The horror in Bondi Beach on December 14, 2025, where a father and son used legally owned hunting rifles to kill fifteen people at a Jewish Hanukkah celebration, was an Australian tragedy but its lesson echoes across continents. Here in Europe where hunting is a cherished tradition and gun ownership is tightly regulated, we must confront a chilling vulnerability: the legal firearm that becomes an instrument of terror. Australia’s tragedy reveals a systemic flaw not in the strength of gun laws but in their static nature. A person licensed as safe today may not be safe tomorrow. As Europe faces its own evolving threats from lone-wolf terrorism to radicalisation and mental health crises, we must ask ourselves: are our gun laws dynamic enough to protect us?
The European Landscape: Strong Laws, Hidden Risks
European nations pride themselves on robust firearm regulations. In Germany, gun ownership requires a strict licensing process under the Weapons Act including background checks, psychological evaluation and proof of necessity. In France, hunting rifles are registered and owners must pass both written and practical exams. Sweden issues licenses only for hunting or sport shooting with mandatory safe storage checks. Finland requires hunters to pass a proficiency test and renew licenses every five years. The UK, with some of the strictest laws in Europe bans most handguns and requires compelling reason for ownership.
Yet, despite these layers of control, Europe is not immune to tragedy. The 2011 Norway attacks, the 2015 Paris shootings and the 2020 Vienna attack all involved legally owned or easily accessible firearms. In each case, the perpetrators were either licensed owners or exploited weaknesses in storage and oversight. Europe’s systems, much like Australia’s often operate on a “set-and-forget” principle: once licensed, a gun owner is rarely re-evaluated unless they come to police attention. This creates a dangerous gap between the moment of licensing and the moment of crisis.
Germany: A Rigid System That Still Breaks
Germany is often regarded as having one of Europe’s strictest gun control regimes. Governed by the Waffengesetz (Weapons Act), obtaining a firearm license involves a multi-step process designed to ensure only responsible individuals gain access. Applicants must:
a. Be at least 18 years old (for long guns) or 21 (for handguns).
b. Demonstrate a “legitimate need” such as hunting membership, sport shooting club affiliation or professional necessity.
c. Pass a comprehensive background check including a review of criminal, extremist and mental health records.
d. Complete a firearms safety course and pass a written and practical exam.
e. Prove reliable storage in an approved police-inspected gun safe.
f. Undergo a medical and psychological evaluation, which can include a doctor’s assessment.
Licenses are generally valid for three years for sport shooters and up to ten years for hunters. Renewal requires updated medical certificates and proof of continued “need.” Germany also maintains a centralised firearm registry managed by the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA).
Despite this thoroughness, the system is not foolproof. It is heavily reliant on the integrity of the initial assessment and periodic administrative renewals. Once a license is granted, ongoing monitoring is limited unless authorities are alerted. This static oversight was exposed in tragic incidents such as the 2016 Munich shooting where a licensed sport shooter killed nine people with a legally purchased firearm. The shooter had undergone a background check years earlier and displayed no criminal record at the time of licensing, yet had a documented history of mental health concerns that were not dynamically tracked.
Germany’s strict but stationary model shares the core weakness identified in Australia: it trusts yesterday’s assessment in a world where people can change tomorrow. A hunter licensed in 2020 could be radicalised online by 2024, yet his firearms remain legally accessible in his home. The system’s architecture built on prevention of illegal access is not designed to prevent the legal owner from becoming the threat.
Finland: High Ownership with a Culture of Trust
Finland presents another significant European case with one of the highest per capita firearm ownership rates in the European Union deeply embedded in its hunting and sport shooting traditions. Finnish gun laws governed by the Firearms Act are comprehensive but built on a foundation of social trust similar to its Nordic neighbours.
To obtain a firearm license in Finland, applicants must:
a. Be at least 18 years old (15 for hunting under supervision).
b. Pass a written and practical hunting examination or sport shooting test.
c. Provide a certificate of good conduct from police.
d. Demonstrate a “valid reason” – typically membership in a hunting association or shooting club.
e. Pass a police interview assessing reliability and suitability.
f. Prove secure storage with an approved gun safe subject to police inspection.
Finland’s system has generally been effective but it shares the static trust vulnerability. Licenses are valid for five years with renewal being largely administrative focusing on continued association membership rather than updated risk assessment.
The tragic 2007 and 2008 school shootings in Jokela and Kauhajoki both committed by licensed firearm owners who had legally acquired their weapons exposed critical gaps. In both cases, the perpetrators had displayed warning signs that weren’t flagged during the licensing process and their weapons remained in their possession despite evolving risk factors.
Finland’s challenge mirrors the Australian dilemma: how to maintain respect for a deeply rooted hunting culture while implementing dynamic safeguards against evolving personal risk. With approximately 1.5 million firearms in private hands in a population of 5.5 million, the stakes for effective stewardship are particularly high.
Norway: A Model of Trust, Yet Vulnerable to Change
Norway stands out in Europe for its high levels of firearm ownership deeply rooted in hunting and sport shooting culture. Under the Norwegian Firearms Weapons Act obtaining a license requires a clean criminal record, completion of a mandatory firearms safety course and membership in a shooting or hunting association for at least six months. Licenses are issued by the police and must be renewed every five years. Storage laws are strict: firearms and ammunition must be kept in an approved safe separately and are subject to unannounced police inspections.
Yet, Norway’s system like others relies heavily on trust at the point of issuance. Once licensed, a gun owner is presumed safe unless flagged by authorities. This static trust was tragically exploited in the 2011 Utøya attacks where a legally owned firearm was used in a mass shooting. Today, Norway faces the same hidden risk as Australia: the licensed owner who changes over time through radicalisation, mental health decline or personal crisis without the system’s knowledge.
Norway’s existing framework is strong, but it lacks dynamic oversight. Renewal is largely administrative and there is no systematic integration of real-time data from mental health services, domestic violence registries or counter-terrorism lists. In a country where hunting is widespread and guns are common in rural households, this gap represents a significant if latent vulnerability.
Switzerland: High Accessibility, Hidden Dangers
Switzerland presents a unique and instructive case in Europe: a country with one of the highest rates of civilian firearm ownership deeply tied to national tradition, military service and sport shooting. Under Swiss law, most adult males who complete military service are allowed to keep their service rifle at home and cantonal laws permit the purchase of additional firearms with minimal licensing for non-military guns. While background checks are required and arms dealers must report sales, the system is considerably more permissive than in neighbouring countries.
This accessibility has at times translated into risk. Switzerland has experienced several high-profile shootings involving legally held firearms including the 2001 Zug massacre (where a citizen used a legally owned rifle to kill 14 politicians) and the 2013 Menznau shooting. More recently concerns have grown about the potential misuse of firearms in cases of domestic violence, suicide and lone-wolf terrorism. In a country where an estimated 2–3 million firearms are in private hands, the line between responsible ownership and latent threat is precariously thin.
Switzerland’s system operates on a foundation of social trust and personal responsibility values that are commendable but insufficient in a world of dynamic risk. Unlike Norway or Spain, Switzerland lacks a comprehensive federal firearm registry for all guns and licensing renewal is not consistently required. This creates a significant intelligence gap: authorities cannot proactively track who has weapons, how they are stored or whether the owner’s circumstances have changed. In the context of rising mental health crises and online radicalisation, this represents a clear and present danger not only for Switzerland but for the Schengen area as a whole.
Spain: Robust Regulations, but Gaps in Dynamic Oversight
Spain’s firearm laws are among the most detailed in Europe, governed primarily by the Reglamento de Armas (Arms Regulation) and overseen by the Guardia Civil. Licenses are categorised by type and purpose with hunting and sport shooting being the most common. To obtain a license, applicants must:
a. Pass a medical and psychological exam.
b. Complete a theoretical and practical training course.
c. Have no criminal record.
d. Demonstrate genuine reason such as membership in a hunting or shooting club.
e. Provide proof of a secure storage safe which is subject to verification.
Licenses are valid for five years and renewal requires updated medical and psychological certificates. Spain also maintains a Central Firearms Register which logs all legally owned firearms.
Despite this thorough framework, Spain’s system shares the same static flaw seen across Europe. Once licensed, gun owners are not proactively monitored for changes in behaviour, mental health or social context. In a country with regional hunting traditions, significant rural firearm ownership and evolving security threats including domestic terrorism and organised crime, this represents a tangible risk. The system reacts well to known threats but lacks the predictive, preventive capacity needed to stop a licensed owner from turning their weapon against the public.
The Centralised Arsenal: A European Model for Secure Storage
Hunting rifles across Europe are used seasonally for a few weeks each year, they are tools of tradition and sport. For the rest of the year, they sit in home safes, becoming latent risks. What if we reimagined storage not as a private responsibility but as a shared, secure public service? Imagine state-managed, high-security arsenals operated by police or forestry services where hunting firearms are stored when not in use. Hunters would reserve their weapons via a digital permit system before authorised expeditions with GPS-logged movement to and from approved zones. This would not only prevent misuse but also eliminate theft, a significant source of illegal firearms in Europe.
In Germany, where hunting is regulated by strict territorial and seasonal rules, this system could be integrated with existing forestry offices (Forstämter) and hunting associations. Regional arsenals would ensure that rifles are only accessed for pre-registered lawful hunts eliminating the risk of a weapon being taken from a home safe for an urban attack.
In Finland, with its extensive forest coverage and widespread hunting culture, regional arsenals could be established in coordination with the Finnish Wildlife Agency (Riistakeskus) and local hunting clubs. This would be particularly valuable given Finland’s high firearm ownership rates and the seasonal nature of hunting.
For Norway, this model could be adapted to its vast rural landscapes. Municipal armories could be established in coordination with local hunting associations providing secure storage while preserving access for legitimate use.
In Switzerland, where military rifles are stored at home as a tradition, a voluntary or incentivised central storage system for non-active service weapons could significantly reduce the risk of impulsive misuse, suicide or domestic violence.
In Spain, regional arsenals could be integrated with existing Guardia Civil posts or hunting federation facilities particularly in areas with high hunting activity such as Castilla y León, Andalusia or Extremadura.
The Digital Guardian: Smart Tracking for a Smarter Europe
Europe is a world leader in technology and data protection. It’s time to apply that expertise to firearm safety. Mandatory embedded trackers in every licensed gun activated only when the weapon leaves its designated zone would provide a critical layer of security without infringing on daily privacy.
In Germany, such technology could be linked to the BKA’s firearm registry providing real-time alerts if a weapon enters a sensitive zone like a school, government building or major public event, a violation that would trigger an automatic response.
In Finland, with its advanced technological infrastructure and experience in gun tracking systems implementing smart trackers would be a natural progression. The Finnish Police’s firearm register could be enhanced with real-time monitoring capabilities particularly valuable given the country’s vast wilderness areas where hunting occurs.
In Norway, implementing firearm trackers would be a natural extension of its responsible ownership ethos adding a silent but powerful layer of prevention.
In Spain, this technology could be integrated into the existing Central Firearms Register providing real-time alerts if a weapon enters a sensitive urban zone or is moved without authorisation.
In Switzerland, tracking technology could help bridge the current registry gap providing authorities with real-time data on firearm movements without undermining cantonal autonomy or military traditions.
The Dynamic Licence: Trust Must Be Renewed, Not Assumed
European licensing renewal is often a bureaucratic formality. A Dynamic Licence system, as I proposed for Australia would require substantive renewal every 2–3 years including updated background checks, mental health assessments and interviews.
For Germany, this would mean transforming the current three-year renewal from an administrative task into a substantive re-evaluation, integrating real-time data from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) and health authorities.
For Finland, dynamic licensing would represent a significant shift from the current five-year administrative renewal. Given Finland’s tragic experiences with licensed shooters, this system could include mandatory psychological re-assessment and integration with the Finnish Security Intelligence Service (SUPO) databases for counter-terrorism screening.
For Norway, a dynamic licence would mean moving beyond the current five-year administrative renewal to include refreshed risk assessment and automatic cross-referencing with health and security databases.
In Spain, the existing five-year renewal already includes medical and psychological re-evaluation, a strong foundation that could be enhanced with real-time data integration.
In Switzerland, introducing a federal-level dynamic licensing system even if implemented gradually would represent a seismic shift toward preventive safety.
The Community Immune System: Europe’s Strength Is Its People
Europe’s communities are its greatest asset. A European Firearm Safety Hotline staffed by multilingual teams of psychologists, social workers and community mediators would provide a vital channel for early intervention.
In Germany, this could build on existing de-radicalisation programs and cooperation with shooting sports associations (Schützenvereine).
In Finland, where hunting and shooting communities are tightly knit, a community reporting system could be particularly effective. The Finnish Hunters’ Association (Suomen Metsästäjäliitto) with over 300,000 members could play a key role in promoting responsible reporting within its network.
In Norway, a national “Firearm Wellness” hotline could encourage early reporting of concerns through hunting associations and local health services.
In Spain, this could build on existing initiatives like the Guardia Civil’s “Plan para la Convivencia y Mejora de la Seguridad Escolar” and cooperation with hunting federations.
In Switzerland, a community-based reporting system could be embedded within trusted shooting clubs and military associations.
A Unified European Approach
Firearm safety cannot stop at national borders. The EU has the opportunity to harmonise and elevate gun stewardship through a Directive on Smart Firearm Control promoting:
a. Centralised storage facilities for hunting and sport firearms
b. Standardised tracking technology integrated with EU border and security systems
c. Dynamic licensing linked to Schengen-wide security databases
d. A pan-European reporting network for community concerns
This is not about removing rights but reinforcing responsibilities. The right to hunt is a cultural heritage; the right to life is a fundamental human right. We must balance them with wisdom and courage.
Conclusion: From Tragedy to Transformation
Australia’s pain is a warning to the world. Europe, with its deep traditions and strong institutions has the chance to lead the next era of firearm safety not through bans but through intelligent, adaptive stewardship.
The Bondi Beach victims and other terror attack with licensed guns could have been in Berlin, Munich, Helsinki, Oslo, Madrid or Zug. Let their memory inspire a Europe that is not only safe but smart. Let us build a system where every licensed firearm is a monitored tool not a hidden threat where trust is continually earned and lives are proactively protected. This is Europe’s covenant with its citizens: safety through innovation, security through community and peace through responsibility.
Tahir Mahmood is director of Norwegian Resource Centre, a renowned expert in counter-radicalization & governance methods, known for his work with multiple governments to address complex challenges through innovative knowledge-based &scientifically systematic solutions, Author of famous books “The Rational Blueprint “and “The Stable Coin Imperative”: Protecting Banks, Preserving Sovereignty & Pioneering the Future of Finance – A Policy Paper for Governments, Bankers& the Public.
He has contributed to the EU-funded RiskTrack research project & is currently developing a new crime theory.
