Didn’t the ban guns? After the Tasmania shootings?
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.
See it’s not the guns they need to ban.
They should make killing someone illegal. Maybe give it a special term, like murder or something to show how serious it is.
That’ll solve all the problems and it’ll be ok to leave everyone defenceless as people will know that killing other people is bad mm’kay?
If some of those present in Manchester or Bondi had been carrying, there probably would be far fewer victims of islamic terrorism being mourned.
And yet, the one guy who disarmed one of the terrorists unaccountably didn’t turn the gun on him!
Perhaps because he thought he would end up in the dock himself if he had shot the bastard.
https://babylonbee.com/news/australian-man-who-wrestled-gun-away-from-terrorist-charged-with-unlawful-firearm-possession
It seems (from what I read) he was out of ammo.
You could still own guns for [reasons], afaik.
What I’m surprised about is that the father could even have enough [reasons] to own six of the things, even while his son was already well on the Radar for extremism and IS “sympathies”.
That alone should have been enough grounds for immediate revocation of any licenses, and confiscation of the weapons.
And damn any Lawyers refuting that… They should be lined up against the wall next to the son…
As a libertarian I cannot condemn the legal ownership of guns.
As stated elsewhere there is copious evidence that primitive religious fanatics are going to kill with whatever they can lay their hands on.
I am however incandescent about reading that the son was yet another of those murderous cnuts who had been known to the authorities for years but was not considered an immediate threat.
You can’t inspect quality into a public.
If they’d been prevented from owning guns, they’d just have nicked a lorry and driven it into a crowd. It’s the murderous intent that matters, not the choice of weapon.
A ban on moslems would definitely save lives.
.
One of the people pictured is a native born citizen of Australia. The other a foreigner subject to visa restrictions. Guess which one got banned?
FFS!!!
Stop going on about guns.
All the bombs, stabbings and cars being used as deadly weapons could hardly have made it clearer that it’s not a gun problem.
It’s primitive people moving to first world countries and repaying our misplaced hospitality and near-suicidal tolerance by murdering with anything they can lay their filthy hands on in the name of their religion.
.
Spot on! just a bit too long to go on a T-shirt…
As with the equally misguided partial Firearm ban in the UK after Dunblane what this means is that only two types of people are permitted to have weapons – criminals and the police. Which when the police have been taken over by woke agitators means that in effect they themselves are criminals – so the law abiding get punished. Plus ca change
The Sydney terror attack didn’t shock me.
Bullseye.
When Mossad warned their Australian counterparts, they were told to eff off you genocidal kikes.
>didn’t they ban guns
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-12-15/bondi-beach-shooting-what-are-australias-gun-laws
It’s a bit of a long article though and so is the bill so
>his father had a firearms licence
Guess they didn’t
To be less flippant, no they didn’t ban firearms thirty years ago, they banned automatic and semiautomatic firearms with exceptions for sporting use of longish-barelled semiautomatic handguns
https://www.resources.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1399510/17-257.pdf
This is pretty similar to UK firearms laws, just a little more on the lax side in that it broadly permits handguns for sporting purposes.
In both Australia and the UK you can own a bolt-action AR15, but in the UK it can be semi-auto and in Australia it can have more than a two-round magazine. Both countries ban shotguns like the Saiga and the pump-action but permit the classic double-barrel break-loader.
Australia is a lot more lax on handguns, you can own a barrel-extended sub-calibre 1911 and use it in shooting competitions, whilst in the UK you can’t own a 1911 at all unless it’s been permanently deactivated. Though in the UK you can have an anti-materiel rifle if you can demonstrate you have a “good reason” to own one.
The ban on pump action shotguns did cause the Aussies to come up with kind a a strange straight pull bolt action shotgun that can, with practice, be operated pretty fast.
Gamecock has around 10 1911s. Lost count.
Two .45s, some 9mm, and several of his favorite 38 Super Auto.
USA! USA! USA!
The only semi-automatics that you can legally own on a section 1 firearms license in the UK are .22 and, surprisingly, shotguns. I used to have a rather nifty 12 bore Benelli M2 with a ten cartridge capacity and a mate still has a magazine fed Saiga.
With regards to handguns, you can have long-barreled pistols and I think the UK still has exemptions for black powder and historical weapons. Finding one old enough, in good working order at a price you wanted to pay could well be a challenge though.
Mea culpa, you can actually have a pump-action or semi-auto shotgun in the UK, and you only need a shotgun license, so long as it has a two-round fixed magazine.
If you want a Saiga with a detachable magazine, you need a section 1 firearm license.
“you can have an anti-materiel rifle”
I plead ignorance: wozzat?
In US, it means .50 BMG. It can be used for things bigger than bad guys. Like cars and lightly armored vehicles.
Works on bad guys too.
Pretty hard to justify for sport hunting though, since the T-Rex is extinct….
What has “sport hunting” got to do with it?
The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting.
A large calibre rifle for plinking at unarmoured or lightly armoured vehicles. Think a modern take on the Boyes anti-tank rifle from WW2.
A ‘good reason’ to own one in the UK is long range shooting. However, neither the rifle nor the ammunition are cheap if you’re shooting on a budget.
Sorta. Maybe.
The Ma Deuce has been around since late WWI.
Approx. 3 million have been made.
The M2’s is indeed long in the tooth, but it’s machine gun rather than an anti-materiel rifle.
AI Summary
And good luck getting one legally here, even on a firearms licence
Barrett makes bolt action and semi-auto .50 BMG rifles.
I know a couple of chaps who own such rifles. There are that many ranges where you can use them though.
Recovered? What does that mean?
Guns does not seem to be the common factor in these killings.
Correct. Islamist savages do. They even kill other mozzers along with the kafirs. Equal-opportunity nutters.
Western decadence led to the outsourcing of personal protection.
“Why should I have to carry a gun?”
Because no one else can protect you.
“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”
“Gun control” as practiced in the US is juvenile. In a nation with over 300 million guns, any one who is not locked up can get a gun. And there are stories of the locked up getting a gun.
An armed citizenry is the way to reduce mass shootings. Keeping alien cultures out is also indicated. You aren’t getting just invaders, but also their culture.
I prefer your gun laws to ours, but you haven’t done a great job of keeping alien cultures out either.
Non sequitur.
But Trump is working on it.
Again, I would rather have your gun laws but your armed citizenry doesn’t seem to stop mass shootings, which happen a bit more frequently, pound for pound, in the US than in Oz.
So your statement that ‘An armed citizenry is the way to reduce mass shootings’ is bollocks.
Not having a country full of stupid cunts is the way to reduce mass shootings.
See my first reply in respect of reducing the number of stupid cunts in a country.
It’s currently being alleged that there were four police officers already present at the scene who also did nothing to ameliorate the mass shooting: https://nypost.com/2025/12/14/world-news/bondi-beach-terror-survivor-describes-how-cops-froze-during-20-minute-shooting-rampage/
That is sick.
The Uvalde, TX, shooting and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas School shooting also involved police ON THE SCENE doing nothing.
They take your guns away, then do nothing when you are attacked.
Didn’t one plainclothes cop take down the older terrorist with his Glock though?
Armed citizenry is not evenly distributed. Things are very different here than in NY, for example. And armed citizens stopping mass shootings doesn’t get any headlines. Studies have shown that the legal use of firearms to stop crime far exceeds their criminal use.
Because Oz is a tiny ass country.
An armed citizen is the equivalent of an armed cop. On the scene. In fact, Peel saw the the police as armed citizens.
So if gun control were to be introduced the USA, the number of mass shootings (already exceptionally high compared to other countries) would get so common they wouldn’t be reported?
In the USA most shootings are by blacks killing other blacks. Young black men form about 5% of the population but commit 60% of gun homicides. If these killings are excluded, the shot rate is similar to European countries.
So, if they had been illegally obtained, would there have been more or fewer casualties?
Presumably fewer, as there would be lesser availability of ammunition, parts, people who can and will maintain them, and (hopefully*) the guns in the first place.
In addition it would be harder to transport them to the beach as they’d need to be concealed right up until time-of-use, and they’d have to be stored somewhere the police wouldn’t find them when they came round to investigate your posts on Twitter.
*from the perspective of the legislation
People should understand that when the government takes away the individuals’ ability to defend themselves, the government per force must take that responsibility. The Bondi Massacre is GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE.
The victims could have had guns to defend themselves, but the government said, “No.”
Then didn’t do a fucking thing.
Once again, the great and good immediately try tinkering with the closing mechanism of the stable door, rather than ask the question ‘Do we really <i>need</i> horses in this day and age? ‘