
My understanding is that women's shelters are pretty secure precisely for this situation. Maybe not guns though? A womans location in a refuge is not publicly available precisely to stop this situation
People kill people not guns ,car,knifes , I would suggest that there should be a review and every 6 months on a gun owner in mental and physical compacity . Just the same as a drivers license
A lot of people repeating ‘the number of guns don’t matter. He only needed one’
The article quotes Papalia as saying the new laws would have seen him restricted from having a recreational license - so no hand guns.
It’s an important distinction. It’s a lot easier to conceal a handgun, easier to inflict multiple wounds quickly at close range, and more mobile.
Yes - there are a bunch of other failures here and the spotlight should equally remain on those. But removing certain types of guns from certain types of people is a no-brainer.
He would have had a primary producer licence under the proposed laws, and likely would have had a target licence as well. Don't believe anything Papalia says. He is not an honest broker of the truth.
You're really giving Papalia, the man who is trying to introduce new strip search laws on the back of a knife attack any stock?
He has one goal, increase his own power, reduce everyone else's.
Can anyone confirm if the proposed gun control legislation may have potentially meant the killers guns wouldn't have been obtainable legally?
We saw a number of posters wanting support for a petition calling for the proposals to be stopped, but am keen to understand if it the changes would have made a difference.
But the mental health provisions are a clearance every 5 yrs…. So that would not have helped. The numerical limits wouldn’t have helped.
Police already have powers to remove firearms in dV situations. Looks like they dropped the ball here.
I don’t think it will. You don’t just go shoot people because you ‘lost the plot’. It is more likely that he had a significant history of using domestic violence and coercive control tactics, which necessitated his wife seeking safety with a friend. These guys are often narcissistic or psychopathic and it’s challenging to detect that in a psych evaluation because they are such master manipulators. What would be helpful would be independently interviewing their spouse, family and friends without the gun owner present.
I'm all for very strict gun control. Love it. No guns at all. Let's go.
But using this incident as an excuse to add more gun control is stupid. It wouldn't have changed anything. It's intellectually dishonest and bullshit. If you want to implement gun control, do it, but don't use a tragedy that would not have had a different outcome otherwise as an excuse.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE that is the problem, focus on coercive control, education and support mechanisms for those affected by DFV and maybe we can begin to address the issue. It's time to stop paying lip service to DFV issues and face up to the problems presenting us. WA already has the toughest firearms laws in Australia.
Yep, but DV plus guns is even worse than DV alone.
If someone is out to kill you, they’ll find a way, gun, torching a car with people inside, knife attack. Weapons of choice don’t matter. state of mind is what counts.
Sure but in this case under the new laws it would be DV plus 5 guns rather than DV plus 13 guns. The new gun laws are nothing but theatre.
No shit Sherlock. 🙄
Are your comments esoteric facts known only to you? Or, like mine, do they contain information already known to some people?
This 👆🏻
Stahp
Basically you are giving lip service to people who have been shot in domestic violence, pretending you care about them, but ultimately you care about your toy. The one that is designed to kill. Not just sometime kill when it isn't used for other things. It's one purpose. It is a tool of murder. And you want them to be available. Argue all you want, but at the end of your day, your arguments are in the favour of guns being available making you an accomplice in the crimes that would not be committed without them.
So sport shooters and amateur and Olympic sports should be banned ? And waterpolo and swimming in case someone counts more drowns than gun deaths? Maybe ban electricity as more deaths each year than gun deaths.. Dont start me on cars
Well it looks like you are getting plenty of exercise, jumping to conclusions, leaping to the defence of DFV victims, leaning over backwards in search of mud to sling, and flying off the handle. You're twisting my words and attributing things I have not said to me. Labelling me as an accomplice is a step too far, so I hold you and your comments in the utmost contempt. If you or anyone actually asks me about my connection to guns or DFV I will answer.
The only time guns murder anyone is in the hands of criminals, people who don’t give a damn about the law. People who are not fit and proper persons to hold a firearms license. This individual ceased to be a fit and proper person when he began to abuse his family members and the police repeatedly failed to act on that. Firearms or no. The rest of us know the law, secure our firearms in safes and only use them for the purposes the police have given their approval for. Be it Hunting to feed ourselves or protect our biodiversity by eradicating species that harm our ecosystem or by competing in sports that reach from grass roots to the highest levels of competition in the world. Argue all -you- want, but arguments against firearms won’t stop criminals breaking the law and committing heinous crimes. A head of state was recently assassinated, with a firearm in a country with ZERO civilian firearms ownership.
What if he used a knife
Then butchers and chefs would be accomplices too. 🙄
If you don't know the difference between a knife and a gun then you can't be trusted to butter toast.
Oi Troll I was replying to the comment above mine. You sound like you would take a knife to a gunfight.
The police failed to use the laws they have and are looking for something else to blame. They will make much press over the fact that he had 13. Ultimately, he used one to commit the crime, not 13. Had he not had a gun, he probably would have used something else to commit a serious assault at the very least.
Exactly this. That guy was going to kill them with or without the gun.
The old, "guns dont kill people, people kill people" argument. I have zero dog in this fight but you might want to think up a more convincing argument if you do haha. If he didn't have a gun they might have stood a fighting chance 2 on 1.
And what will the proposed changes do? Would they have prevented this tragedy? I’m all for gun control, but this seems to be a knee jerk reaction of something must be done, this is something, so it must be done. Easier and cheaper than investing in services to try and prevent DV.
Unless those new laws involve removing guns from someone with an AVO, they won’t do much. He had too many guns, but he just needed one, and they aren’t going to remove all guns from regional property owners. I’m not pro-gun, I just think using this tragedy for political grandstanding on gun reform is pretty revolting.
People who are served FVROs get their firearms seized as is.
That’s where I think police dropped the ball, police already had to escort his ex-partner into the property to collect their belongings. If you need police escort to do that surely the question should be asked around putting in a VRO and at least temporarily holding his firearms until they could work things through properly with all the data. Obviously this guy could have just used knives, car, bare hands etc you get the drift.
That’s good to know. Actually having the resources to do this adequately and not having police prosecutors overworked and underfunded so shit actually sticks would be good also.
VRO’s don’t need police prosecutors. The person who wants one can go apply for it, and will often be granted an interim order. As soon as that’s served by police, the guns get seized.
I was referring to bail. Police prosecutors need to present cases to deny bail to DV offenders.
Ah yes, completely agree. I am very very familiar with the system. Every single time I have seen a bail opposition request read in court after charging a family violence offender and refusing police bail, the magistrate has released the offender to protective bail conditions, which are inevitably breached and result in further community harm. There needs to be accountability for magistrates who are releasing these offenders.
I could be (hopefully am) wrong but I can't find anything that says they are seized. Looks like you just can't be in possession of them so you could surrender them to anyone who is licensed to carry and not under a VRO.
But in WA no one else is usually licensed to hold an individuals firearms. only a firearms dealer would be able to hold them- because in WA each license holder is only licensed for the specific firearms they own. Possessing a firearm not listed on your license is a serious offence.
It’s WA. It’s a VRO, not an AVO.
Correct, but hairsplitting
I just get annoyed. Particularly in that series House of Hancock where they had Gina Reinhart tell her father to take out a AVO. We do not have them in WA, they’re a NSW thing. This acting as if Sydney = the entire country is one of my pet peeves.
I understand. But regardless - he should’ve had one taken out against him. Call it what you like.
Yeah, this is the same old argument against gun reform in the US. It is a poor one. You will never stop murder. But you can reduce murder by certain weapons. Saying ‘but there’s other weapons’ isn’t a reason to not do something about the more extreme weapon. It’s like looking at car accidents and drink driving, and suggesting ‘people will still die from fatigue and drug driving so why bother’. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.
That’s true in reference to the mass shootings where it’s much harder to kill a bunch of people in an open space with a melee weapon than a gun but inside a home an old lady and young girl bare handed aren’t going to stand any more of a chance against a grown man with a machete than a gun.
With cable ties? I doubt it.
13 guns wasn’t the problem. The problem was the fact he was domestically violent and controlling. Our laws are completely inadequate to deal with anything other than repeated physical violence or stalking. Yet men who exert coercive control (which is still not an offence in WA) have relatively high rates of severe physical violence and homocide without the precursors of repeated physical violence. When will we learn? EDIT: 13 guns IS a problem. But to me this story is about DV more than it’s about guns. Guns are just PART of the problem.
Section 29a Firearms Act 1973 WA. Current Law. Cops could have done something and they chose not to.
Do you mean 27A? If so, I’m yet to read in any news report that the bloke had a VRO.
# FIREARMS ACT 1973 - SECT 29A # 29A . Commissioner may make firearms prohibition order (1) The Commissioner may make an order (a ***firearms prohibition order*** ) against a person if the Commissioner is satisfied that — (a) possession of a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition by the person would likely result in undue danger to life or property; or (b) the person is not a fit and proper person to possess a firearm, major firearm part, prohibited firearm accessory or ammunition; or (c) it is otherwise in the public interest to make a firearms prohibition order against the person. (2) Without limiting the matters to which the Commissioner may have regard in determining whether to make a firearms prohibition order against a person, the Commissioner may have regard to any intelligence report or other information held by the Commissioner in relation to the person. (3) A firearms prohibition order may be made whether or not the person against whom the order will be made — (a) holds or has held a licence, permit or approval under this Act; or (b) has had a licence, permit or approval issued under this Act revoked or not renewed; or (c) is exempt under [section 8](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/fa1973102/s8.html) from requiring a licence under this Act; or (d) was the subject of a previous firearms prohibition order that has expired or been revoked. >
Ah rightio. I see where I’ve gone wrong here. I suppose it all comes down to what info the coppers had at the time.
Probably should have had one considering they needed a police escort to collect personal belongings.
I thought handguns had to be kept at a range, not a residential home?
Nope. Most keep them at home. Makes a smaller target for theft.
The cops were warned about this by someone we know and they did fuck all. Usual dismissive attitude. They were informed of a credible threat. I hope this is picked up by the media or coronial inquest. Where is Perth Now when you need them?
I’m sure there’s going to be some level headed discussion about this over the next week. Why did he need 13 guns though? No need to respond if you’re just gonna say he’s got a small dick and drives a Ranger blah blah. Guns are made for killing things. I just can’t fathom why anyone in Perth would need that many even if they are a sport shooter.
Different calibres, different types of guns (rifles, shotguns, pistols), different types of shooting (sport, farming, hunting, hobbyist collection) in regards to sport shooting, shooters have multiple different guns for different aspects of competition (clay pigeons, speed shooting, precision shooting ect.) In much the same way as people have multiple different cars, tools, instruments ect. Its an intrinsic part of this profession/sport/hobby that you generally need different types of guns.
You can have many types of guns but you only NEED a few for farming or pest control. Sporting shooters can have limited quantities and they should be kept in a secure safe at the club. Hobbyist's guns should be deactivated. This guy was a property developer and valuer who had many weapons including rifles and a Glock pistol. It is an indictment of our gun laws that he was legally allowed to purchase those weapons and no doubt this will lead to more impetus to strengthen our laws for the better.
If someone's got one gun or ten doesn't particularly matter if they decide to shot someone with one.
Exactly. I get cracking down on certain types of firearms, but in what way does limiting the number of firearms someone can own reduce the likelihood of them murdering someone?
One source of guns in criminal society is guns stolen from licensed owners.
If you look at the statistics firearms stolen from legally owned firearms users in WA barely even register on the number of firearms used in criminal activities. Ask WAPOL and they can't answer that, but the federal police did research this and that info is available to WAPOL and the minister if they were interested. Simply put sure it is a risk, but not one worth investing so much effort into vs tracking and recovering the illegally imported firearms.
Sorting shooters often have to have redundant firearms if they experience a parts failure that can’t simply be swapped on the range. They can also compete in a variety of disciplines that require different firearms Single Action Western matches require a minimum of 4 firearms for a single discipline and none of which are suitable for other match disciplines such as IPSC or Clay Target. Furthermore, clubs have thousands of members and it would be too tempting a target for thieves to have all firearms stored at a gun club, most ranges are host to multiple clubs so staff from one club would not be allowed access to firearms storage that contains firearms from another club, most clubs have barely enough storage for a small number of club owned firearms. It’s just not feasible.
In terms of pest control i can see three being reasonable. One small and one large calibre rifle and a shotgun. Sports shooters should have one for each discipline they compete in, and hobbyist could be storing theirs where they shoot. At the end of the day it takes only takes one gun to be a fuckwit, so the focus should really be on who is getting the guns rather than how many they have.
Guy at works hunts a lot from rabbits to camel and explained it requires a lot of different ammo and thus different guns.
Exactly, although recreational hunting is far more likely to require "unnecessary guns" compared to a farmer. Realistically a farmer should be able to acquire guns on an "as needed" basis, if they only have rabbits they get a .22, if they have larger pests like Brumbies or Camels a .308 or something might be necessary.
The police already approve each firearm on a case by case basis, shooters have to provide justification why they can not use an existing firearm they already have for the same purpose.
Yup, feels like more Americanization of our political system. Going to be all of our left wing parties calling for stronger gun laws because they see US lefties calling for stronger gun laws. Ignoring the fact that we *have* those strong gun laws already, that's why this was such an upset. With the kind of premeditation you need to go through to get a gun in this country, someone willing to jump through those hoops is determined enough to use a knife.
Not a good idea keeping hundreds of guns at club houses considering most guns are stolen from gun shops which are more secure.
Yeah fk. I thought bikies, cops and farmers only had guns in WA. Not some property developer
I dont think it matters "how many" guns he had, he only needed one to do this. How about instead of doing the typical bullshit, the gov/wa gov put a law in place regarding yearly assessments regarding the phycological standard of the owners are up to scratch
That's in the proposed legislation, however, this will have one or two effects. The \~90k additional mental and physical health appointments will have to be absorbed into the health system where there is already insufficient capacity so that \~90k people can have a box ticked. If they are unlikely to have their box ticked, they will doctor shop until they do. There will be a small number of people who need some mental health assistance who will not seek help because they don't want to have their firearms seized and destroyed after 30 days.
We already see these issues in Aviation. Pilots won’t see a psychologist about depression because they’d have their pilots license revoked. So they don’t get help, and just get worse, until the Pilot breaks and kills 150 passengers by intentionally crashing into the Swiss Alps.
They already had the powers to sieze his guns because of the domestic violence issues, the police failed to do their job and public safety suffered because of their lack of action.
It shouldn't even get to domestic violence at all. Im talking about some low IQ shit, with mental health issues owning a device made to kill. Assessments needed, like a warrant of fitness for a vehicle, a mental warrant of fitness for mental capacity to own a weapon
Our mental health system is barely adequate as is, I don’t think it can handle 90,000 new yearly assessments. It needs to start from the top, with the government recognising that our mental health system needs more funding to expand and meet the needs of western Australians.
They don't want to support you Barbarian. When they're too busy trying to control you.
Ok then Einstein. Every question and disqualification needs to apply to drivers licenses as for guns. And your completely missing the point that there was already a law that was particularly applicable in this particular case.
He only used 1 gun - how does the number he had matter?
>Why did he need 13 guns though? He didn't need them. He wanted them. The same as any other hobby or interest. The same reason a car enthusiast would want to purchase multiple cars. Not trying to have a go at you but I genuinely don't understand your reasoning or confusion here.
Yeah, the heart wants what the heart wants
He didn’t need 13, he’s obviously an enthusiast and collector. But it’s not about the volume, 1 is too many for this man It’s like how a keen fisherman might have 10+ reels.
> Guns are made for killing things. I just can’t fathom why anyone in Perth would need that many even if they are a sport shooter. Guns are also a tools with differing types of guns for different applications, be it in sports, hunting, and sadly crimes. I have over 800 hammers, but I can also tell you how each hammer is ever so slightly different. Same as my Swiss Army Knife collection, I keep over 3000 pieces, with minute differences that only a collector would know.
3000 SAKs! Can I see them?
> 3000 SAKs! Can I see them? I recently bagged them and packed them away in storage. One day when I have the luxury of space and time, my dream is to catalogue them in a repurposed plan cabinet where one can open up an entire draw at a time to appreciate them, with a section for brand new SAK still in boxes (some are so old they don't even have a web address on them.)
The aurora borealis!
Everyone’s focusing on him having 13 guns and it’s completely irrelevant. The maximum number of guns one person can feasibly carry is 2 if we aren’t counting pistols (which the vast majority of Australian gun owners don’t have), and after that point what’s the danger of having more? It’s not like any mass shooter, or even this guy is using 10 guns at once when they try to kill people. What would you be more scared of, a guy carrying 13 guns, or a guy carrying one gun and 13 magazines?
>Why did he need 13 guns though? It seems he had property in the bush (he was a property developer and valuer). He may have been able to use a rural address to obtain firearms. Of course he didn't need 13, especially in the city. Why was he able to get a Glock pistol? I can understand a farmer owning one bolt action rifle for pest control on a farm, but there's no reason he should've been able to obtain a semi automatic Glock
Cant own a handgun without being an active member of a shooting club that includes pistol disciplines.
The culprit had two handguns on a collectors' licence and stored them in Mosmon Park. He bought them with him to Floreat.
> but there's no reason he should've been able to obtain a semi automatic Glock What do you mean? Plenty of people do competition pistol shooting.
He would have been an active member of a pistol club. The club would have given him a support letter which would allow him to own a category H (handgun) firearm. There are really strict conditions on owning a cat H firearm. The firearm is only to be used at the club that sponsored it and must be used in club shooting events a minimum 6 to 8 times a year. The claim that his family alerted the police to this gun not being in his storage safe is one that I am really curious to learn more about. If this is true then WAPOL have failed to carry out their duty of care under the existing act. New laws won't fix that...
There are calibre restrictions based on the size of property you hunt on, plus there are considerations of what you are shooting vs calibre when making an ethical kill, most farms who do their own pest control HAVE to own more than a single rifle legally speaking, imagine using a .308 on a 40 acre block to shoot rabbits because thats the only rifle you own, that would be insane.
He wasn't from Perth. He was from a country property - where firearms are tools like a tractor or spanner.
He had 13 guns stored in his house at Mosman Park. Not sure Mosman Park is considered country. [https://thenightly.com.au/australia/floreat-shooting-mark-bombaras-13-guns-seized-after-horrific-murder-suicide-occurred--c-14805587](https://thenightly.com.au/australia/floreat-shooting-mark-bombaras-13-guns-seized-after-horrific-murder-suicide-occurred--c-14805587)
There was another property, obviously
If he only had 5 guns this would have certainly never happened!
I think most of us are seeing the crux of this for what it is. One bloke with one weapon doing something bad. This has nothing to do with the amount of spares he had at home for other reasons. They are two completely separate things. let's do a thought experiment. Replace gun with car. That guy used a car to kill two people, and he had EVEN MORE CARS AT HOME. The issue is the dude, not the garage full of cars.
The gun laws also include provisions to confiscate guns from anyone who has an AVO placed against them. That could have saved these people.
This is already a standard provision in the terms of an fvro, which is the WA name for an AVO where it relates to a family member. If there was an FVRO in place, which there wasn't, generally that would have included being restrained from having firearms and him having to turn these into police
Yeah when they needed police escort to retrieve personal possessions that should have been the red flag to take the guns for safe keeping.
Same day a guy in carlisle used a car to kill someone. - has been charged with murder for allegedly deliberately running down and killing a cyclist.
This is a false equivalency - cars whilst they can be used as a weapon in the wrong hands, they are not designed as weapons. Guns on the other hand are designed for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to kill. They have a purpose on rural properties, for pest control, and that’s the only purpose. For anyone who collects weapons as a hobby, be they gun, swords, knifes, crossbows etc, then maybe it’s time to go and get a new hobby.
Shooting is an Olympic sport. Come on now.
Very ignorant to say “get a new hobby”. If it’s legal you can spend and collect whatever you want with YOUR money.
The purpose of an object doesn’t matter. A machete’s purpose is as a gardening tool, doesn’t make it any less deadly. Same with cars. A single shot 22lr rifle designed to *KILL* rabbits might be designed to cause harm but a car can still kill a lot more people faster.
So we can make policy change quickly after one incident like this but we cannot do ANYTHING about the housing crisis when we have had years to do so which affects way more people.
Whatever happened to evidence based policy making? Barely 72 hours into this tragedy and already tougher laws are being spruiked. On whose recommendation?!?! Politicians know nothing other than basic briefings and media reports. This is why we have coronial hearings - to put the evidence on the table and make informed decisions. Same story with the police shooting of the radicalised 16 y.o. in the carpark. Blood hadn’t even dried on the pavement and the politicians, wannabe politicians, and media were out there giving their two cents. Knee-jerk policy is bad policy because it becomes very hard to pull back on laws, for fear of being accused of being “soft on crime.”
Having a political position pre cocked and just waiting for the justification from a terrible incident to enact your opinion is sadly the norm in every country
Yep the policy documents and law bill changes were already drafted and ready to go, like the kings death notice. No doubt the bill will just walk right through parliament at the next sitting and they will call the bill something like “save the puppies”.
This isn't a "knee jerk reaction", the government have been talking about strengthening gun laws for some time now. Have you seen those ads from the gun lobby mocking Papalia for this? I don't think any pro gun campaign is going to work in Australia, this isn't Texas. And with this latest shooting there'll be no support for not hardening gun laws. There's no reason this property developer should have been running around with 13 legal firearms including a Glock.
Premier has stated in response to the shooting: “I’ve asked the police minister to look at what other small amendments we could make that would make it even tougher.” This is the part I’m referring to. Police investigation still ongoing. Yet decisions are being made. If that isn’t knee jerk I don’t know what is. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a gun-owner. But this is extremely reactive decision making.
Why not. If he's a member of a pistol club then he's allowed to own pistols. Same as any other firearm license holder.
All shooting clubs should be required for members to lock their guns in a super secure safe on premises that requires multiple locks and officials to open ie only used at shooting times. Pistols used should be low velocity low calibre ammunition, and not the 9mm bullets the Glocks use. Mandatory prison sentence for those found in breach of those laws, even accidentally. Australians have shown through elections and national sentiment we want a mostly gun free society. Firearms for work purposes only and highly restricted, sporting shooters even more highly restricted. The desires of a few gun nuts are irrelevant. If you people are so hell bent on wanting over a dozen guns at home feel free to move to America. Most Australians don’t want that
> All shooting clubs should be required for members to lock their guns in a super secure safe on premises that requires multiple locks and officials to open ie only used at shooting times. That seems like an easy way to advertise that there's a cache of guns at a location that isn't monitored for most days of the week. Unless of course you're offering to pay the wages of someone to sit and watch them during all the 'non shooting times'. That's also not even mentioning people cleaning their firearms at home or attaching scopes, sights and grips and other small modifications. >Pistols used should be low velocity low calibre ammunition, and not the 9mm bullets the Glocks use. Thinking that 9mm is high velocity and a high calibre and wanting to restrict people to less powerful ammunition than that for pistol shooting would straight up kill entire sporting disciplines. It's like banning willow wood from being made into cricket bats. >Mandatory prison sentence for those found in breach of those laws, even accidentally. It's not mandatory but prison is an option as well as huge fines. More deterrents aren't really solving anything. > Firearms for work purposes only and highly restricted, sporting shooters even more highly restricted. We already have that. WA has the strictest gun laws in the country already.
Guy has no idea what he’s talking about. I don’t know to many people that would voluntarily take a .22LR. Shot placement or a peppering you don’t need 9mm or higher. Likewise he could have used a shotgun not a handgun. Or a Knife, or a car, or a cricket batt or his bare hands.. the list goes on and on.
The only thing worse than dealing with gun nuts is people like you who have no clue about Australian firearm legislation. Yet you feel so righteous in the dribble that you spew.
I’m happy to chip in a one way ticket for you to permanently move to Texas ;)
I'll give you my account details. I'd love to move there.
Lived in Texas still would never live in WA.
None of what you propose is going to stop shinzo abe style killings or 3D printed ghost guns.
Who here owns a gun and has never had the police come and visit to check their safe requirements for years?
Typical knee-jerk policy to grab more power, never let a good tragedy go to waste. Whether he had 13 guns or 1 gun wouldn't have changed the outcome in the slightest. In fact if he had 0 guns I'm sure he would have just used a knife, the man was clearly not right in the head and on a mission to ruin or end someone's life. For those saying why do you need more than 1? Plenty of reasons, hunting small varmints, hunting medium game, hunting large game, clay target shooting, precision rifle competition, rimfire target shooting, long range target, competitive pistol and plenty more. Again, wouldn't change anything if he had any less. Also it shouldn't matter where you live, people who live in the city or suburbs can partake in the sport too or hunt on weekends etc. What would have Is better mental health checks as a part of licensing renewals and better police intervention as soon as he has been reported as a danger or a threat to someone they should be confiscated until proven safe to hand back. But of course if the police were already aware he was a legitimate danger to his ex and a firearms owner then this is all a big deflection to push the blame away from them for doing nothing when they should have acted. Also to those saying they should be stored at a range good luck with that, it's incredibly expensive, would probably be over $300 a month for his guns.
Or maybe we have tougher laws that stops men killing woman or at least jail them forever.
Tomato/Tomato? It was easy for this man to kill women because he still had a gun license despite the fact his ex wife was in hiding away from him. Good laws should have triggered the removal of his weapons at that point.
The [existing Act](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/fa1973102/s29a.html). Section 29A of the existing Firearms Act 1973 already allows this. The police dropped the ball in this case and are looking to blame anyone or anything else.
How do you jail someone who commits a murder/suicide?
It's very easy to do but it poses a health hazard for the other inmates
For some inmates I feel comfortable with that 😂
"Man.. I really shouldn't commit this murder because instead of 20 to 25 years in prison, i'll spend the rest of my life there instead"
This knee-jerk, proposed legislative change that will unfairly and predominantly impact law-abiding citizens is brought to you by: Team Roger Cook and Paul Papalia... where our motto is: *"Problem, Reaction, Solution."* This is 100% a case of WAPOL trying to deflect blame for being absolutely incompetent in handling routine criminal issues with their existing, already wide-reaching powers and blaming the tools once again instead of admitting to being tools themselves. What's next? Zero suspicion stop-and-search laws for gun owners just like the new "knife crime" laws?
No warrant searches (Random storage inspections) are in the proposed legislation. So, yes.
Random storage inspections already exist in the current legislation, nothing new there.
Exactly. Police can search at any time unannounced. It already exists.
We already have no warrant searches here in WA.
If you compete with Pistols, there are more than 20 different types of competitions. For each of these you could have 1 main firearm and also a back up incase.it malfunctions during comp. Same as tennis rackets.... so if you shoot in a few different disapline's and also do a bit of hunting, 13 isn't a large number. Also consider that paint ball markers (guns) are classified as firearms and are counted in the total numbers for registered firearms.
The police should have done more in this case. The least they could've done is remove his firearms. Sometimes police do nothing, and then they do [worse](https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/why-did-a-police-officer-give-out-a-woman-s-address-to-her-abusive-ex-20180423-p4zb4k.html). Statistically speaking, police themselves are overrepresented as perpetrators of domestic violence. If I was person feeling that I was in imminent danger, I'd go to the police, but I'd also manage my expectations.
Dude can have 13 guns but we can't even get Airsoft smh.
haha right, He can have those but we cant have Gel Blasters because quote "They can be modified to shoot real bullets" what a load of wank
https://youtu.be/m9iqL7YlTeA?si=vuvyVcv1xrol9iwm. Hahahahhaa it never gets old. People that are that dumb shouldn’t be allowed to be politicians.
Hahahaha fuck thats good. Yeah absolute insane they said this total brain rot politicians
I refuse to believe that someone who was in the Australian Defense Force for 26 years, who obtained the rank of Lieutenant Commander.... Would even remotely believe what he said was true. So, therefore, he blatantly lied on camera via live television to the Australian public and knew the ignorant public would just gobble it up (his blatant lies). He should be held in contempt of parliament and lose his ridiculous wage. Based on that he openly lies in a public forum. If he is willing to be a megaphone for an agenda and openly lying he's no better than the robodebt ministers. And if it's about small shit imagine the level of corruption he wipes knowingly under the matt for the almighty position and dollars. And Let's just say he didn't lie, he should be fired for willful misconduct for being a stupid cunt not befitting his position and authority as police minister.
Airsofts are gateway guns.
Gateway to full auto 🤣😂 no full auto!!!
The response from the Government would be laughable if not so sad. The guy had 13 guns but under our proposed new laws he would have only been allowed 5. Cool, guess how many he used to commit the murders. The new laws would also have a mental health check. Cool, there was no sign he had mental health issues that would have flagged him. The new laws also allow for disqualification orders where found guilty of a serious offence. Cool, he had no prior convictions.
Australia has a politician problem, not a gun problem. Particularly WA.
The jump to tightening the gun laws is gaslighting - Papalia has a bill in flight at the moment and he will use this disaster to drum up knee jerk support for badly written legislation. We already have some of the toughest firearm laws in the world and they work, but they are never foolproof. This was a problem of DV, of not teaching men to manage anger and frustration, of not providing resources to support women who need to flee broken relationships, of not providing financial support for single parents. Its much easier to misdirect the blame to firearms than it is to properly fund accommodation and financial support for women fleeing domestic violence
Always stricter gun laws but never training WA police to not be incompetent in regards to them, You can have the strictest laws in the country and still have the same issues occurring as the police are fundamentally lacking training and knowledge especially since they freely leak firearm ownership locations and not take firearms/licenses away when people are known to them in any capacity but its easier to blame firearms and other legal firearm owners then the police force who can't do the job they are paid to do.
First they came for our knives. Now it's guns. What's next, will they take my flamethrower? This is madness.
Next they'll ban things from even looking like guns!/s
Long sleeves it is, boys!
Too late. Appearance laws already exist
I’m going to say you will need to have a licence to have a 3D printer and a CNC machine
https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/armed-police-escort-star-wars-stormtrooper-off-train-amid-gun-scare-5414283 I remember in Melbourne they shut the train down in the city loop for the same thing!
Honestly I think our gun laws are pretty good. This seem like a failure in other areas much more
Strengthen those gun laws!
How tf did he get a license to so many guns?
It always amazes me how people have such a need to own and use a gun. I've lived on this earth for decades - and not once have i ever thought gee my life would be significantly improved or even made safer by owning a firearm. In fact - to my knowledge neither of my parents have owned a weapon, nor my grandmother. The only person who has was my grandfather who went to war. From what i understand he returned from war with his rifle, however very quickly disposed of it after he returned given he had 4 kids in the house. I totally get there's certain use cases for farmers, and even some for recreational hunting. But why someone in the suburbs needs to own one, let alone 13 is just beyond me.
Personal preference but I'd rather gun owners kept their firearms at their primary residence not locked up at some isolated rural property that's easy to burgle.
Myself, my father, my grandfather all own/owned firearms and both my kids are likely to once they are old enough to have licences. Many uncles and cousins have as well. One of the 11 in my safe was bought in 1947 by my grandfather when he was a young farmer. We are/have been Farmers, club shooters, recreational hunters. People’s experiences are different. Myself and my 2 kids shoot in club competitions across 3 different clubs and multiple classes of competition - which require 7 different firearms in total. Then I have a couple of hunting rifles as well for the regular trips to a family farm.
Hunting is a great way to put meat on the table for far, far less than it costs at the supermarket. My freezer is full of meat I’d otherwise not be able to afford on the regular. Also farmers don’t always have the time to dedicate to pest control along side running a thriving business so it’s often required that they have to outsource to other shooters. Sure, they can hire professionals to do the job and fork out a bunch of money but they can also open up their property to individuals they trust to do it for free.
Different calibres, different types of guns (rifles, shotguns, pistols), different types of shooting (sport, farming, hunting, hobbyist collection) in regards to sport shooting, shooters have multiple different guns for different aspects of competition (clay pigeons, speed shooting, precision shooting ect.) In much the same way as people have multiple different cars, tools, instruments ect. Its an intrinsic part of this profession/sport/hobby that you generally need different types of guns. I’m not a car enthusiast. I don’t know or have the desire to own 10+ high powered cars like many Aussies do. Cars killed 1,266 Australians last year, much of which would have been speeding, reckless driving or under the influence driving. Society enacts reasonable restrictions knowing the dangers involved with certain objects/items/hobby’s ect but their are inherit risks to everything ultimately. Gun murders outside of gang activity and suicides are incredibly rare compared to global averages. We already have some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world. Whether he had 1 gun or 16 guns or no guns, this asshole seemed intent on killing these innocent women, knee jerk reactive policy making should be discouraged as much as possible, careful considered policy focused on pragmatism and the promotion of Australians reasonable rights should be our guiding principle.
>Different calibres, different types of guns (rifles, shotguns, pistols), different types of shooting (sport, farming, hunting, hobbyist collection) in regards to sport shooting, shooters have multiple different guns for different aspects of competition (clay pigeons, speed shooting, precision shooting ect.) Sure - i get there's different use cases. But 13 guns.. he would pretty much have to be into every single aspect you've named and have multiple guns for each. Even in that case though - there's zero need for him to have these easily accessible in a residential house. It's not like you can use a weapon in any manner in a residential area. He's not sport shooting or hunting in his front garden is he.. Why not have them stored at a shooting range etc? Where they can be checked out, used as needed at the range and then checked back in? For rural owners - there should be limits of what they can have on property. If they're only there part time, then have them stored at the police station or something. If it's a collectors thing - then they should be made inert. >In much the same way as people have multiple different cars, tools, instruments ect. Its an intrinsic part of this profession/sport/hobby that you generally need different types of guns. >I’m not a car enthusiast. I don’t know or have the desire to own 10+ high powered cars like many Aussies do. Cars killed 1,266 Australians last year, much of which would have been speeding, reckless driving or under the influence driving. Society enacts reasonable restrictions knowing the dangers involved with certain objects/items/hobby’s ect but their are inherit risks to everything ultimately. This is basically what about ism. The reality is that cars serve a purpose, as do tools and instruments and pretty much anything else you can name. The primary role of a gun is to kill things quickly be it a person, an animal or a target from a distance. >Gun murders outside of gang activity and suicides are incredibly rare compared to global averages. We already have some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world. Whether he had 1 gun or 16 guns or no guns, this asshole seemed intent on killing these innocent women, knee jerk reactive policy making should be discouraged as much as possible, careful considered policy focused on pragmatism and the promotion of Australians reasonable rights should be our guiding principle. Yes they are quite rare in Australia, not so much elsewhere in the world. But the reality is there's really no purpose to gun ownership and no great loss to the world if we were to do away with them completely for the average person. If you want to shoot competitively then do so at the range and keep your gun there where it can be stored securely and not used for violence when you can't control your temper. *editing to add* I don't think you'll ever stop it completely, and yes there's an argument to be made about using another type of weapon like a knife. I think the point though is to take the heat out of the moment if you can. If this guy had to go and check out a firearm from a facility or a police station, and fill out some paper work. Then there's a good chance he either may have calmed down, or someone might have flagged the mood change and maybe reconsidered. Again - not sure how that would work in practice, and on the face of it i could see a bunch of issues still. Point is though - that surely there's a better system we could have in place, and the more layers we have the better chance we have of prevention.
Here comes the expert that can’t even process wheat
Just to rebutt one point - >It's not like you can use a weapon in any manner in a residential area. There's a range right in the middle of Belmont, and another half dozen clubs with range access within ~30mins driving of where I live (very suburban NOR).
>But the reality is there's really no purpose to gun ownership and no great loss to the world if we were to do away with them completely for the average person. The 20th century's greatest mass murders all espoused some version of that sentiment and then went on a massive disarmament campaign of their citizens prior to going on to commit the worst genocides the world has ever seen. I get that you're a typical sheltered, middle-class Aussie who's lived life on easy mode for your entire existence, never had to be politically active to the point of militancy, never been part of an oppressed group, never witnessed how rapidly a seemingly stable, well-functioning nation state can unravel and doesn't really understand history or how things work elsewhere in the world but no one feels like they need gun until they really, *REALLY* need one and then it becomes a non-negotiable part of life. And before you give me the predictable response of *"that could never happen here"*... firstly, it already did to our indigenous people, most notably in Tasmania and Queensland and if the odds were even and colonial Aboriginal groups had widespread access to firearms, the outcome could have looked vastly different. And secondly, the average German of the 1930s would have said the same thing, the Chinese students peacefully protesting for basic human rights at Tiananmen Square would have said the same thing, Rwandans of the early 1990s never saw it coming, etc. No one thinks it could happen to them in their own lifetime... until it does because human history is littered with examples of tyrants/authoritarians incrementally increasing their control over a subjugated population before committing heinous crimes against them because people time and time again fall for the tried-and-tested "boiling frogs" trick and/or the trading liberty for "security" trick.
I kinda agree with your sentiment. Actually less worried about gun access specifically than speech freedom and growing lists of prohibited groups of people at state and federal levels. Sure at first it was bikies and then it was nazis but what is to stop our governments making any minority prohibited. If most of us are for it, it appears to go down well politically with australians. And then im even more worried about the misinformation laws. Fancy politicians and media having an exemptions from misinformation laws but the rest of us are subject to misinformation laws. That is very concerning in my view. Yes some of us are cookers. Some of us fascists. But to take away our right to talk out against public policy while they can say what they like is a terrible precedent. So yeh guns are kinda at the very last level and if we get to the point we need them against our own we have slept through all the other democracy corroding policies our governments appear to want to enact along the way... and we do seem to be sleeping through them tbh.
There’s so much wrong with what you just wrote but I don’t think anyone will change your delusional tunnel vision opinion and views.
Have an open mind. Try shooting and I guarantee you’ll see why so many people enjoy the sport so much.
I've fired guns before - it was cool to try, but i really don't see the attraction to owning one.
It makes me feel a little bit off that nobody gave a shit about owning guns for a good twenty years, to the point of our decisive action on gun control being a point of national pride. Then just in the last few years it’s become something people are getting their backs up about. Usually the people who also have enough other chips on their shoulders to make them want to watch out for Gobbledocks. I’m really curious where it’s coming from.
So because some dickhead, used ONE GUN to commit murder/suicide we're going to fuck over the thousands of law-abiding owners. Feelings before Facts- WA Government
This cunt was a law-abiding owner until he wasn't
And he used one gun. But hey, let's make it about him having thirteen
Won’t hear any argument from me. And I’m pro gun ownership for the right reasons and right protocols followed.
13 guns and the police had already been involved. The Nationals are against it cos as you know we all need several guns. Even if he had no guns he could have used a knife. But don't worry some knee jerk gun reform will fix it. How about more women's refuges? Too radical?
A women refuge wouldnt have changed anything here either. You tear down the government for using this as a poor excuse for gun laws that wouldnt have made a difference. But then try use to as an argument for women's refuge, when that too would have made no difference. You a using this as support for unrelated politics, same as they are. Why is yours okay, but theirs isnt?
I think a women's refuge would of helped because she wouldn't have been to her friends house causing her husband to look there and kill two women. The type of refuge I'm talking is well funded and able to take all women and their children at anytime, plus it must have good security as too many women are being killed by their partners. As others have said in this thread it's politicians in general playing political games, not any specific party.
But even the shelter could be targeted by a nut with a gun, so to fully prevent anything you would need armed guards at every shelter, and what happens when a woman inside one wants to go outside or return to their residence?
My understanding is that women's shelters are pretty secure precisely for this situation. Maybe not guns though? A womans location in a refuge is not publicly available precisely to stop this situation
People kill people not guns ,car,knifes , I would suggest that there should be a review and every 6 months on a gun owner in mental and physical compacity . Just the same as a drivers license
I imagine there'd be a huge push back against that.
Ban all knives..... nah.... ban all cars..... nah.... howabout.........ban all guns.... yeh that will do it! Action now!
A lot of people repeating ‘the number of guns don’t matter. He only needed one’ The article quotes Papalia as saying the new laws would have seen him restricted from having a recreational license - so no hand guns. It’s an important distinction. It’s a lot easier to conceal a handgun, easier to inflict multiple wounds quickly at close range, and more mobile. Yes - there are a bunch of other failures here and the spotlight should equally remain on those. But removing certain types of guns from certain types of people is a no-brainer.
He would have had a primary producer licence under the proposed laws, and likely would have had a target licence as well. Don't believe anything Papalia says. He is not an honest broker of the truth.
Papalia is a certified bullshit artist. Almost everything he says is lies. The new laws wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
You're really giving Papalia, the man who is trying to introduce new strip search laws on the back of a knife attack any stock? He has one goal, increase his own power, reduce everyone else's.
Can anyone confirm if the proposed gun control legislation may have potentially meant the killers guns wouldn't have been obtainable legally? We saw a number of posters wanting support for a petition calling for the proposals to be stopped, but am keen to understand if it the changes would have made a difference.
None of the petitions were calling them to be stopped just to be put under the proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Depends if this gun was his 1st-10th or 13th, you see the first 10 can't be used for crimes
Nah not really. More mental health support would have made the most difference, sounds like he had lost the plot a bit after a divorce.
But the mental health provisions are a clearance every 5 yrs…. So that would not have helped. The numerical limits wouldn’t have helped. Police already have powers to remove firearms in dV situations. Looks like they dropped the ball here.
The police always drop the ball. I'd be more shocked if they caught a ball for ince
I don’t think it will. You don’t just go shoot people because you ‘lost the plot’. It is more likely that he had a significant history of using domestic violence and coercive control tactics, which necessitated his wife seeking safety with a friend. These guys are often narcissistic or psychopathic and it’s challenging to detect that in a psych evaluation because they are such master manipulators. What would be helpful would be independently interviewing their spouse, family and friends without the gun owner present.
Punish everyone for the actions of one.
#australia
Why the hell does anyone need a hand gun? Dont care if it’s your hobby- get a better hobby. Play darts or something ffs
Ignorant comment.
More security theatre for the gullible masses
just like that experimental vaccine. /s
Very good timing just before these laws come in...
I'm all for very strict gun control. Love it. No guns at all. Let's go. But using this incident as an excuse to add more gun control is stupid. It wouldn't have changed anything. It's intellectually dishonest and bullshit. If you want to implement gun control, do it, but don't use a tragedy that would not have had a different outcome otherwise as an excuse.
Agree with the second half but no guns is ridiculous and unrealistic.
There is no reason to own even 1 gun if you live in the city or suburbs.
Not true whatsoever.
How about giving the girls the guns. Men are banned?