Bondi Terror Attack: Sajid Akram Legally Owned Six Firearms; Ex-Police Slam Suburban Gun Access

SYDNEY: In the wake of the devastating terror attack at Bondi Beach that left 15 people dead, Australia’s famously stringent gun laws have come under intense public scrutiny, focusing on how one of the alleged perpetrators legally owned the high-powered weapons used in the massacre.

Police allege Sajid Akram, 50, and his son, Naveed Akram, 24, used long rifles to open fire from a footbridge on Sunday night, resulting in the tragic deaths of civilians, including two rabbis, a 10-year-old girl, and a Holocaust survivor.

It has been revealed that Sajid Akram had held a valid firearms license since 2015, was an active member of a local Bonnyrigg gun club, and belonged to the Zastava Hunting Association. Crucially, Akram legally possessed six firearms.

Former NSW Police Detective Superintendent Robert Critchlow expressed his discomfort with the revelation, arguing that the system must address risk within a family unit.

“If someone’s involved in an immediate family that’s a risk [like Naveed Akram], there shouldn’t be firearms in that house,” Critchlow told Sunrise.

Critchlow also questioned the necessity of owning such weaponry in an urban environment. While he acknowledged the need for animal control in certain areas, he strongly criticized the logic of someone living in suburban Sydney requiring access to multiple long rifles.

“I can’t see any defence for that at all,” Critchlow stated, pointing out that while procedures exist for high-risk individuals, many potential threats who are “ticking along in the background with bad ideas and bad intentions” are missed by routine checks.

Despite the systemic failures being scrutinized, Critchlow urged the public to keep the focus of blame squarely on the attackers, asserting: “Two guys formed an evil intent and came here and did wickedness.”