Naveed Akram previously known to security agencies, prime minister says. His gun-owning father, Sajid, was shot dead by police at the scene
The alleged gunmen behind the Bondi beach attack are a father-son duo suspected of using legally obtained firearms to commit the massacre, according to police.
Naveed Akram, 24, was arrested at the scene and taken to a Sydney hospital with critical injuries. His 50-year-old father, who the Sydney Morning Herald first reported to be Sajid Akram, was shot dead by police.
The pair allegedly killed 15 people, with dozens more injured in the shootings, which took place on Sunday during a gathering to celebrate the first night of Hanukah.
The son was known to New South Wales police and security agencies, while his father had a firearms licence with six weapons registered to him. All six firearms have been recovered, police said.
While nothing is going to be an absolute solution to this problem, if you compare Australia and America you’ll find that banning guns makes a pretty significant difference.
Unless we can prevent 100% of firearm deaths, we shouldn’t take any action /s
Also, what Australia did literally did prevent 100% of mass shootings for 3 decades
Came here to say this.
In response to a mass shooting in 1996 Australia passed strict gun regulations. Since then you can pretty much count the number of mass shootings in that country on one hand.
Compare that to Wikipedias list of mass shootings in the USA for just 2025. I stopped counting that list at 300.
It really doesn’t though, Australia had/has a much smaller and more spread out population, plus they have more guns in civ hands now than they did before the ban.
Australia also has a ton of safety nets for the population while the USA keeps removing them forcing people into poverty, and unfortunately poverty comes desperation, which a lot of the time falls into crime.
Even adjusted per capita (Aus population is 8%, or roughly 1/12, of the US), the difference in mass shootings is orders of magnitude.
Australia actually has a much less spread out population - more than 2/3 of our population lives in just five cities across the country (Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth).
That’s not what I pointed out at all. I pointed out that the ban didn’t do anything. They have more guns now than they did pre ban.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Australia_by_population
You’re largest city being Sydney compared to one of our cities like Chicago is nearly twice the population size and is in a smaller footprint. So sure most of your population lives in the cities, so does the USA, but you’re still way more spread out, and like I said before you actually have safety nets.
You already had low gun crime before the ban anyways. You’re trying to compare apples to oranges here.
This is what it looks like when you start with a conclusion (“gun control cannot work”) and go hunting for anything that you can maybe twist into something that appears to support that while ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary.
I picture you reading the headline about this event and getting giddy because now you can finally start talking about how “gun control actually failed in Australia”
Not even close. What I read is that your system failed to stop two terrorists from committing a mass shooting, even though you have some of the strongest gun control in the world.
What that tells me is that guns aren’t the issue, the issue is society as a whole. We allowed a genocide of the Palestinian people and now there are people who are using it as a means to retaliate.
Violence is going to happen with or without guns. Mass carnage isn’t something new since guns were invented. Humans are violent. The only things we can do to reduce that violence is work on society. The more educated a person is the less likely they’re to commit violence. The less a person is in poverty, less likely to commit violence. Just these two things branch into, a lot more solutions to our violence issue than “ban guns”.
How many mass shootings has Australia had since 1996?
Way to ignore everything I have posted.
Australia since 1996 has more firearms than before the ban and buy back. Yet has less mass shootings.
So you make that work. More firearms in civ hands than ever, yet less shootings.
Is it the number of guns or some other factor?
“Nobody can ever have guns for any reason” is not what gun control means.
Basically, all you just told me is that their gun control schemes worked. Assuming what you said is even true.