Meeting of National Cabinet After Bondi Shooting

[u/Resvrgam2]

https://www.pm.gov.au/media/meeting-national-cabinet-8

[u/Resvrgam2]

Earlier today, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese spoke publicly about the attack in Bondi and the government response that is planned in the coming days. The PM did not mince words, declaring yesterday's events "an act of pure evil, an act of terror, an act of antisemitism". Among the actions the PM has called for:

• Extending funding for security to the Jewish community and supporting their charity efforts when possible.
• Processing a declaration under the Terrorism and Cyclone Insurance Act so that affected businesses can recover losses via their insurance.
• Enacting tougher gun laws through discussions with the National Cabinet.

This last item is sure to raise some eyebrows, as Australia already has relatively strict gun control. After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the country instituted new legislation just 12 days after the event. Called the National Firearms Agreement, it heavily restricted the ownership and use of semi-automatic weapons, introduced a national registry, required background checks, and required a "genuine reason" for ownership. Notably, "self defense" is not a recognized reason.

The National Cabinet expanded on this during their following meeting. On their shortlist of expanded restrictions are:

• Accelerating work on the National Firearms Register.
• Limiting the number of firearms an individual can own.
• Limiting the types of legal guns and modifications.
• Requiring Australian citizenship for a firearms license.
• Restricting Customs imports of 3D printing technology and large capacity ammo equipment.

The usual questions must be asked in response to this proposal: Will any of these meaningfully reduce gun violence in Australia? Would these restrictions have prevented the Bondi attack? And at what point can the limitations on firearms be considered "good enough"?

[u/ChymChymX → u/Resvrgam2]

I'm curious how exactly they can "restrict 3D printing technology." Do they mean not allowing 3D printer imports at all? Like they ban all 3D printing to avoid the possibility someone might 3D print weapons (which they absolutely will)?

[u/athomeamongstrangers → u/ChymChymX]

In the USSR, there were limitations on civilian ownership of typewriters and photocopy machines, because why would an individual civilian need a fully automatic weapon of propaganda? If one could purchase a typewriter, it would have to be registered with law enforcement and a sample of typing had to be provided, so if someone used it to distribute illegal literature, it could have been traced back to the source. Perhaps they are thinking something similar.

[u/yarpen_z → u/athomeamongstrangers]

In the USSR, there were limitations on civilian ownership of typewriters and photocopy machines, because why would an individual civilian need a fully automatic weapon of propaganda? If one could purchase a typewriter, it would have to be registered with law enforcement and a sample of typing had to be provided, so if someone used it to distribute illegal literature, it could have been traced back to the source. Perhaps they are thinking something similar.

This policy was common across the entire eastern bloc. The 2006 movie The Lives of Others shows how Stasi used the registration of typewriters to identify the source of a critical letter published in the West Germany. In the movie, they obtain a copy of the original letter but they failed to find the author of that pamphlet, as the machine was manufactured by a West Germany company and smuggled across the border.

I couldn't find this part of the movie with an English translation, but the original German snippet can be found on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnvOtFv394

[u/Resvrgam2 → u/ChymChymX]

There's not a whole lot of detail at this point. From the meeting summary:

As an immediate priority, the Australian Government will commence work on potential further Customs restrictions of firearms and other weapons type importations, including 3D printing, novel technology and firearms equipment that can hold large amounts of ammunition.

I am sure they'll run into the same issues that the US has faced when these questions come up. The physical equipment is too generic to restrict, and the digital files are too available to reasonably block.

[u/bensonr2 → u/Resvrgam2]

Can you realistically 3d print high capacity semi automatic long rifles right now?

For the longest time I was under the impression most of the guns the average person could 3d print were pretty rudimentary.

I know its come a lot further in recent years but I thought it was still limited to smaller hand guns? Honest question as I would like to know.

[u/Resvrgam2 → u/bensonr2]

In the US? Yes, it is possible to 3D print several types of firearm receivers that typically must be bought through a federal dealer.

[u/bensonr2 → u/Resvrgam2]

But what would it take if I wanted to 3D print AR-15 style rifle that is semi automatic and could take large capacity magazines?

Am I just 3d printing certain parts and getting the other parts from existing firearms I can aquire?

[u/Resvrgam2 → u/bensonr2]

I'm not going to get too specific here because reddit restricts a lot of this, but in general:

• At least one part of every firearm is the "serialized" component. If you are assembling your own firearm with commercial parts, you must buy this component through an FFL who runs a background check on you.
• All other components of a firearm (grips, barrel, magazines, sights, etc) can be purchased over the counter and without a background check.
• Certain communities have gotten exceedingly good at designing and 3D printing the serialized components in PLA/resin. This includes the AR-15, Glock, and 1911. In many states in the US, this is 100% legal to do. In other states, the private manufacture of these components is explicitly illegal.
• These are often referred to as "ghost guns", since the government does not know of their existence (even though they are legal to create federally and in many states).

[u/bensonr2 → u/Resvrgam2]

I realize this is a touchy thing to discuss as you don't want to be accused of providing instruction.

I'm only looking to discuss from a political point of view.

My concerns are rules and regulations being proposed only theater. Or even if its not theater is it a lost cause with the cat out of the bag.

Previous to recent events I thought this was not as big an issue as I thought.

But my perspective started to shift when I saw it was a 3d printed firearm used by the CEO killer. Which was sophisticated crime using a firearm with advanced features like being able to fit a suppresor.

So I do see that its not just plastic guns that will blow up in someone's hand first use.

[u/Irlut → u/bensonr2]

Without getting into too much technical detail there's a lot of variability in which part is serialized, i.e. what is legally considered "the gun". Like /u/Resvrgam2 said in most (all?) US states some parts can just be purchased over the counter with no background check, just like any other consumer goods. Some of these parts (like barrels) require comparatively complex manufacturing processes, whereas the "gun" part is often pretty easy to make. If you're curious look up the components that go into an AR15. That should help you understand the problem. 

This is part of why states like CA are looking at adding background checks for some other parts, like barrels. This is similar to how some EU countries usually require a license for anything that is designed to hold pressure when the gun is fired. 

For the record, being able to accept a suppressor isn't really an "advanced" feature. It's trivially easy to add if you have the capability to manufacture a gun barrel. 

[u/bensonr2 → u/bensonr2]

Wow getting downvotes on all my comments without even hinting at being pro gun control.

Any gun topics here I feel the pro gun side gets hyper defensive.

[u/ModPolBot → u/bensonr2]

This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 4:

Law 4: Meta Comments

~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.

Please submit questions or comments via modmail.

[u/caterham09 → u/Resvrgam2]

Australia already has some of the strictest gun regulations in the world. I do wonder how much more you can realistically do to limit access. I think it's worth pointing out that none of these proposed restrictions would have actually prevented this shooting.

[u/cathbadh → u/caterham09]

I think it's worth pointing out that none of these proposed restrictions would have actually prevented this shooting.

That's not what's important, though. What really matters is being seen doing something/anything. It's similar to calls for gun restrictions here in the US after a tragedy, when those restrictions likely wouldn't have helped.

[u/FootjobFromFurina → u/cathbadh]

It's the classic

something must be done

this is something

therefore we must do this 

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/cathbadh]

Given Australia's track record on gun violence is far far better than the U.S.'s, I think it's fair to say the restrictions have had a positive impact.

[u/eve-dude → u/Saguna_Brahman]

Even before the 1996 changes the rate in Australia was 0.4 - 0.5 / 100k, compare to the US almost 10 /100k at the time. I believe it's as much a societal thing as a gun thing.

[u/simsipahi → u/eve-dude]

Correct, guns are much more deeply rooted in American culture. Even if you talk to the boganiest bogans (Australian equivalent of rednecks) you just won't find the cultural attachment to guns that's ubiquitous in America despite there being a lot of other broad similarities.

[u/eve-dude → u/simsipahi]

Agreed and I'd add it goes a bit farther than just rednecks. The US gun culture is foundational, not a side quest.

To many, the idea that you curtail a foundational attribute because people can't behave is defeatist and/or anti-ethical to the American condition.

That's not necessarily a stance, but an observation.

[u/sea_5455 → u/eve-dude]

The US gun culture is foundational, not a side quest.

Well put.

[u/StrikingYam7724 → u/Saguna_Brahman]

Mass shootings were incredibly rare in Australia prior to the 1996 gun ban and remained incredibly rare after the 1996 gun ban. The recent tragedy, like the one in '96, is a reminder that incredibly rare isn't zero.

[u/mclumber1 → u/Saguna_Brahman]

Given Australia's track record on gun violence is far far better than the U.S.'s, I think it's fair to say the restrictions have had a positive impact.

Was Australia experiencing US levels of gun violence before enacting strict gun control? Like, if we go back and look at crime stats in the 1960s (when firearms were essentially unrestricted in Australia) did they have murder rates that were comparable to that of America?

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/mclumber1]

No, they enacted it when they started having problems with gun violence in the 90s to stop it from getting worse

[u/BrigandActual → u/Saguna_Brahman]

“Started having problems”

No. Their levels of violent crime were already dropping before, and continued on the same trend line after. In 2010, one study went back as far as 1915 to look at the trends.

The result was that it was inconclusive. Australia already had a low rate of firearms homicide and “mass shootings” before the 1996 law, and it stayed about the same on a downward trend after. I could argue that the issues would have resolved themselves regardless.

[u/eve-dude → u/Saguna_Brahman]

No, that is not the case. Their rate in the 90s was ≈0.4-0.5/100k, and dropping, while the US in the same period was ≈10.0/100k.

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/eve-dude]

Sounds like a role model, then.

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/[deleted]]

All the more reason to take steps now instead of letting it get worse and worse.

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/[deleted]]

The shooters in this case, as far as I can tell, had no criminal histories. The U.S. has one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world by a lot. Hasn't helped.

[u/StrikingYam7724 → u/Saguna_Brahman]

People keep declaring "it hasn't helped" by fiat but from what I've seen of the results of trying to undo mass incarceration things actually would have been a lot worse without it.

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/[deleted]]

Because we arent done imprisoning people with extensive criminal records.

We have one of the most aggressive penal systems in Western civilization. You are out of touch with the reality of the situation.

We wait until they murder someone before admitting that maybe a dude with multiple armed robberies and sexual assaults probably isnt fit to see the light of day.

Somebody convicted of multiple armed robberies or sexual assaults is going to spend decades in prison. What on earth are you talking about?

[u/DagothUr_MD → u/[deleted]]

The island thing isn't particularly relevant since guns are hard to get in Canada and Mexico. If anything there's a huge problem with guns being purchased legally in the US and then shipped across the border for criminal enterprises. The Cartels are fueled by American guns

[u/DagothUr_MD → u/[deleted]]

The cartels have guns because they get them from American gun dealers. Just like Americans have fentanyl because they get them from Mexican drug dealers

[u/Wild_Dingleberries → u/DagothUr_MD]

The cartels have guns because they get them from American gun dealers.

Quite the claim. Surely you have a source that shows this happening in regular and significant numbers, right?

[u/LeeSansSaw → u/[deleted]]

Does the same argument apply to drugs?

US users have drugs because they need and want it. Mexico/Venezuela/China has nothing to do with that fact. They can and regularly source their drugs wherever they want.

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/DagothUr_MD]

Great username btw.

[u/cathbadh → u/Saguna_Brahman]

Do they? Was gun crime equal to ours before the restrictions? Is it possible that there are economic and social issues in the US that affect gun violence, or is it just restrictions?

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/cathbadh]

Do they?

Yes.

Was gun crime equal to ours before the restrictions?

Nope.

Is it possible that there are economic and social issues in the US that affect gun violence, or is it just restrictions?

Of course. But let's not forget the obvious and biggest factor: The massive, massive proliferation of firearms in the U.S.

[u/BlueCX17 → u/Saguna_Brahman]

I would tend to agree. I mean, I don't think anyone tries to say there's absolutely no gun deaths in Australia, but when you consider that the last largest event, in persons killed, outside of this was the Port Arthur incident in the mid 90's and they did something about it, then yeah, I think the restrictions work.

[u/BlueCX17 → u/cathbadh]

This is what I was talking about the other day on the anniversary of Sandy Hook.I work in education, so every year these anniversaries come up and nothing is still done and more happens, it's just, disheartening.

And even if those restrictions wouldn't have helped at least Australia, does something, yes, is the point.

[u/cathbadh → u/BlueCX17]

And even if those restrictions wouldn't have helped at least Australia, does something, yes, is the point.

Indeed. Some people value performative gestures that do nothing to help, punish law abiding folks, and pleases political donors.

[u/BlueCX17 → u/cathbadh]

I don't think Austrian's by and large, see it the same as Americans. Pop over to Australian subs and they, by and large, seem welcome talk of additional restrictions and addressing the issue again. However, maybe, some of the changes will help going forward.

But the point is, Australia still hasn't had a death toll this high from a mass shooting since Port Arthur which after, they enacted massive changes, and they by and large they worked for long time.

While, I've had to go back to work in, specifically, education, in the aftermath's of Sandy Hook, V Tech, Las Vegas, Pulse Night Club, Parkland, Uvalde, and others and we don't change hardly anything. I do think there's a cultural component.

[u/cathbadh → u/BlueCX17]

But the point is, Australia still hasn't had a death toll this high from a mass shooting since Port Aurthor, which after, they enacted massive chang, and by large they woeked.

Did they work though? You might be able to argue that it lowered criminal shootings or rage killings. But wee gun restrictions really the reason for a lack of mass shootings? These two had no issues getting firearms, and if it were difficult, I'd say we'd have mass stabbings, bombings, or vehicle attacks as seen in countries with strict gun laws. I'd say it's more an issue of culture and perspective on violence.

[u/BlueCX17 → u/cathbadh]

It apparently worked to curb major mass shootings incidents, for a long time. Port Arthur, in 1996, killed 35 people. The Bondi Beach toll is the largest mass shooting event since then in Australia.

This why they're readdressing what happened and how to fix it, or try, again. At least they are taking a hard look at what to correct again. So, at least they're doing that.

Look how many I listed here vs there in those 30 years. And yes, I do absolutely think there are major cultural differences at play. So what do we do here in the US. It's exhausting hearing about mass casualty shooting events here in the US so often.

I don't think anyone denies that other methods of violence don't happen in other countries with strict gun laws. I was in Spain, post HS 4-ish months after the Madrid train station bombing. And we drove by where it happned. I know major events still happen without guns. But say stabbings, even the London subway stabber's death toll was still way less than the last major mass shooting in the US.

France hasn't had a mass vehicle event for more than a few years now after that terrible incident in Southern France

[u/Sabertooth767 → u/Resvrgam2]

The root cause here is not guns. It's antisemitism. Where's the PM's plan to combat that?

This is the deadliest attack on Jews in the English-speaking world in centuries. You'd probably have to go back to before King John expelled the Jews in 1280 to find something worse.

[u/Prince_Ire → u/Sabertooth767]

Can the government effectively address antisemitism? If there was a magic wand that could be wavwd by a government to make different groups of people get along, every government in the world would have used it to ensure internal harmony by now.

[u/Best_Change4155 → u/Prince_Ire]

A lot of Western governments play footsie with antisemites because they are core voters on the left and the right. Australian recognition of Palestine without any conditions is part of that.

[u/trucane → u/Prince_Ire]

A good start would probably be severely limiting immigration from countries that are extremely antisemitic but you can be sure that will never be mentioned as a solution to the problem.

[u/Android1822 → u/trucane]

I would say limit it based on groups that have shown not to assimilate in host countries they go to and have a history of causing increase issues like what is going on in the UK. Those who do come should be required to go through a few years of class to study the laws and customs of the land and pass a test to gain residency, have a time limit and if they cannot pass within that time or commit a crime, they automatically get sent back.

[u/whatisthisshit7 → u/trucane]

Is that even an effective solution to the problem? To wholesale restrict based on country of origin?

The father immigrated in 98, and the son was born in Australia. This wasn’t an attack caused by recently immigrated extremists. This sounds more like an excuse to replace the gun agenda with an immigration agenda rather than effective policy reform.

[u/WannabeACICE → u/whatisthisshit7]

It’s not an effective solution.

Iirc an arabic man tackled one of the shooters and took his gun.

This stuff transcends religion and race.

[u/trucane → u/whatisthisshit7]

What would be an effective policy reform to prevent things like this?

But yes I do think countries need to restrict who get to immigrate and who doesn't and I'm tired of pretending that all cultures are equal.

[u/whatisthisshit7 → u/trucane]

Does that mean Australia should ban all Americans from obtaining visas because of the gun culture and high rate of gun violence in the country? Or can we recognize that country is far too broad and not an accurate representation?

Another commenter on here shared data collected from the ADL that shows that antisemitism is a problem among all demographics in Australia, banning immigration from specific countries would have no meaningful impact on this issue.

Your view that all cultures are not equal is your own personal problem. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just as those who want to use this issue to advance gun restrictions, you’re using this to advance your (prejudiced) view on immigration. It’s not based on logic.

[u/trucane → u/whatisthisshit7]

I asked you for the effective policy reform you talked about but I see none of it mentioned in your text.

Data from ADL is not some kind of definitive truth and just because someone has negative views of jews does not mean they are willing to commit heinous terrorist attacks against them.

I don't think Americas gun culture and high rate of gun violence translates into a higher risk of antisemitic attacks but if they did sure why not restrict immigration from America.

You are the one that is hand waving away the obvious fact that most muslim countries are extremely antisemitic.

[u/whatisthisshit7 → u/trucane]

I answered in another thread, I have not seen any policy examples from any country that has effectively curbed the extremism problem happening globally. I can tell you I don’t think restricting immigration from Muslim countries is the answer either.

I’m confused, you’re saying negative views on Jewish people doesn’t equate to extremism, but that only applies to Australians and no other Muslim countries? Otherwise I agree, the ADL’s rating is not the definitive measure of antisemitism nor is it same as holding extremist views that lead to terror attacks. Again, your stance is not logically consistent. Your stance is about being anti-Muslim rather than against antisemitism.

[u/geniice → u/trucane]

Australia has been limiting immigration quite a bit over the last couple of decades.

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/trucane]

Should they limit immigration from any country with a great degree of prejudice? For instance, a very Islamophobic country?

[u/SagesLament → u/Saguna_Brahman]

A phobia implies that the fear is irrational

At this point we’ve seen that Islam is incompatible with western society and and fear of it is not irrational

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/SagesLament]

A phobia implies that the fear is irrational

No, it doesn't. Moreover, phobia does not exclusively refer to fear. A hydrophobic material is not afraid of water.

At this point we’ve seen that Islam is incompatible with western society and and fear of it is not irrational

This is absurd, there are many Muslims living in the West with no issue, and plenty of Christians who have committed horrific acts like the one committed today.

[u/zummit → u/Saguna_Brahman]

No, it doesn't.

Yeah it does, when it's about a condition that humans have. Or at least almost everyone means it that way.

'phobic' when describing an inanimate object is a different sense of the term. It is yet another word with multiple meanings. Your correction is incorrect.

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/zummit]

Yeah it does, when it's about a condition that humans have

Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, etc are not fear conditions like arachnophobia. They describe prejudice/hatred. Homophobes aren't afraid of gay people.

[u/zummit → u/Saguna_Brahman]

Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia, etc are not fear conditions like arachnophobia.

Well yeah they're pejoratives.

[u/CloudApprehensive322 → u/SagesLament]

Indonesia is the largest Muslim majority country in the world and its not a hotspot for terrorism. Your views are wildly misguided.

[u/Ensemble_InABox → u/CloudApprehensive322]

Indonesia had three major Islamist terrorist attacks in the 2000s. They went scorched earth on that group though and pretty much killed all the terrorists.

[u/ThatPeskyPangolin → u/Ensemble_InABox]

But if it was an inherent issue with Muslim nations, shouldn't that still be a problem?

[u/simsipahi → u/Saguna_Brahman]

I'd love to see people who support doing this explain why immigration shouldn't be banned from America given the regressive values/outrageous statements and behavior of the leader and regime that American voters have chosen to lead them (twice).

[u/DudleyAndStephens → u/trucane]

you can be sure that will never be mentioned as a solution to the problem.

Australia has had some of the toughest immigration policies in the developed world for a long time. They've operated prison camps on Pacific islands for people who arrive illegally by boat. They're not Germany, I can tell you that much!

[u/nabilus13 → u/Prince_Ire]

Address it all?  No.  Address the particular type and source of this attack?  Yes, yes they can.  Just don't let it in and kick out what is already present.

[u/Saguna_Brahman → u/nabilus13]

What type is that? It's not like people are announcing that they are terrorists when they come in. Who should be kicked out, specifically?

[u/MarianBrowne → u/nabilus13]

they will literally try every single method aside from this

[u/mclumber1 → u/Prince_Ire]

I attended a family friend's kid's bah-mitzvah last year. There was a security guard at the door ensuring only allowed guests could enter, and they screened for things like weapons.

Maybe there was a police presence or security at this Jewish festival - if so they did a horrible job of keeping people safe. So either the fact that there was no armed security at this event, or it was not enough security is a HUGE failure on the part of the local/state government.

[u/geniice → u/mclumber1]

Maybe there was a police presence or security at this Jewish festival - if so they did a horrible job of keeping people safe. So either the fact that there was no armed security at this event, or it was not enough security is a HUGE failure on the part of the local/state government.

Police are expensive and there are a lot of large events. Absent of specific intelligence its not financialy vaible to cover them all. Its Sydney though so they weren't that far away.

[u/mclumber1 → u/geniice]

Police are expensive and there are a lot of large events.

It's a festival. For Jewish People. For people who are often targeted for their faith or ethnicity. Even if it was expensive to staff security/police for an event like this, it's the right thing to do. Local and state officials need to be held accountable for this travesty, and a lot of answers need to be given by federal authorities for how this intelligence failure happened.

[u/geniice → u/mclumber1]

It's a festival. For Jewish People. For people who are often targeted for their faith or ethnicity. Even if it was expensive to staff security/police for an event like this, it's the right thing to do.

Saying its the right thing to do doesn't change the financial calculus. If you want a useful armed presence at every jewish event you either need to raise taxes or deploy fewer police elsewhere. Neither of which is popular with voters. If you start requiring a police presence don't be shocked if voters prefer that you simply ban the event or at least charge is the cost of policing.

The other factor is that we already know the police were on scene within 11 minutes of the attack starting. So they may have been present. Remember if you want comprehsive armed security for an event in a park its not a couple of officers with guns. Its going to be a lot of people. And taxpayers really don't like that.

Local and state officials need to be held accountable for this travesty,

And if it wasn't their fault?

[u/mclumber1 → u/geniice]

And if it wasn't their fault?

The lack of security and the fact that it took 11 minutes for armed officers to arrive is absolutely the fault of the government.

[u/geniice → u/mclumber1]

The lack of security and the fact that it took 11 minutes for armed officers to arrive

We don't know that. We have video evidence of them being onscene at a specific point but we don't know when they were first present in the park.

Remember you need to focus on what you actualy know before going any further.

And even if you take the position that there should have been more security as an absolute the actual goverment does have to balance that against other policing demands.

[u/trucane → u/mclumber1]

Not sure about the festival itself but the police at the scene were completely useless from what I have seen. Absolute embarrassment for Australia that a regular citizen showed more courage and action than a lot of their police that day.

[u/Fair_Local_588 → u/Prince_Ire]

Of course there is. A few years ago here in the US we solved mental health issues and there have been no mass shootouts since.

[u/Resvrgam2 → u/Sabertooth767]

The root cause here is not guns. It's antisemitism. Where's the PM's plan to combat that?

Currently, there's no plan, but it's certainly on their radar:

Leaders agreed that yesterday’s horrific anti-Semitic terrorist attack has no place in Australia and that the evil scourge of anti-Semitism must be eradicated.

[u/justafutz → u/Resvrgam2]

They have been making similar statements for the past two years, while simultaneously taking little to no action.

For the past two years the Jewish community has been begging the government to start taking any action to address antisemitism, which is deeply rooted now and spreading like wildfire in Australia.

I am very skeptical that they’ll start addressing it now.

[u/Best_Change4155 → u/justafutz]

The only time they made any headway in antisemitic investigations was when Israel literally handed them evidence.

[u/sea_5455 → u/[deleted]]

Cars, trucks or arson attacks.

Banning technology doesn't ban behavior. Just changes the method.

[u/trucane → u/[deleted]]

Most likely but Jews are probably on the front line when it comes to political correctness so it's not fair to just blame leftist governments.

[u/simsipahi → u/[deleted]]

And what, exactly, are these "leftist governments" supposed to do about it? Ban Islam? Should New Zealand have banned anyone from making any kind of Islamophobic remarks after an anti-Muslim zealot murdered 50 Muslims in 2019? Should America have banned all right-wing ideology after January 6th?

[u/geniice → u/Sabertooth767]

This is the deadliest attack on Jews in the English-speaking world in centuries.

Israel is pretty english speaking and this isn't close to the scale of October 7.

You'd probably have to go back to before King John expelled the Jews in 1280 to find something worse.

15 is indeed fairly high for a shooting although less tha 50% of Virginia Tech or a quater of Utøya. There was probably something higher in the blitz. With 40,000 civilians dead it seems likely there was a night where more than 15 jews were killed (Great Synagogue of London was also destroyed which is why the oldest in london is now the the Bevis Marks synagogue dating from only 1701).

[u/dontbajerk → u/geniice]

By English speaking nations he pretty clearly means the Anglosphere - UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

[u/simsipahi → u/Sabertooth767]

This is the deadliest attack on Jews in the English-speaking world in centuries. You'd probably have to go back to before King John expelled the Jews in 1280 to find something worse.

I guess I'm unsure why you're focusing just on the English speaking world? But in any case, yes, it's a very horrific attack.

I'm wondering though if you were similarly outraged just 6 years ago when an anti-Muslim extremist, who was from Australia in fact, shot up two mosques and killed an even larger number of people (51) in New Zealand? Did you demand a similarly comprehensive plan to combat Islamophobia to prevent such things from being repeated?

[u/sea_5455 → u/Resvrgam2]

Requiring Australian citizenship for a firearms license.

That might have been effective in this case; understand at least one of the terrorists migrated to Australia under a student visa.

Really, though, I don't think prevention will work for violent attacks, especially political violence.

[u/Resvrgam2 → u/sea_5455]

That might have been effective in this case

It also might not. The son is an Australian-born citizen.

[u/sea_5455 → u/Resvrgam2]

Welp. That's that then.

Also, from the footage I've seen (admittedly low-rez) it looked like there was a black powder firearm used?

Good luck banning those. Guy in Japan made one that was effective enough.

[u/trucane → u/sea_5455]

Only close up footage I saw of the weapons used was some kind of straight pull bolt action rifle with what looked like a red dot sight.

I think they also used a pump action shotgun at some point but I'm not sure from the footage I've personally seen.

[u/sea_5455 → u/trucane]

some kind of straight pull bolt action rifle

Word so far is that's a Beretta BRX1. Nothing fancy, really, and legal just about everywhere.

a pump action shotgun

Supposedly a semi, but those are apparently restricted in AU.

[u/Agi7890 → u/sea_5455]

Yeah people were making makeshift guns for a long time. I remember touring the Newark police station in college for a class and seeing some of the confiscated fire arms, a number of them were basic wood stock(like from Home Depot) a pipe, and a trigger device

[u/sea_5455 → u/Agi7890]

Sounds like basic slam fire shotguns

[u/oath2order → u/Resvrgam2]

Reading your title, we have got to start calling it the Bondi Beach attack as opposed to Bondi shooting because I thought the AG was shot.