We are all horrified by the dreadful attack at Bondi and outraged by the malevolence that has been visited upon Jewish people over an extended period. Australians are sick of the extremism that has been allowed into our society and are demanding action.

The test now for our governments is whether they find the wisdom and courage to tackle the ideology behind the attacks, rather than rushing into symbolic responses or copying the gun control playbook from a different time.

Of course, when legally purchased firearms are used to murder 15 innocent Australians, we must examine how this was possible. Understandably, many people’s first instinct is to ask whether we should simply have fewer guns. As Tom Kenyon, CEO of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, has said, “No‑one wants guns to be used to kill people”.

But our urgent priority should be preventing the extremism that causes mass terror attacks globally using whatever means are available, including trucks, bombs and knives. Guns are just one option, potent in the wrong hands, but the Bondi attackers should never have been permitted guns at all.

The counter‑extremism initiatives in NSW’s Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill are laudable, if consequentially belated. But the firearms provisions were developed with little consultation or analysis and don’t address the real issue.

Australia is already a world leader in gun control, thanks to the 1996 National Firearms Agreement after Port Arthur. The NFA was agreed nationally then implemented by the states, with rigorous suitability checks, secure storage rules and bans on most semi‑automatic weapons. The privilege of gun ownership was limited to carefully vetted people with genuine reasons. Australia then “cleaned house”, removing 650,000 unregistered and legacy firearms. This was enacted as a national imperative, with the cost to owners recognised and shared: the buyback was funded by a tax levy and true market value was paid. That finessed approach is why John Howard’s response remains an exemplar in Australian politics, but it was appropriate for its time, not now.

Since then, a pre‑existing downward trend in firearms crime has steepened to a globally low level. Australia’s gun‑death rate of 0.09 per 100,000 is less than 2% of that of the United States and well below Canada, France and NZ. Our laws are already stricter than all these countries, and our total number of licensed firearms has grown far less than our population.

Some question whether recreational hunting is a sufficient reason to own firearms. Hobbies are good for people, providing enjoyment and social connection. Hunting offers a natural challenge, time in the outdoors, and access to organic meat, and it helps farmers control pest species.

Just like golfers with many clubs, or fishers with many rods, shooters use different firearms for specific applications. A farmer or hunter may have: a rimfire rifle for rabbits; a shotgun for ducks; a small centrefire rifle for pest control; a larger one for big deer and buffaloes; a

lightweight rifle for mountain country; and perhaps a family heirloom or two. Target shooters need multiple weapons to perform competitively across disciplines, giving Australia a respected track record in the Olympics and elsewhere. Real enthusiasts may invest in options for each application. Of course, firearms can be dangerous, but this is why shooters already embrace rigorous vetting and storage requirements.

Bondi shows that limiting firearm numbers will not reduce the real risk: a single firearm in the wrong hands is lethal, whereas properly controlled firearms do not harm anyone. Any new cap would also impose substantial buyback costs on taxpayers, with industry estimates in the multiple billions of dollars – unlikely to be popular during a cost‑of‑living crisis.

Where legislation has failed to keep pace is with straight‑pull rifles. Such weapons approach the rate of fire of semi‑automatics, so this needs thoughtful attention – but again, the issue is access, not the technology itself. Given the explosion in feral pest numbers, the damage they cause and the central role of shooting in controlling them, straight‑pulls are useful tools in the right hands. A balanced solution would be to restrict access to primary producers, professional shooters and hunters with a verified use case, rather than banning them outright.

Some have questioned why urban dwellers should own firearms. This misses the reality that most Australians live in cities and routinely travel for recreation. Hunting is no different. The contribution of visiting hunters to rural economies is substantial and should not become collateral damage from poorly targeted laws.

It is curious to see calls for Australian citizenship as a prerequisite for firearm ownership, when non‑citizenship is not a meaningful predictor of firearms crime. We have over seven million lawfully resident non‑citizens, who join our society, pay taxes and share the benefits of living here. If legal residents can satisfy the vetting requirements, then surely they deserve a fair go?

The hard work on gun control in Australia has already been done, to good effect in society at large. Australia does not have a firearms problem, it has an extremism problem. The horrific Bondi massacre exposed shortcomings in existing systems, and these must urgently be fixed. Responsible firearms owners will welcome legislative changes that genuinely enhance public safety, but those changes must be well considered.

Rupe Hoskin AM

As published in The Australian 14 January 2026

Rupert Hoskin AM is an ADF veteran and engineer, whose career includes multiple operational deployments, diplomacy, humanitarian assistance and working as an adviser to a Parliamentary Committee. He has been a lawful firearms owner and hunter for 40 years.