Austria plans gun control measures after school shooting – DW – 06/18/2025
After a shooter killed 10 people at a school in Graz, Austria's government is tightening rules on gun purchases by raising the minimum age and calling for more psychological screening.
Austria's coalition government is taking steps to tighten gun laws following a deadly school shooting that shocked the country last week.
A 21-year-old gunman killed 10 people and then himself at his former high school in the southern city of Graz using a shotgun and Glock pistol he owned legally.
Austria has a relatively relaxed policy on firearms purchases when compared to other European countries, and the shooting has prompted the government to tighten some rules.
Current rules allow for shotgun purchases for any adult who has not been banned from owning weapons. Meanwhile, buying a Glock requires a gun permit pending a psychological test and a minimum age of 21.
Minimum age for gun ownership to be raised
Austrian Chancellor Christian Stocker introduced some of the proposed reforms during a press conference after a cabinet meeting on Wednesday in Vienna.
"We ... promised that we would not go back to business as usual and that we would draw the right conclusions from this crime to live up to the responsibility we have," Stocker said.
"Today's cabinet decision shows that we are fulfilling that responsibility," he added.
Chancellor Christian Stocker said his government would 'fulfill its responsibility' on preventing another mass shooting Image: Alex Halada/AFP
At the top of the list is raising the minimum age to buy a dangerous firearm from 21 to 25 years old.
The waiting period between purchase and receipt of a firearm will be raised from three days to four weeks. Newly issued gun permits are set to expire after eight years.
Emphasis on mental health
More emphasis is also to be placed on psychological tests required for gun owners.
The government also plans to increase the number of school psychologists over the next three years.
"In the future, school psychology must no longer be the exception, but the rule," Stocker said.
Grief and shock in Austria after deadly school shooting
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
The aim is to identify potential dangers at an early stage and make access to particularly dangerous weapons more difficult, the chancellor added.
The assailant had failed a psychological screening test required for military service, but the armed forces are not currently permitted to share that information.
Along these lines, the government said better data transfer between the armed forces and firearm regulatory agencies is another measure that will ensure this information is considered in gun permit applications.
"Anyone who is dangerous should no longer be allowed to own a firearm," said Vice Chancellor Andreas Babler.
An investigation into the possible motive of the shooter is ongoing.
Edited by: Zac Crellin
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
2 hours ago
- DW
US Supreme Court backs Tennessee youth transgender care ban – DW – 06/18/2025
In a setback for transgender rights in the United States, the conservative-dominated court voted to uphold a ban on hormone therapy, puberty blockers and gender transition surgery for minors. The United States Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. The court, which is dominated by conservative justices, voted 6-3 in favor of the Republican-backed ban on hormone therapy, puberty blockers and gender transition surgery for patients under the age of 18, ruling that it does not violate the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. What did the judges say? "Tennessee concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and gender incongruence," wrote conservative Chief Justice John Roberts. "[The Tennessee] ban on such treatments responds directly to that uncertainty." The Supreme Court ruling comes after several plaintiffs, including three transgender minors, their parents and a Memphis-based doctor who provides such care, took legal action against the Tennessee law, which they argued discriminates based on sex and transgender status, thus violating the 14th Amendment. But Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the court largely deferred to the state legislature's policy choices in upholding the ban without conducting a "meaningful judicial review." Dissenting "in sadness," she said the court had "abandon[ed] transgender children and their families to political whims." Chase Strangio, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, representing the plaintiffs, said that the Tennessee law has "taken away the only treatment that relieved years of suffering" for those concerned. The first openly transgender lawyer to argue before the court, Strangio added: "What they've done is impose a blunderbuss ban, overriding the very careful judgment of parents who love and care for their children and the doctors who have recommended the treatment." Trump declares US to only recognize two genders To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video A setback for transgender rights in the US The decision represents a setback for transgender rights, an issue at the heart of the culture debates that have become a dominant feature of American political life. While the Justice Department under Democratic former President Joe Biden had challenged the Tennessee law, his Republican successor Donald Trump has taken a hardline stance against transgender rights. "Across the country today, medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children," read a January 28 executive order signed by Trump, who had said in his inauguration speech that his government would only recognize two genders: male and female. "This dangerous trend will be a stain on our nation's history, and it must end," it added. According to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, a think tank that researches sexual orientation and gender identity demographics to inform public policy decisions, there are about 300,000 people between the ages of 13 and 17 in the United States who identify as transgender, plus around 1.3 million adults. Trans people in the US fear massive setbacks under Trump To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Edited by: Rana Taha
DW
3 hours ago
- DW
Fordow — the heart of Iran's nuclear program – DW – 06/18/2025
Israel has said its assault on Iran aims to destroy Tehran's nuclear program. Sites in Natanz, Isfahan and elsewhere have been heavily damaged. Now the bunker at Fordow is in the crosshairs. For days, Israel's military has been bombing Iran, its main target: Iran'snuclear facilities. Israel is convinced Tehran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Iranian leadership has repeatedly rejected the accusation. At the same time, over the past several decades, Iran has constructed numerous nuclear facilities all across the country. Several facilities are thought to house large underground bunkers where research that exceeds any civilian applications could be conducted in secret. Heavy damage at Natanz and Isfahan Until the attack, the Natanz Nuclear Facility in central Iran had been conducting large-scale uranium enrichment of up to 60% according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Between 3%-5% enrichment is required to run a nuclear power plant, and 90% to build a nuclear bomb. Fear deepens in Tehran as Israel targets Iran's capital To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi told the BBC that the above-ground centrifuges needed for such enrichment have been almost entirely destroyed at Natanz. It is unclear whether subterranean portions of the facility were destroyed, but Israeli attacks also caused massive power outages that may have caused significant damage. Grossi said it was possible that "dangerous radiation contamination" had occurred inside the facility but that none had been detected outside. At least four buildings at the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center (INTC) have also sustained damage. One, Isfahan's Uranium Conversion Facility, was engaged in processing so-called yellowcake into uranium oxide then uranium tetrafluoride and uranium hexafluoride, key steps for further uranium enrichment. Secret complex: The Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant Beyond Natanz, Iran has another important enrichment facility, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, south of Tehran. Situated on a former military base near the city of Ghom, Iran's leaders secretly installed the Fordow facility in the early 2000s. Israeli attacks are said to have targeted the site, though there have been no reports of serious damage thus far. That may be because a large part of the Fordow complex lies deep underground. To protect the site from possible attacks or sabotage and keep it out of view of IAEA inspectors, Tehran had a system of 60-to-90-meter-deep tunnels (197 and 295 feet) drilled into the mountains. International intelligence services first made the existence of the underground site public in 2009. In 2012, the IAEA announced that scientists at Fordow had begun enriching uranium up to 20% "for medical purposes." It is thought that a total of about 3,000 enrichment centrifuges have been installed at the underground site since then. Although Fordow is a smaller complex than Natanz, it is reportedly capable of producing purer grades of uranium, making it militarily far more significant. Israel says it's close to dismantling Iran's nuclear program To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Was Tehran about to build a nuclear bomb? No outsiders know exactly what goes on at Fordow. Although the IAEA theoretically conducts inspections there, Iran has increasingly limited access for international inspectors and even removed monitoring cameras after the collapse of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), or the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which US President Donald Trump withdrew his country from during his first term. In late May, the IAEA accused Tehran of increasing its production of 60% enriched uranium, saying the country had amassed some 400 kilograms (882 pounds) of the stuff. Weapons-grade enrichment could progress comparatively quickly at this point. In the days leading up to Israel's attack, the Institute for Science and International Security, a US think tank, published a report warning that Iran's known Fordow stockpile would allow the production of 233 kilos of weapons-grade uranium — enough to build several nuclear warheads — in just three week's time. A tough target to hit Its potential uranium-enrichment capabilities make Fordow a clear target for future Israeli attacks. "The entire operation… really has to be completed with the elimination of Fordow," Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter told Fox News. But destroying a facility buried deep beneath a mountain is especially difficult. Military analyst Cedric Leighton told CNN that Iran had engineered an especially hard concrete to protect the complex from air attacks. Israel possesses bunker-busting weaponry but would still require several precise attacks to pierce the facility's protective shell. What if the US joined the fight in the Israel-Iran conflict? To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The only bunker-busting bomb in the West big enough to achieve that task is owned by the US. The precision-guided GBU-57 A/B MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) weighs some 14 tons and was developed to reach targets located deep underground. But the bomb is too large and too heavy for the Israeli air force to deliver. To do so would require a US B-2 or B-52 bomber. Whether the US will allow itself to be drawn into a direct conflict between Israel and Iran in the name of ending Iran's nuclear program remains an open question. This article was originally published in German and was translated by Jon Shelton.
DW
3 hours ago
- DW
Israel's Iran attack sparks legal debate – DW – 06/18/2025
Israel says it struck Iran in self-defense, fearing a nuclear threat. But international law covering self-defense by states is very strict — fueling heated debate about the legality of Israel's initial attack. When it comes to discussing whether Israel's initial attack on Iran was justified or not, the arguments on both sides are strident and emotional. Israel broke international law by attacking another country, one side says. It's a rogue state, bombing across borders with impunity, they claim. But Israel has been threatened by Iran for years and Iran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb, the other side argues. That poses an existential threat, they insist. But which side does international law — unswayed by emotion — come down on? Iranian leaders have been threatening Israel for years but in legal terms, the question must be whether they were making a nuclear bomb they would fire at Tel Aviv, experts say Image: AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP via Getty Images How do analysts view legality of Israeli strikes? Senior Israeli politicians described their country's attack on Iran on June 13 as a "preemptive, precise" attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, arguing it was self-defense because they feared a future nuclear attack by Iran. Under international law, there are very specific rules about self-defense, for example Articles 2 and 51 of the United Nations Charter, and it's more likely this was what's known as a "preventive" attack. "My impression is that the majority of legal analysts see [Israel's attack] as a case of 'prohibited self-defense'," Matthias Goldmann, a law professor and international law expert at EBS University Wiesbaden, told DW. "Because the requirements for self-defense are rather strict. They require an imminent attack that cannot be fended off in any other way. If you apply that requirement, you come to the conclusion that there was no attack imminent from Iran." The timing alone makes that clear, Goldmann and others argue. On June 12, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, issued a statement saying that Iran was not fully cooperating with it. But Israel has not presented any evidence as to why they believed a nuclear threat from Iran was so close and US intelligence suggests Iran was possibly three years away from a bomb. There have been years of threatening rhetoric between Iran and Israel but it's deemed highly unlikely that Iran would fire a nuclear weapon at Israel later this month. "Look back at the Cold War," Goldmann suggested. "Both sides had nuclear weapons and relied on the principle of mutually assured destruction — where you don't use your nuclear weapon because you know the counterstrike would be fatal. That's why the mere fact of possessing nuclear weapons in itself cannot be considered an imminent attack." Israel itself already has an unspecified number of nuclear weapons but never signed the UN's Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and does not allow international inspections. In defense of Israel In a text for the website Just Security, Israeli law professors Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany agree an attack in self-defense would have been illegal. But, they say, the attack on Iran should actually be seen as part of the larger conflict. "That changes the legal arguments because the attack would have happened in a differently defined context," they say. In another opinion published this week on the US military academy West Point's website, Articles of War , Michael Schmitt, an American professor of public law, argues that the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat means the concept of self-defense could be interpreted more liberally. But Schmitt admits this is a "tough case" because there were still other options than force. Another of the preconditions to attacking in self-defense is that a country must have exhausted all other options — and Schmitt notes nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran were ongoing at the time of the attack. There's another reason why most legal experts believe Israel's attack was illegal, says Marko Milanovic, a professor of international law at the UK's University of Reading. Ultimately the law on this is built to be restrictive, he says. "It's about minimizing the need to resort to force. It's not about creating loopholes that any state that likes to bomb others can exploit," he told DW. Laws of combat "All is not fair in war, once the fighting starts," says Tom Dannenbaum, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Boston's Tufts University. "There is a carefully calibrated legal framework which applies equally to both sides." Parties cannot target civilians or civilian objects, Dannenbaum told DW. "Objects only become military objectives when, by their nature, purpose, location, or use, they make an effective contribution to military action." The Israeli Ministry of Defense and the headquarters of the Israeli Defense forces is in central Tel Aviv and surrounding civilian buildings were damaged in recent Iranian attacks Image: Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images For example, this relates to Israeli targeting of Iranian nuclear scientists in their homes: Many lawyers explained that simply working on a weapons program doesn't make you a combatant. Meanwhile, Iran's bombing has also killed civilians in Tel Aviv. "Even when targeting military objectives, parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm," Dannenbaum explains, "and must not attack if expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage." It's hard to say if cases like this will ever be argued in court though. Goldmann, Dannenbaum and Milanovic say there's potential for related cases to eventually be heard at the International Court of Justice or perhaps at the European Court of Human Rights. The International Court of Justice was established after World War II to regulate disputes between states Image: LEX VAN LIESHOUT/ANP/AFP via Getty Images "But most of these types of issues on use of force don't end up in court," Milanovic said. "They get resolved in other ways. They're too political, or too large." Usually international diplomacy ends up resolving the issue, he noted. Degrading international law For many legal experts, one of the most worrying aspects is what appears to be implicit state support for Israel's most-likely-illegal definition of self-defense. For example, while not referring specifically to the June 13 attack on Iran, statements by Germany's government have all contained some form of the phrase, "Israel has the right to defend itself." "Of course, Israel does have a right to defend itself — but that right is limited by international law," Milanovic argues. The rules on self-defense are strict for a reason, he and Goldmann explain. If you start expanding their definition — for instance, saying you have the right to attack another state because they attacked you several years ago, or might attack you a few years from now — the rules are eroded, along with the whole system of international law. Germany's Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Germany doesn't have all the facts so can't say with any certainty whether the Israeli attack was legal or not Image: Hannes P Albert/dpa/picture alliance In the past, the international community has spoken out, for example, amid the controversy surrounding the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on claims that it possessed "weapons of mass destruction," Goldmann noted. "The legal argument Russia made [for invading Ukraine] is also actually very similar to this Israeli argument," Milanovic pointed out. "If you read [Vladimir] Putin's speech on the eve of the 2022 invasion, it basically said that at some point in the future Ukraine and NATO are going to attack us and that's why we're doing this. But that's really not about self-defense," he concludes. "That's about, say, you don't like somebody, you think they're a threat and therefore you think you have the right to go to war with them. Which is simply not what international law says." Edited by: Jess Smee
