The Bondi Massacre: bungling all round with gun owners (and taxpayers) now set up as scapegoats

Much has been made of the Akrams' use of a straight pull bolt action. The straight pull action is not a recent innovation and (like the lever action) has been around since the late 19^th century. In trained hands there is no question that the straight pull is faster than traditional bolt actions, though standard bolt actions in the right hands can also be very fast. While there can be an appreciable difference in cycling speed, time getting into position and on target for each shot is more important, as is magazine capacity.

The straight pull has not been very popular amongst the military, even in the days before automatic rifles. The theoretical advantage of faster cycling was offset by the greater complexity of the actions, resulting in reliability issues. Early designs were more sensitive to dirt and grime; a significant drawback compared to the robust Mauser or Lee-Enfield actions of the day. The overall speed advantage turned out to be marginal. While faster, the difference in field performance was generally minimal for the average soldier and well-trained turn-bolt user. Overall, greatly limiting access to straight-pull actions will achieve nothing in terms of public safety.

It is worth pointing out that using multiple removable magazines is an additional way of facilitating rapid fire, though it is unclear whether the Akrams used multiple rifle magazines. Using stripper clips for rapid loading of bolt action military guns can be similarly effective.

For the Akrams, it is likely that their use of high-capacity magazines was more significant than their use of straight pull actions. In relation to shotguns, the Stoeger shotguns might have been relatively quick to fire but the Akrams took a long time to reload the (non-removable) tube magazine each time it became empty. Shotguns also are generally only lethal to humans over relatively short distances, so that their decision to use this type of weapon was almost certainly a poor choice.

The "lone wolf" aspect of the massacre is underlined by the fact that the Akrams came from Sydney's west, which is "headquarters" for Sydney's gangsters. Had they been well connected, the Akrams would have been able to get their hands on (illegal) semi-automatics and handguns.

The NSW government (with indecent haste and minimal consultation) has passed sweeping ill-considered "reforms" tightening gun laws. The laws enacted suggest that those drafting them had little appreciation of the practicalities of shooting. Drafted in response to the shooting, the bill passed the state's upper house in the early hours of Christmas Eve following a marathon debate. It split the Coalition, with the Liberals joining the Labor government to pass it, while the Nationals opposed it. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers also voted against it, while the Greens (who support heavy restrictions on guns but oppose restrictions on protests) abstained.

The new Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (NSW) made a lot of changes to gun laws. Almost any equipment used by the Bondi killers has been moved to a very restricted firearms category, and most licence holders are now restricted to owing only four firearms (10 for farmers). In addition, licence holders must now be a member of a gun club, unless exempted. Even farmers are wondering if this will apply to them.

One gets the impression that the Minns Government deliberately set out to be seen to be doing something. They also sought the title of having the most restrictive gun laws in Australia (now beating WA), and to drive down gun ownership by harassing licensed shooters with red tape.

I supported the restrictions that the Howard Government placed on centre-fire semi-automatic rifles. In the hands of most shooters, they are no more than "ammunition wasters" and restrictions made (rare) mass slaughters even more difficult. The other Howard era restrictions, I regard as no more than costly nuisance regulations:

· Longarms do not lend themselves to being easily used in crime. They are generally too difficult to conceal. Even if stolen, they continue to be overwhelmingly used for hunting and recreation.

· A small minority of gun owners never declared their ownership of assault and semi-automatic rifles. Only law-abiding shooters did. The result is that the vast majority who did the right thing were easily disarmed by the state, while the others still covertly own now restricted firearms.

· Post-Howard, gun bureaucracy made a lot of law-abiding shooters feel treated like criminals. Many now regard gun registries as insufferable bureaucracies that aways place the letter of regulations above common sense.