Successfully turning society’s moral expectations about right and wrong into a workable legal framework has never been easy. The tension between morality and the law inevitably produces ethical dilemmas, none more persistent than the conflict between individual interests and the welfare of the wider community. Reconciling this conflict is one of government’s most fundamental responsibilities and, in countries like Australia, it has generally been handled reasonably well.
The difficulty, however, lies in the fact that ideas of right and wrong are rarely absolute.
The recent horrific events at Bondi have thrust the ethical question of gun ownership firmly back into the public spotlight. One side argues for “responsible” and “law-abiding” gun ownership, while the other maintains that owning a gun is inherently irresponsible and that existing laws require serious reconsideration. At the centre of this debate sits the key artefact itself: the gun.
The purpose of guns has evolved over time. Initially developed for warfare, they later became tools for hunting, self-defence and sport shooting. Advances in technology have made them more accurate, more powerful and more specialised. Yet despite these changing uses, the fundamental purpose of a gun remains unchanged: it is designed to kill.
There is no denying that guns play a necessary role in certain contexts. Farming, policing, and vermin or feral animal control are often cited as examples where responsible, tightly regulated gun use contributes to community welfare. Even in these circumstances, however, the gun’s essential function is still to kill. On that basis, it is difficult—perhaps impossible—to argue that the widespread presence of guns outside these limited settings, particularly in suburban and urban environments, improves community safety or wellbeing.
Gun advocates frequently assert that “people kill people, not guns”. Yet it is worth asking why those who commit mass killings almost invariably choose guns as their weapon of choice. The answer is obvious: guns are the most effective and efficient killing machines available because they are designed for that very purpose. It is hard to imagine the scale of harm inflicted in incidents like Bondi being replicated with a hammer, a block of wood or a broken bottle. While knives have also been used in violent attacks, knives are not designed to kill, even though they can be used to do so—just as many everyday objects can.
Interestingly, “responsible and law-abiding” knife ownership is never a topic of public debate. Nor are there knife clubs devoted to the enjoyment of knives as objects of fascination. Gun clubs, by contrast, are widely accepted as socially normal. It is difficult to imagine a similar level of community tolerance for clubs centred on other lethal instruments.
Some argue that bows and arrows are also designed to kill and point to archery clubs as a parallel. That comparison falls apart on closer inspection. Bows and arrows have not been significant weapons of war since the 19th century, and it is hard to recall a modern mass killing carried out by a deranged archer. For those whose interest lies purely in the challenge of hitting a target, there are countless alternatives—golf, darts and other sports—that satisfy competitive instincts without centring on a device designed to end life.
Whatever the foundation of one’s moral framework, it is not unreasonable to suggest that guns sit on the wrong side of the right-and-wrong spectrum. Anecdotally at least, Australians tend to be uncomfortable with guns, prefer them to be absent from everyday life, and view personal gun ownership as unnecessary or even perverse, except where required by occupation.
Responsible and law-abiding gun owners may bristle at this characterisation, but some difficult questions remain: Why do I own a gun? Why am I drawn to guns? Why do I enjoy firing a weapon designed to kill? These are not accusations, but moral questions worth honest reflection. A society with fewer guns in circulation is, almost by definition, a safer one.
Governments acted decisively after Port Arthur and are acting again now in response to recent events. Whether those actions will go far enough remains to be seen. Ultimately, however, this is not just a legal issue—it is a moral one. If individuals collectively decided not to own guns, legislative reform would barely be necessary.
Got something on your mind? Go on then, engage. Submit your opinion piece, letter to the editor, or Quick Word now.
People who want to commit mass murder, will. Whether it be with a vehicle (Bourke Street Mall), a knife (Bondi Junction) or an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) find at Bondi.
If the current laws in place we’re implemented, Bondi would still have occurred, just not with a registered firearm.
Hate is a disease we can all help cure.
Brilliant opinion, and food for thought, from Patrick Carr.
Annabel Doherty its not at all brilliant, its anti-gun rhetoric in lipstick
Ryan Carr It is a brilliant opinion piece. He’s argued his stance very well. You disagree, that’s great. Maybe you can share your thoughts in an opinion piece too.
Thanks Annabel for your kind comment.
It’s a pity that Ryan and the other commentators have missed the key message of the article.
Cheers
Ryan Carr it’s not brilliant in any way and it literally reads like an AI generated anti-gun university submission. That said, articles like these are becoming more prevalent and are usually aimed at taking the viewpoint of a scared group of individuals and using it to control the interests and hobbies of another smaller group of individuals…..ie, gun ownership vs anti guns. Small cars & EVs vs SUV’S & American utes, 4X4 access in national parks vs no access….. I welcome people’s opinions but I have never once tried to stop anyone else enjoying their hobbies or choosing their vehicle or lifestyle. I’m sick of people feeling they have the right to make choices and reactive laws that affect my chosen lifestyle.
Annabel Doherty Great to be raising a discussing moral questions but the conclusion reached that guns are designed only for killing and killing is always bad is false and the whole premise falls flat. The article correctly mentioned there are times when firearms and therefore killing are necessary. Eg vermin control, military, police. In the context of vermin control humane shooting requires practice and I would say it would be immoral to conduct without practice in the form of target shooting. We all kill in a fairly direct way everytime we shop for and consume meat. Even a vegan diet will have a impact and result in the death of animals more indirectly. Ergo killing isn’t always morally wrong and its very often necessary. The current rushed laws will essentially ban biathlon rifles. Rifles designed for putting holes in paper and a long way from the military rifles the even owes its heritage to. The conclusions reached by the author come across as trite and simplistic. The current laws correctly enforced would have prevented this tragedy. Likewise all private firearms use is based on genuine reason criteria not just a whim. Im happy to see those reasons change and evolve over time but its hardly the fault of recreational firearms holders that the system failed. Retrospective punishment of a whole community is currently on the table in the form of confiscation. You dont have to look to deeply into our legal system to see an injustice is occurring right now. The blatant deflection and vilification of guns and their owners in the media has been shameful. I hope the general public can see though the facade of ‘safety’ and place the blame on the government current and previous as well as a failed registery and licence system.
Kent Cartner Thank you for your reply. And great reply to Patrick Carr’s opinion piece.
The question to be answered is how did the gun licensing authority issue a gun license to a close relative of a person who had been under investigation by ASIO for radical ideation. Further, what are the exchange of information routes like between the gun licensing authority and the security intelligence organisation
what a ludicrusly anti-gun article with zero nuance, runnign for a Labour gig are ya?
It’s like asking why do people enjoy fireworks? They’re explosives. Maybe deep down they just want to blow stuff up.
This is intellectual tripe.
Characterising “most Australians” is inherently biased. Anyone can say that about any topic; you haven’t given any credible evidence for this.
Our media LOVE anti licensed firearms stories so if you characterise “most Australian media” I’d agree.
But our media love it when we win gold at the Olympic for shooting (statistically 1/4 of our gold medals were won by Aussie women shooters in Rio 2016).
You ask the question the normalcy of gun clubs and ask what other lethal weapons are accepted as normal. Try axe throwing; horrifying lethal weapons being thrown at public gatherings which is on the rise.
Your statement “the purpose of guns is to kill” ignores the fact that Olympic pistols are designed to hit paper targets, trap shotguns are designed for the purpose of shooting flying clay targets and target rifles are used by able and disabled competitors all over the world.
In the hundreds of clubs where 1 million Aussie shooters spend their weekend in peaceful competition; maybe go to any of them and ask them why they are statistically the safest sport in the nation according to insurance companies.
How did someone a non citizen get one in the first place
The way i see it is lefties and progressives use guns to kill people and hence categorise guns with murder because that is in there nature and primarily what they use them for.
Conservative people tend to treat them with respect and as a tool for a purpose. like feral animal eradication, animal husbandry practices and targeted shooting.
The problem with gun laws is only law abiding people follow the laws so the ‘bad’ people everyone thinks no longer have guns after patting themselves on the back for cheap political points are by nature the very people society doesn’t want having them in the first place (shock horror!).
It’s almost like it would be easier to make murdering people illegal, oh hang on….
There is an agenda, and the Islamist is not it !!
The anti Semitic agenda is the danger!! Pushed by those wanting to create a one world government under Noahide law ! Where the world is ruled by the Zionist of Rev 3:9 who call themselves Jews , but are of the Synagogue of Satan
How they have blinded the eyes of many with in the Christian churches, who follow the chant of Israel good and God will protect them , all the while they are bombing Christian Churches, and Palestinian semites .
The gun debate in Australia as a far deeper and more evil intent wether by ignorance of politicians but certainly by design by outside influences! When you find the name of the father David Cohen trained under Mossad for ISIS for ten years, not hard to see how easy it is to get a passport for a certain country, but when you see that his name was googled in Tel Aviv hours before the shooting and the rifle used , an Israel military rifle.
We have a problem, and there are a lot of dirty fingers involved and it not the Australian gun owner nor the weapons the own in their locked safes !!
New England Times there were swords & knives & bow & arrow arrows being used to kill in wars long before gun powder was invented so do a bit of history before you promote a story
Hmm, you have actually misrepresented the facts associated with firearms or public safety, let alone connection with morality.
To consider that “guns sit on the wrong side of the right-and-wrong spectrum” or that gun ownership is “unnecessary or perverse” is casting aspersions at people who enjoy a specific sport. That’s a pretty ordinary comment – but I guess you’re entitled to an “opinion”.
Now, for some facts: The safest countries in the world all have higher firearm ownership per capita than Australia – indeed, 8 of the top 10 safest countries have 2-3 times as many firearms than Aus.
And, world wide, terrorists number 1 weapon of choice is explosives.
However, if you wish to focus on the facts of “weapons”, in Australia, knives are the predominant weapon used to take innocent lives – used in 43% of homicides.
Consider that one violent actor with a knife at Bondi Junction killed 6. Two violent actors at Bondi Beach killed 15. Did the weapon statistically alter the outcome? Physically – no. Psychologically – yes.
And, knife design is very specific to purpose – including forging for dedicated use as a killing tool (and BTW there are forums, clubs and martial arts dedicated to the appreciation of blades).
I don’t bother teaching people how to defend against a “gun”- the chances of you being a victim of such crime is so very low.
Horses and livestock kill more innocent Aussies last time I checked. So….society would be safer without horses? And morally…. less horses would die in the pursuit of sport?
If there was clarity of Mission Focus on public safety, the hype would not be a gun numbers game – be that in a moral context or otherwise.
The current focus on guns is so unbelievably myopic that people are losing sight of what actually matters.
Consider that in 2024, 175 innocent people (mostly women and children) lost their lives to a current or former partner. Overall, 268 people were murdered in their own homes.
The only acceptable number is zero.
And very few of these murders involved “guns”. But – we’ll invest $1Billion in buying firearms from normal people…to achieve what? To get on the right side of some perceived moral spectrum?
Maybe point the moral compass towards the culture of domestic & family violence instead of guns, and maybe gain some perspective of what actually matters.
Cheers Paul
Well said Paul.
“It is hard to imagine the scale of harm inflicted in incidents like Bondi being replicated with a hammer, a block of wood or a broken bottle.”
They had bombs in the car… Literal BOMBS.
If you think banning THE TOOL used will fix ANYTHING you are delusional.
The Oklahoma bombing… The Nice truck attack… September 11th… Terrorists will always find another way to do harm, and you do not vilify the law abiding for the actions of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.
The morality of the right of self defence was thrust into the spotlight as a result of Bondi.
The morality of excluding those from our society who preach hate was thrust into the spotlight as a result of Bondi.
The government, in a mad panic, in fear of their own exposure – told everyone this issue was about guns.
Andrew Maughan They have said non-stop it’s about anti-Semitism, and radicalisation but to ignore asking how these guys got guns so easily would be a dereliction of their duty. Aussies want tougher gun laws. We’ve seen the craziness in the USA and we don’t want that here.
Jim Crocker Jim it’s a tired old trope to compare Australia to the USA in relation to guns. We are nothing like them by comparison of demographics , socio economics nor legal frameworks. There is simply no meaningful comparison, it’s simply an appeal to emotion.
Our gun laws were already world class. The fact is, they were not enforced or administered by the regulators. Failures by the administration should not require even more laws, particularly if they can’t administer the laws they already have.
well said andrew .it appears its almost scared and biased hatred , without facts figures or knowledge .but i suppose you cant let a few lies get in the way of a good diatribe . the way you descibe guns as only killing machines really does make your story very one sided and immediatly without morals or ethics and only intention can be to demonise gun and rifle owners and maybe with a substantial payment from a anti gun lobby .all i need to hear next is your description of belt fed weapons. to know the same group is behind all the non facts floating about .
how about a few facts the 2 responcible were travelling through southern philippines and it seems asio knew about it ,the son was on a watch list with asio for extremist beliefs and interactions, the father took 2 years to get a gun license highly unusual unless there is problems ,the father put their house into the wifes name and moved out and lost his employment .asio warned federal police that there could be a high possiblity of an attack in sydney 2 weeks before bondi ,and to top it all off do you think if they had the 4 rifle rule there is any diferance of course not .the govt and police had many points to change this senario , and at each point nothing done changed or checked with all the laws and permits and licenses and police manually handling of it all including warnings of previous asio warning and current warnings ,so if you would like to spin your head in a diferant direction look at the sheepish govt clawing the walls as their dragged kicking and screaming to a royal commision .what might this turn up that they dont want seen i wonder ,but maybe your magnificent one sided story might give them the needed breath of air to continue the lies further. good story whats new pinnochio lol .
Jim Crocker the state and federal governments are in a panic to hide their own intelligence and administration failures.
It’s simple, if they had actually done their job it wouldn’t have happened.
Jim Crocker Aussies want tougher gun laws. 90% of Aussies have zero idea what gun laws already exist but they want them tougher. What part of the current laws need to be tougher? How many have read the relevant legislation and are in a position to comment?
Andrew Maughan I’m not drawing any of those comparisons. I’m saying we don’t want to end up like them, whether that be laws or their implementation.
Gavin Potter Maybe, but do you need to know every step of the cooking process to judge whether you find the dish palatable? We now find there are more guns in the country than pre-Port Arthur. Whatever laws have allowed that, the results are not palatable to the majority of Australians.
im afraid your statement is a lie or incorrect ,either way you would like to look at it between post aurthur and now there are 10 million more people in australia . your number was before restrictions buy backs etc ,it also counts air rifles ,paintball , collectors and rifles where ammuntion isnt available any more or rifles collected with no internal working parts props for movies etc and also guns that are just parts just because they all have to be on a license working or not parts or not and i forgot crossbows as well .so when you and your antigun cronies bleat about numbers at least use the right numbers to start with instead of parroting falsehoods which sound so good to your ilk.when the nsw mps bleat catastrophe some 2 people have 300 rifles its a pity they didnt elaborate and the truth they are a company supplies props for the movie industry and even in your narrow mind im sure on second thought a 22 rifle isnt going to be so well recieved as the diggers hit the beach in ww1 movie filmed in turkey or would you applaud that stupidity ,because it seems that the animal activists and antigun have the same mindset stupidity to the max
Jim Crocker Jim, you’re illustrating my point entirely. I’m not attacking you – I’m pointing out that you’re falling for the spin.
The issue at Bondi was not caused by “ American inspired gun laws” – it was caused by two Islamic fundamentalists, who should have been prevented from obtaining firearms under the existing legislation that was in place. The issues are RADICAL ISLAM and FAILURES in the NSW firearms registry and security services ( AFP, ASIO, NSW Police )
You’ve been successful misdirected by the government media campaign to believe this issue is about guns and “ not ending up like America”
It’s fascinating that you can’t see that you’re simply repeating the call to emotion that the government used in their misdirection strategy.
It’s also true that there are LESS guns per head of population since 1996. Firearm ownership across the population DECLINED after 1996.
There was NEVER an accurate count of firearms in Australia pre 1996 as there was no registry and very unregulated licencing.
Any reference to “ American gun laws “ or “ nor ending up like America” is simply political spin doctors successfully getting that message into your head.
Jim Crocker There are another 8 million people in the country since Port Arthur. Using a total increase is misleading. The rate of firearms ownership has actually decreased. So decreasing firearms ownership is not palatable to the majority of Australians?
Jim Crocker the fact that they got the gun so easily is the fault of the government and no one else’s.
i think you hit the nail right on the head how did a non citizen and a son living with him at the time and on a asio watch list get a license , and something that takes 4/6 weeks take on this occasion 2yrs to get and if we look deeper just lost employment separated from wife signing over home to her, and just before bondi travelling to southern phillipines for a bit of training or knowledge maybe in bomb preparation .and then as the icing on the cake asio warned 2 weeks before bondi ,new very high and probable attack could be about to happen in sydney and what did nsw police do seemingly nothing .so with all the rules, laws ,licenses and monitoring what was done pitifully nothing .so yes lets now look at law abiding people following all the rules and see if we can direct attention elsewhere “be real be a genuine human “instead of a robot and look at the facts for gods sake .
Dino Vannucci Exactly! 👍
Dino Vannucci The original post suggested that the government were ignoring other issues and “in a panic, telling everyone it’s about guns.” The suggestion was that they should look at other things, not gun legislation and implementation. I was pointing out that they’re looking at all issues, including guns, as they should.
Gavin Potter I think perhaps what you mean is that gun ownership per head of population is lower than (pre/post ?) Port Arthur. Right? And are you also saying that the fact that there are more guns overall is not relevant?
I said that the fact that there are more guns in the country now is not palatable to Aussies. You disagree?
Jim Crocker What is the fascination with guns? They are just lumps of metal. They are not a problem in themselves anymore than cars, alcohol or lumps of 2 x 4. Unfortunately the people that misuse them are the problem. More people are killed with knives each year than with guns. Why don’t knives get as much attention? 8 million more people since Port Arthur, maybe 3 or 4 million extra kitchen knives. Are you shocked, why isn’t the government doing something about them to keep us safe? Too many people getting their gun watching Rambo movies.
Gavin Potter Seriously? That tired old illogical, stupid, NRA argument? OK, I’ll meet you in a back alley. You bring a knife and a bit of 2×4, and I’ll bring one of those harmless lumps of metal that are no more dangerous that a stubby of beer.
The fact that more people are killed with knives than guns does not make knives more dangerous, or guns less dangerous.
When a law abiding Citizen flips their lid and gets in a murderous mood, would you rather they had access to a knife or a gun?
How many people would the Bondi killers have been able to kill with knives or pieces of 2×4?
So we have come down to name calling. My argument is stupid so you are saying I am stupid? So if no law abiding citizen can be trusted just in case they flip their lid what is the solution. Can we be trusted at all? I don’t think the Bondi criminals just flipped their lids and went on a spur of the moment rampage. What does the USA have to do with this? Oh it’s all the guns. How come you didn’t bring up Switzerland? All males in Switzerland do national service and are required to keep their guns and ammunition at home.
Well written bias, sneakily bringing in anti gun rhetoric, forgot the illegal gun trade amongst other issues and the morality of criminals. How about statistics on murder weapons. I know why I am drawn to firearms. Like my favourite socket set it’s a tool.
Fire arms are not this issue at all. Terrorist attacks have used cars, acid bottles, knives of all sizes, and wven aircraft. West of Sydney has seen a huge rise in illegal gun crime! A fully auto ak47 was used in one event. Law biding firearm owners have a over 99% compliance record. The new laws take guns out of safes, not off streets. More background checks, more inter government communications are whats needed. As the very same government lawabiding citizens of Australia (firearm owners and non) trusted to monitor and control firearms failed all of us equally.
https://edition.cnn.com/world/terrorist-attacks-by-vehicle-fast-facts
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country
The writer ignores the other items used in mass killings, bombs, cars, trucks and in a couple of cases planes.
Great to be raising a discussing moral questions but the conclusion reached that guns are designed only for killing and killing is always bad is false and the whole premise falls flat. The article correctly mentioned there are times when firearms and therefore killing are necessary. Eg vermin control, military, police. In the context of vermin control humane shooting requires practice and I would say it would be immoral to conduct without practice in the form of target shooting. We all kill in a fairly direct way everytime we shop for and consume meat. Even a vegan diet will have a impact and result in the death of animals more indirectly. Ergo killing isn’t always morally wrong and its very often necessary. The current rushed laws will essentially ban biathlon rifles. Rifles designed for putting holes in paper and a long way from the military rifles the even owes its heritage to. The conclusions reached by the author come across as trite and simplistic. The current laws correctly enforced would have prevented this tragedy. Likewise all private firearms use is based on genuine reason criteria not just a whim. Im happy to see those reasons change and evolve over time but its hardly the fault of recreational firearms holders that the system failed. Retrospective punishment of a whole community is currently on the table in the form of confiscation. You dont have to look to deeply into our legal system to see an injustice is occurring right now. The blatant deflection and vilification of guns and their owners in the media has been shameful. I hope the general public can see though the facade of ‘safety’ and place the blame on the government current and previous as well as a failed registery and licence system.
Why do I own a gun? Why am I drawn to guns? Why do I enjoy firing a weapon designed to kill? These are not accusations, but moral questions worth honest reflection. A society with fewer guns in circulation is, almost by definition, a safer one.
ok so you want a safer society good to hear ,first disturbing aspect for you will be to give up your car or motorbike ,thats 1332 people killed in 2025 does that shock you same as guns or worse seeing as they are a machine of death too correct.and that may even include vehicles hit and run and used as weapons as well .the latest figure for 2023 there was 57 stabbing deaths in australia it could easily be double for 2025 ,so does that machine of death worry you do we take away all your sharp things and make you better of course not ,people who are meant to be watching for nutcases and acting when they hear probable attack and yet then do nothing .
What we need is legeslation to try and convict any politician or public servant who failed to do their job in regards to not enforcing existing laws.The Government wanted these laws and they were passed and ratified through both houses of parlaiment.It was the responsibility of the government and public servants to enforce them
Bondi is most probably a failure of the government .Not law abiding citizens.We drastically need legislation to be changed to stop racism anti semitism and anti Muslim or any other form of inciting acts of terrorism.Far too long has both sides of politics ignored this issue.The sad thing is the public ( constituents) have been saying this for some time.Being a politician is not a God given right.Its a privilege.Some poor public servants could be made scape goats from this.In reality it is more the fault of politicians.History has shown that this has happened in the past many a time .All we want is the true facts.If there was a break down of the system then it needs fixing.Knee jerk reactions can’t fix this Give us all a break Australia deserves it.
God bless Australia
There are people who are interested in knives as a hobbyist, they also are usually involve axes and larger knives and swords too.
Unfortunately the Author just hasn’t come across this in his live and I don’t know why, maybe he’s from the city.
To also say you may not have an archer lose his mind one day and not do something deadly like Bondi, shows how little he knows about compound bows and their potential to do the exact thing as a gun too. Also to be fired in rapid succession with a well trained archer.
The worst mass killings in modern history outside of war were done with planes (September 11 attacks) – which anyone can buy- and fertiliser and race fuel(Oklahoma bombing), which again anyone can buy.
The author seems to forget that knives are weapons of war (called daggers) and they have been used to assassinate heads of State. Their longer cousin- swords- have laid waste to hundreds of people in a single day. And well, we’ve all heard about machetes recently.
This whole piece once again comes back to “I don’t like people who like firearms”. Which again is done by people who have no familiarity with firearms. I think most of their knowledge comes from TV shows or similar, because it’s clear their knowledge isn’t from any practical experience
Just look at the statistics though. Just 0.05% of crime involving a firearm is from someone licenced to shoot (source: NSW parliament speech). Then look at the stats at firearm crime-it is very low overall (lots of info on government crime stats site called bocsar). Even have a higher chance of being killed by a horse, let alone ebikes, hands, knives etc. So to go and focus your fear on licenced shooters is completely missing the actual danger from a numbers standpoint and banning legally owned firearms will only give stupid people a false sense of security.
Would changes to legal firearm ownership have changed the traffic events at Bondi? They used illegally modified shotguns, there are laws against killing people that they happily ignored, the bombs they had were illegal, the one licenced guy supplied firearms to someone unlicensed….. The list just goes on and on with laws that didn’t stop them, so I think it’s fairly clear that making any other laws would have done nothing to stop them. Because laws won’t stop terrorism unfortunately
Thanks for all the comments. Disappointedly nearly all those comments missed the point of the article. It wasn’t about Bondi per se although Bondi was cited as the event that has prompted the current discussion with respect to the presence of guns in the community. The heart of the article is the 3 moral questions posed that should encourage honest reflection. No commentator bothered to provide anything resembling honest reflection but became extremely defensive and either jumped on points that weren’t relevant or strawmanned my position. Consequently a genuine respectful discussion on the morality of gun ownership was not possible. Perhaps they did ask themselves the questions and found their answers confronting and personally disturbing.
I read this article and it’s pure anti-gun slopaganda from start to finish.