Australian leaders promised Monday to immediately overhaul already-tough gun control laws after a mass shooting targeted a Hanukkah celebration on Sydney’s Bondi Beach. At least 15 people died in the attack, which has fueled criticism that authorities are not doing enough to combat a surge in antisemitic crimes.

Among the new measures proposed would be a limit on the number of guns someone can own and a review of licenses held over time. Those and other actions would represent a significant update to the landmark national firearms agreement, which virtually banned rapid-fire rifles after a gunman killed 35 people in Tasmania in 1996, galvanizing the country into action.

“The government is prepared to take whatever action is necessary. Included in that is the need for tougher gun laws,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said.

The violence erupted at the end of a summer day when thousands had flocked to Bondi Beach, an icon of Australia’s cultural life. They included hundreds gathered for the Chanukah by the Sea event celebrating the start of the Jewish festival with food, face painting and a petting zoo. Albanese called the massacre an act of antisemitic terrorism that struck at the heart of the nation.

Police shot the two suspected gunmen, a father and son. The 50-year-old father died at the scene. His 24-year-old son remained in a coma in hospital on Monday, Albanese said. Police won’t reveal their names.

At least 38 other people are being treated in hospitals.

Among those is a man who was captured on video appearing to tackle and disarm one apparent assailant, before pointing the man’s weapon at him, then setting the gun on the ground.

The man was identified by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke as Ahmed al Ahmed. The 42-year-old fruit shop owner and father of two was shot in the shoulder.

Al Ahmed, an Australian citizen who migrated from Syria in 2006, underwent surgery on Monday, his family said.

Al Ahmed’s parents, who moved to Australia in recent months, said their son had a background in the Syrian security forces.

“My son has always been brave. He helps people. He’s like that,” his mother, Malakeh Hasan al Ahmed, told Australian Broadcasting Corp. through an interpreter.
Authorities had investigated one of the suspected gunman

Albanese confirmed that Australia’s main domestic spy agency, the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, had investigated the younger suspected gunman for six months in 2019.

The ABC reported that the agency had examined the son’s ties to a Sydney-based Islamic State group cell. Albanese did not describe the associates, but said the agency was interested in them rather than the son.

“He was examined on the basis of being associated with others and the assessment was made that there was no indication of any ongoing threat or threat of him engaging in violence,” Albanese said.

The horror at Australia’s most popular beach was the deadliest shooting in almost three decades since the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. The removal of rapid-fire rifles has markedly reduced the death tolls from such acts of violence since then.

Albanese’s proposals to limit the number of guns someone can own and review licenses were announced after the authorities revealed that the older suspected gunman had held a gun license for a decade and amassed his six guns legally.

Leaders of the federal and state governments on Monday also proposed restricting gun ownership to Australian citizens, a measure that would have excluded the older suspect, who came to Australia in 1998 on a student visa and became a permanent resident after marrying a local woman. Officials wouldn’t confirm what country he had migrated from.

His son, who doesn’t have a gun license, is an Australian-born citizen.

The government leaders also proposed the “additional use of criminal intelligence” in deciding who was eligible for a gun license. That could mean the son’s suspicious associates could disqualify the father from owning a gun.

Chris Minns, premier of New South Wales where Sydney is the state capital, said his state’s gun laws would change, but he could not yet detail how.

“If you’re not a farmer, you’re not involved in agriculture, why do you need these massive weapons that put the public in danger and make life dangerous and difficult for New South Wales Police?” Minns asked.

The United States on Wednesday vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza because it was not linked to the release of hostages, saying it would embolden Hamas militants.

All 14 other members of the council voted in favor of the resolution, which described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as “catastrophic” and called on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid to the 2.1 million Palestinians in the territory.

The resolution before the U.N.'s most powerful body also did not fulfill two other U.S. demands: It did not condemn Hamas’ deadly attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza.

Acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea, speaking to the council immediately before the vote, said the resolution would undermine the security of Israel. a close U.S. ally, and diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire “that reflects the realities on the ground.”

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the resolution would only have empowered Hamas. “Hamas could end this brutal conflict immediately by laying down its arms and releasing all remaining hostages,” he said in a statement.

Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon thanked the United States for refusing to abandon the hostages. He said the resolution’s failure to make the release of hostages a condition for a ceasefire would have put all the pressure on Israel and handed Hamas “time, leverage and political cover.”

But the U.S. veto of the resolution ? its fifth since the start of the war ? was roundly criticized by other members of the council, who accused the United States of providing Israel with impunity. The Chinese ambassador to the U.N. said Israel’s actions have “crossed every red line” of international humanitarian law and seriously violated U.N. resolutions. “Yet, due to the shielding by one country, these violations have not been stopped or held accountable,” Ambassador Fu Cong said.

Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward, a usual U.S. ally, lashed out at Israel. “This Israeli government’s decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid are unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive, and the U.K. completely opposes them,” she said.

Pakistan’s Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad said the U.S. veto “will be remembered as a complicity, a green light for continued annihilation. A moment where the entire world was expecting action. But yet again, this council was blocked and prevented by one member from carrying out its responsibility.”

Slovenia’s U.N. Ambassador Samuel ?bogar, the coordinator for the council’s 10 elected members, stressed that it was never the intention to provoke a veto and therefore the resolution focused on the humanitarian crisis and the urgent need for unimpeded access to deliver aid.

The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether to block a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against leading U.S. gun manufacturers over allegations their commercial practices have helped caused much bloodshed there.

The gun makers asked the justices to undo an appeals court ruling that allowed the lawsuit to go forward despite broad legal protections for the firearm industry.

A federal judge has since tossed out the bulk of the lawsuit on other legal grounds, but Mexico could appeal that dismissal. Mexico argues the companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The government estimates 70% of the weapons trafficked into Mexico come from the United States.

The defendants include big-name manufacturers such as Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. They say Mexico has not shown the industry has purposely done anything to allow the weapons to be used by cartels and is trying to “bully” gunmakers into adopting gun-control measures.

Originally filed in 2021, the lawsuit was initially tossed out by a district court who cited legal protections for gun makers from damages resulting from criminal use of firearms.  But the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case under an exception to that law. The gunmakers appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing they have followed lawful practices and the case has no business in American courts.

U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor in Boston again dismissed the case against six of the eight companies in August, ruling Mexico had not provided concrete evidence that any those companies’ activities in Massachusetts were connected to any suffering caused in Mexico by guns.

Still, with some claims remaining and an appeal possible, the gun makers argue the 1st Circuit ruling could hang over the industry for years if allowed to stand.