I get that Australians aren't big fans of the right to keep and bear arms. Hell, it's bad enough there that it barely even qualifies as a privilege, especially as things have gone since the Bondi Beach terrorist attack.
But that's a thing for private citizens. No one who has any sense thinks the military should be disarmed, too. Oh, maybe not let them carry guns in various places, but they know that fighting wars needs guns, and there's always someone most people think is worth killing, even if its their fellow countrymen and women.
Despite that, though, it seems that the Australian media figures it's done enough to bash the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Now, it's bashing the defense industry selling guns anywhere.
Australia’s strict gun laws have reduced domestic gun violence, but the country still enables global harm through defence companies linked to weapons used in organised crime and terrorism abroad, writes Jake Steisel.
ALMOST 30 YEARS AGO, the Port Arthur massacre forced Australia to confront gun violence head-on. Within 12 days, the Government announced sweeping gun control reforms: banning semi-automatic weapons, instituting mandatory buybacks and requiring licences for firearm ownership.
Fast forward to 14 December 2025 and the Bondi Beach terror attack reminds Australia that while it has made great progress in reducing the risk of gun violence, the threat is far from over. Parliament recently voted in favour of sweeping gun law reforms. But there’s a blind spot in these reforms: Australian companies can still profit from supplying some of the world’s deadliest firearms — guns with minimal restrictions in other countries, used to commit terrorism and atrocities worldwide.
...Australia must act. Stricter domestic gun laws are necessary — but so is global responsibility. Government contracts should not reward companies profiting from gun violence abroad. NIOA has received hundreds of millions in Australian defence contracts, including a $527.2 million award in 2022 and funding for new facilities. These contracts should not support companies whose products fuel terror and cartel violence worldwide.
Australia has shown it can lead on gun control. It’s time to extend that leadership beyond its borders.
And just what's the beef here?
Well, an Australian company owns Barrett. Barretts show up in various places, never having been purchased directly from the company, and then get misused by people such as the Mexican cartels, but also other entities.
This is a problem, you see, because Barrett is a pro-gun company and is more than willing to sell their guns to the American people in exchange for American dollars, as most gun companies are.
And that's what it boils down to.
Of course, this is treated like Barrett and other firearm companies simply refusing to act.
But despite manufacturers like Barrett having the ability to restrict sales to high-risk dealers and to require dealers to proactively stop questionable sales, as put by a former National Rifle Association lawyer, gun lobbyist and firearms trade association director Robert Ricker, they have chosen a “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” approach. Or as put by a Glock executive, Glock (and other manufacturers) ‘would keep doing business with a gun dealer who had been indicted on a charge of violating firearms laws because “This is still America” and “‘You’re still innocent until proven guilty”’.
Of course, they leave out that Ricker was always far more likely to support gun control than most other highly placed officials in pro-gun groups. He lost his job as executive director of the American Shooting Sports Council because he was willing to meet with President Bill Clinton on gun control, which led to the formation of the NSSF.
He also failed to show any evidence that the gun companies actually know which dealers are bad actors and which aren't, instead simply laying down the accusation in an affidavit in support of a multi-city lawsuit against these same companies.
The truth is that they don't know, as Mexico learned recently when its attorneys tried to defend their lawsuit against the gun industry with the same wild claims. Gun manufacturers sell primarily to distributors, who then sell to gun stores, and so they almost never know who is doing what at the local gun store level.
As for what the Glock executive said above, it was a hypothetical, and it's not wrong to presume innocence until guilt is proven. It's a very American concept.
So, contrary to the claims, Barrett doesn't know who is doing what with the guns it sells.
And the Australian media is clearly just worried that anyone anywhere can buy a gun, so why not try to make it so any company with ties to Australia is unable to make a profit by respecting the rights of people in countries that haven't already trampled on them.
Honestly, the cost of Barretts is a better deterrent to widespread sales than anything else. Not saying they're not worth it, mind you, but expensive is expensive no matter how you slice it.
And no law on the planet will stop the cartels from getting stuff they shouldn't have, so Australia should sit this one out.
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member