The Same Message, Three Times:
You Are the Problem.
The Point — the Australia Institute's media platform — has run three firearms articles in nine weeks. One blames the victim of a violent home invasion for owning firearms. One tells 150,000 Victorian licence holders they are probably lying about why they own them. A third repeats a false claim about NSW gun numbers to argue Victoria is an outlier. Two writers, one platform, one message. SSAA ACT has analysed all three and is lodging a formal complaint.
Three Articles, Two Authors, One Platform
Between 28 May and 22 July, The Point published three firearms pieces — two by researcher Skye Predavec, one by the Australia Institute's Research Manager, Alice Grundy. They deal with different events, but run on the same track: the law-abiding firearm owner is cast as the problem, the claim is asserted rather than evidenced, and the independent findings that point the other way are left out. Here is our reading of each.
Article 1: “Fewer Guns” Is a Circle, Not an Argument
The theft article's thesis is that “fewer legally owned firearms means fewer firearms that can be stolen.” That is true by definition — and it proves nothing. Reduce the number of anything and there is less of it to steal; that tells us nothing about whether caps reduce theft, crime or harm.
If a measure's only merit is “fewer guns to steal,” the “best” measure is confiscating every firearm from every lawful owner. An argument that equally justifies total confiscation has no stopping point — the tell-tale sign of a circular claim.
Worse, it blames the victim. A man was tied up and his house burned down. He is the victim of a violent crime — yet the article treats his lawful ownership, not the offenders' choice to commit the crime, as the thing to regulate away. If theft is the concern, the answer is stronger storage and security, which stops theft regardless of how many firearms are held.
Article 2: A Statistic That Falls Apart
The Victoria article's headline number is that “over 100,000 people did not use their firearms for the genuine reason on their licence last year.” It is built by stitching hunting data to general sports-participation data. It does not hold up.
1. Wrong legal test. A “genuine reason” is not an annual-use test
— club membership or property access satisfies it. “Didn't participate in 2025”
is not “has no genuine reason.”
2. Mismatched data. General sports-participation rates don't measure how often
licensed shooters actually shoot. Stitching unrelated datasets to judge individuals is a
statistical fallacy.
3. Missing categories. Collectors, farmers, pest controllers and seasonal
hunters hold genuine reasons but don't show up in a participation count.
Underneath the number is the real message: that licence holders can't be trusted to be honest about why they own a firearm. That casts suspicion over 150,000 lawful Victorians on the basis of a possibility, with no evidence that anyone made a false declaration.
Article 3: A False Claim and an Outlier That Isn't
The third piece, by the Australia Institute's Research Manager Alice Grundy, argues Victoria is “out of step” for rejecting caps. Two problems. It claims “the number of guns in NSW has gone down for the first time in decades” — but NSW's total registered firearms have not fallen; only the rate of new purchases slowed. And it names only NSW and WA to paint Victoria as an outlier, when five of eight jurisdictions have declined caps. Victoria is with the majority, not against it.
Ms Grundy is the Australia Institute's Research Manager, and she appeared as a witness before the ACT parliamentary committee advocating these very measures — a fact not disclosed to readers of her article.
The Evidence All Three Leave Out
The Victoria pieces frame the Premier's rejection of caps as caving to “the gun lobby.” They leave out the one fact that explains the decision:
“There is no clear evidence that numerical caps on individual ownership, by themselves, reduce firearms-related harm.”
The Review recommended a cap but said plainly it could not evidence one, and put the recommendation down to National Cabinet consistency. Victoria accepted 15 of its 16 recommendations and declined only the one the Review couldn't back. Far from defying the evidence, the Premier's decision matched the reviewer's own finding. The ACT Committee said much the same in its Finding 1 — “significant uncertainty over the operation of the proposed numerical caps.” Neither finding appears in either article.
The Closed Loop
The Point is an initiative of the Australia Institute. The author is a researcher at the Australia Institute. The sources are Australia Institute research and a prior Australia Institute piece. Her published background is in advocacy on transport, education, housing and queer rights — with no disclosed expertise in firearms safety, policing, criminology or public health. None of this is disclosed, and both pieces are presented as neutral fact (“Explainer,” “Off the Charts”).
What SSAA ACT Is Doing
SSAA ACT does not oppose rigorous, evidence-based journalism on firearms policy. We support accurate reporting that fairly reflects the evidence — including independent findings that don't suit a campaign. What we object to is a settled disposition toward lawful owners — blamed as victims in one piece, doubted as a class in the next, cast as outliers in the third — asserted without evidence and dressed as fact. That the pattern runs from a researcher up to the Institute's Research Manager tells you it is not one writer's quirk. We will keep members informed of The Point's response.
If you have questions about this update or the broader reform process, please contact SSAA ACT directly. We are here to help our members.
Sporting Shooters Association of Australia — ACT Inc
Media contact: info@ssaaact.org.au
SSAA ACT Inc represents approximately 5,700 members. There are approximately 7,000 licensed firearm owners in the ACT. These are distinct figures.
Sources: ACT Policing, “Fees and renewals” (official fee schedule, effective 1 July 2026); 2026–27 ACT Budget; SSAA ACT Inc media release, 25 June 2026. Interstate per-year comparisons are drawn from SSAA ACT’s comparison of publicly available jurisdictional fee schedules.