Australia Reassesses Gun Laws Following Deadly Bondi Shooting

A tragic shooting at a Jewish festival in Bondi, Australia, has prompted urgent discussions about the country’s gun laws. On Sunday evening, a father and son, Sajid and Naveed Akram, used legally-owned rifles to kill 15 attendees. This incident has raised significant concerns regarding the effectiveness of Australia’s firearm regulations, according to experts.

New South Wales (NSW) Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon confirmed that Sajid Akram had been a licensed firearms holder for the past ten years, owning six rifles. Six firearms were retrieved from the scene, highlighting the need for a critical examination of existing laws.

Rebecca Peters, former director of the International Action Network on Small Arms, stated that the shooting should not be viewed as evidence that Australia’s gun laws are ineffective, but rather as a wake-up call for enforcement. Peters, who was instrumental in changing gun laws following the Port Arthur Massacre nearly three decades ago, noted that complacency has set in since that time.

“Complacency has been one of the results of the success of our gun laws initially,” Peters remarked. “We have had a reduction in gun violence, and so it hasn’t seemed so important to the police and certainly to the parliaments.”

In the past, gun ownership in Australia required membership in a gun club, which served as a form of enforcement by notifying authorities of members who did not attend. Peters questioned whether this requirement is still being strictly enforced. She observed that over the years, the enforcement of gun laws has significantly relaxed, particularly during the renewal process for licenses.

The younger of the two gunmen, Naveed Akram, 24, was linked to a pro-Islamic State (IS) network but was not on any terrorism watchlists. Peters argued that such connections should have raised red flags regarding his father’s ability to own firearms, especially multiple weapons.

Photographs from the attack showed that the firearms used were not semi-automatic. Peters emphasized that these types of weapons could inflict greater harm due to their quicker reload times, allowing for sustained firing. She questioned the rationale behind allowing ownership of such lethal weapons for recreational purposes.

Data indicates that most gun owners in Australia reside in urban areas, with the average gun owner possessing four firearms. “Most Australians are really taken aback to think, ‘Why are people in the suburbs being considered to have legitimate reasons to have four guns?’” Peters noted. She advocated for a reassessment of the rules governing gun ownership, suggesting measures to limit the number of firearms an individual can possess.

Peters argued that thorough vetting of potential gun owners is essential, even if it increases the workload for police and relevant authorities. “Do you think it’s fair to ask the police to really do a careful examination of who you’re arming with this product designed to destroy bodies? Absolutely,” she asserted.

In response to the shooting, the Australian government has acknowledged the need for change. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese convened an urgent meeting of the national cabinet on March 4, 2024, where state premiers and first ministers unanimously agreed to enhance regulations surrounding gun ownership. Proposed measures include expediting the creation of a national firearms register, limiting the number of guns an individual can possess, and further restricting the types of legal weapons available.

As discussions continue, the incident at Bondi serves as a stark reminder of the critical need for vigilance and stringent enforcement of gun laws in Australia. The government’s commitment to reassessing these regulations will be vital in preventing future tragedies.