Many believe the Australian government should be held accountable for enabling what has turned out to be a human tragedy.
The recent Bondi Beach massacre in Sydney, Australia, was carried out by what appears to be two radicalized Islamic, antisemitic terrorists. The father and son team took the lives of at least 15 people and injured 40 more. Why? It’s not clear that we will ever understand such a vicious ideology or why it would cause someone to act out with such hatred, but the Australian gun laws are something we can directly point to as a contributing factor.
The terrorists shot at innocent people on the beach while they were defenseless. Having a firearm within reach while enjoying the sun on the beach is physically possible, and you’d be surprised how many Americans practice this commonsense measure on beaches across the U.S.A. So, why did those innocent beachgoers lose their lives? It was likely a combination of the savage Islamic ideology and the Australian government’s insatiable desire to keep Australians unarmed and defenseless. The Australian National Firearms Agreement of 1996 specifically excludes self-defense as a valid reason for firearm possession within its licensing requirements. What other information is necessary to recognize that the unarmed helplessness of Australian citizens has been intentional? If it wasn’t for a man named by local media as 43-year-old fruit shop owner Ahmed al Ahmed, physically restraining one of the attackers, the onslaught would have likely continued, as some reports say it took police approximately 10 minutes to arrive on the scene.
The younger of the two attackers, the son, whose home in Bonnyrigg was raided by police, had been known since 2019 to ASIO for his close ties to a Sydney-based Islamic State cell but had been deemed “not an immediate threat.” Police have also stated that both of the gunmen had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State and that two Islamic State flags were found in their car.
Australia has been relentless against its citizens when it comes to restricting their ability to defend themselves. Major nationwide gun bans in Australia began with the 1996 National Firearms Agreement, which banned civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles, pump-action shotguns, and semi-automatic/automatic shotguns, introduced universal firearm licensing and registration, required a “genuine reason” to own a gun (excluding self-defense), and implemented a mandatory buyback that removed about 650,000 firearms. After the 2002 Monash University attack, the National Handgun Control Agreement further restricted and effectively banned most handguns, limiting ownership mainly to elite target shooters and adding another buyback. Later, 2017-2018 revisions to the National Firearms Agreement closed technical “loopholes” by reclassifying so-called “high-capacity” lever-action shotguns as prohibited, preventing civilian access to firearms that were said to be able to function similarly to semi-automatics.
Australia has pretty much run out of gun laws to implement, but reports say that the Australian government will be using this recent attack as justification for even more. At what point do Australians push back on the deadly and restrictive gun laws they are forced to comply with? At what point do those who support Australia’s gun laws realize that they could be the next victims of one of these preventable tragedies? How long will it be until the people of Australia, and America for that matter, start taking a long, hard look at the unassimilated immigrants we so irresponsibly welcome into our countries?
The Second Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
