MEDIA RELEASE - 26 June 2026
Demonising Lawful Firearm Owners Doesn’t Make Anyone Safer
Opinion
Public debate about firearms in Australia often falls into a familiar pattern: rising numbers of licensed firearms are presented as a looming threat, and any advocacy from shooting organisations is dismissed as “the gun lobby calling the shots.” A recent article claiming Queensland has “weakened gun controls” follows this script closely – but it leaves out the most important part of the story.
The people being labelled as “the gun lobby” are not shadowy political actors. They are farmers, sporting shooters, Indigenous rangers, pest‑management professionals, small business owners, and rural families. They are the very people who are directly affected by firearm regulation and who have every right – and every reason – to advocate for evidence‑based, proportionate and fair policy.
Participating in public policy development does not make them a threat to public safety.
It makes them stakeholders.
And that distinction matters, because the article’s central claim – that Queensland and by extension other Australian jurisdictions are now less safe – simply isn’t supported by evidence.
Lawful ownership is not a public‑safety risk
The article highlights that Queensland now has more than 1.15 million registered firearms, implying that the simple number itself is dangerous. But numbers without context are misleading.
Australia’s licensing system is one of the strictest in the world. To own a firearm, a person must pass background checks, demonstrate a genuine reason, comply with storage inspections, and remain subject to ongoing suitability assessments. The presence of a registered firearm in a licensed household is not, in itself, a risk factor for violence. If it were, Australia’s firearm homicide rate would not remain among the lowest globally.
The data is clear: the overwhelming majority of firearm crime in Australia involves unregistered, illegally trafficked, or improvised weapons, not firearms owned by licensed individuals. Constantly conflating lawful ownership with criminal misuse does nothing to improve public safety or opinion. It simply misdirects attention away from the real problem.
Theft statistics need context, not alarmism
The article cites 400 stolen firearms in Queensland last year. That sounds alarming until you consider the denominator: more than 1.15 million registered firearms. That equates to a theft rate of around 0.03% – a tiny fraction.
More importantly, theft trends track closely with general property crime trends, not with changes in firearm regulation. When break‑ins rise, theft of all valuable items rises. When break‑ins fall, so do thefts. This is a policing and crime prevention issue, not a failure of firearm policy.
Queensland has also strengthened penalties for firearm theft – a fact the article omits entirely.
Domestic violence data is not evidence of weakened laws
The article argues that fewer licence revocations in domestic violence cases must mean Queensland is becoming less safe. But numbers alone cannot tell that story.
A reduction in revocations could reflect:
- improved early‑intervention programs
- more accurate risk assessments
- changes in reporting or administrative processes
- fewer cases escalating to the point of requiring revocation.
The article provides no evidence that domestic violence related firearm incidents have increased. It simply assumes that fewer revocations equal less safety. That assumption is not supported by any available data.
The article also attempts to categorise firearms owners as perpetrators of domestic violence or a risk of family related harm, simply because of they own firearms or there are firearms in a household.
Such assumptions reduce complex social‑risk factors to a single variable – firearm ownership – and that oversimplification does nothing to improve the safety of those actually at risk.
Stakeholder engagement is not “the gun lobby calling the shots”
One of the most troubling aspects of the article is its framing of stakeholder engagement as undue influence. When environmental groups advocate for conservation policy, or when medical associations advocate for health reform, we call it consultation. When licensed firearm owners and industry bodies do the same, it is suddenly portrayed as sinister.
This double standard undermines democratic participation.
The people who use firearms for work, sport, and land management have practical, lived experience with how regulations operate on the ground. Their input is not only legitimate – it is essential for designing effective, enforceable, and proportionate laws.
Advocating for evidence‑based policy is not a threat to public safety. It is a contribution to it.
A national buyback is not a magic solution
The article criticises Queensland for not joining a national buyback but fails to explain what such a buyback would target or how it would reduce crime. Previous buybacks focused on specific prohibited categories – not the types of firearms currently owned by licensed Queenslanders.
A buyback of legal firearms would not affect the illegal market, which is where criminal misuse originates. Symbolic gestures may generate headlines, but they do not address the real drivers of firearm violence.
The real issue: illicit firearms and organised crime
If the goal is to reduce firearm‑related harm, the focus must be on:
- illegal trafficking
- organised crime
- drug‑related violence
- unregistered firearms
None of these issues are addressed by restricting licensed, vetted owners. Yet the article directs its criticism almost exclusively at them.
This misdirection risks creating policy that, has in the past, been politically satisfying but practically ineffective at improving public safety by addressing criminal activity.
The Royal Commission is hearing evidence that raises significant concerns about the incident that has become the next driving force for anti-gun lobbyists to hang their hats on – and push agendas.
Evidence, not fear, should guide firearm policy
Queensland’s firearm laws remain robust, and there is no evidence that lawful owners pose an increased threat to public safety. The article’s narrative – that the state is “awash with guns” and heading toward disaster – is not supported by crime data, police statements, or national trends.
Public safety is too important to be shaped by dear based rhetoric.
It must be grounded in evidence, proportionality, and genuine engagement with all affected stakeholders – including the people the article dismissively labels as “the gun lobby.”
Because in a democracy, listening to the people most affected by policy isn’t a problem.
It’s the point.