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.
It takes some reflection to ask how, in a country that has banned guns, a shooting spree can happen. All the normal critics who cry for banning guns are quiet because their only solution clearly doesn’t fucking work.
Normalize mental health care and broaden access to services, psych eval requirements to be licensed for gun ownership, MEDIA REFORM that make sure language and content are reflective of reality to prevent emotional people making life choices for others.
These are the changes that will fix society and how people are fed information to be tricked into stochastic terror. That pair did not commit this crime in a vacuum. They did this because they were pushed to feel this way by the information they had available.
Looking at the Wikipedia page on firearm related homicide rates by country, between 2014-2020 Australia had an average rate of 0.117 gun-related deaths per-100k inhabitants. On the other hand, the USA during that same time period had an average rate of 3.181 gun-related deaths per-100k inhabitants.
When compared, the USA had on average 2715% more gun-related deaths per-capita than Australia between 2014-2020, that’s 27x. This should make it obvious that the tighter gun restriction policies of Australia make a significant difference in contrast to the USA’s very loose policies around gun ownership, a far cry from “doesn’t fucking work”.
Are you an anti-vaxxer? Are you against seat belts? Are you against using antiseptics on open wounds? Are you anti condoms? Anti washing your hands? Anti brushing your teeth?
All the normal critics who cry for banning guns are quiet because their only solution clearly doesn’t fucking work.
It worked for like 30 fucking years, dude. How many mass shootings have happened in the US in that time?
Australia has not “banned guns”. They have some very strict restrictions on who can own them, but they’re absolutely possible to obtain.
Fuck me there’s some ignorant people here.
All the normal critics who cry for banning guns are quiet because their only solution clearly doesn’t fucking work.
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?
banning guns
Normalize mental health care and broaden access to services, psych eval requirements to be licensed for gun ownership, MEDIA REFORM
The two of these are not mutually exclusive.
And one isn’t even relevant in this case.
The guns were legally obtained, meaning these weren’t “banned guns.”
