In the aftermath of the awful incident at Bondi, Australia is confronting several pressing conversations. There is a long-overdue national focus on antisemitism, an ongoing worry about public safety, and questions about how such an tragedy could occur. However, from the perspective of a public health expert and Jewish Australian, the most important discussion we are finally having revolves around firearms.
Health specialists have been sounding alarms about firearms for at least a decade. Following the events of the Port Arthur tragedy, Australians came together and enacted a suite of reforms to curb gun violence nationwide. And it worked. Before 1996, the nation experienced roughly one large-scale firearm incident per year. Over the following years, there have been extremely rare major events, with none reaching the death toll of the shootings in the 1980s and 1990s.
Even during the Bondi tragedy, the nation's firearm regulations were not entirely useless. It has been suggested the individuals involved might have been armed with manually-operated long guns and at least one straight-pull shotgun. These firearms can only fire a one round at a time, necessitating a manual operation to ready the subsequent shot. While these guns are capable of being discharged rapidly with lethal results, they remain far slower and more cumbersome than the large-magazine, semi-automatic rifles frequently used in international attacks. The casualty count at Bondi would've been far higher if more advanced weapons had been accessible.
Preventing another Bondi demands unity across all states. Regrettably, we have already seen cracks in the facade.
Yet, the terrible toll of the attack reveals that existing firearm regulations are inadequate. Designed in the late 1990s with the noblest aims, decades have worn away their efficacy. Concerningly, there are now more firearms in Australia than before the Port Arthur massacre, with some individuals in cities owning collections of hundreds of weapons.
The nation has grown overconfident and it has cost us terribly.
In the time after the Bondi attack, there have been multiple declarations regarding strengthened gun laws. New South Wales in particular will soon introduce a package of reforms to mitigate the public danger from firearms. The national government has proposed a fresh gun buyback, and there is potential for a countrywide gun database, notwithstanding the complexities of aligning state and federal governments.
These measures are feasible if the nation acts in unison. As noted, when it comes to gun control, the country is only as strong as its least stringent jurisdiction. This is the very nature of the Australian federation – laws in one state are much less meaningful if they can be avoided with a journey across a state line.
There is the inevitable argument that "firearms are not the killers, individuals are". This is accurate in the identical way that aircraft do not fly passengers, aviators do. Yes, aircraft require operators, but it would be quite challenging for a captain to transport 500 people internationally without the plane. The horrific violence witnessed at Bondi would be all but impossible without guns, and would have been far less damaging if the alleged terrorists had not had access to the firearms they used.
It is acknowledged there are valid reasons for some Australians to possess guns. Farm work or culling pests in many places is extremely difficult without them. A complete removal of firearms from the country is not feasible, as in some cases they are indispensable.
The achievable goal – the imperative action – is to guarantee that firearm legislation are modernized to better match the society we live in today. Australia's laws have long been the envy of the world, but time and distance has taken a toll and the nation is less secure as it once was. It is critical to take the lessons of Bondi to heart, and ensure that future generations are as protected as past generations have been.
As one commentator observed after the Bondi attack, "things like this just don't happen here". This is true, but only because the country has made concerted efforts to keep itself safe. However horrific as the incident was, there is hope that it can become the final tragedy the nation ever sees.
