Bondi Beach Shows Why Self-Defense Is a Vital Right
Individuals and communities must take responsibility for their own safety.
At Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, a father-son team of ISIS-inspired terrorists murdered attendees at a celebration of the first day of Hanukkah. One of the attackers was disarmed by a heroic civilian who was shot in the process, while others lost their lives trying to help.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Contrasting Responses to Threats
Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese responded to the shooting with promises to further tighten gun laws in the already restrictive country—a measure more likely to disarm potential victims than to inconvenience those planning a homicidal attack. In the U.S., by contrast, Jews stepped up security by themselves and alongside police. At the request of my wife's rabbi, I recruited a friend who served as a Force Recon Marine. We strapped on armor and pistols to patrol the crowd at the menorah lighting in Sedona, Arizona. Members of the congregation carried concealed weapons of their own.
Nothing happened, but we were there to deter problems and respond if necessary. There's a big difference between doubling down on failed state policies and taking responsibility for your own safety.
According to Prime Minister Albanese's office, after the attack, "leaders agreed that strong, decisive and focused action was needed on gun law reform as an immediate action" and promised "to strengthen gun laws" with further restrictions. Of course, that's what Australia did in 1996 after the Port Arthur mass shooting. The government banned a variety of firearms, with compensation for their surrender. Compliance was limited and the effort spawned a significant black market for guns.
But Australia's millions of guns didn't kill 15 people at Bondi Beach. Two men with known Islamist ties who traveled last month to the Philippines for training at terrorist summer camp committed the murders. They chose guns as their tools, but they could just as easily have used explosives, vehicles, incendiaries, or something else to cause mayhem.
"The issue is not gun laws. It's hatred of Jews," Rabbi Daniel Greyber of Durham, North Carolina commented after the Bondi Beach attack.
A Government That Can't Be Trusted
And there's little reason Australian Jews should trust the Australian government.
At a December 14 press conference responding to the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, Prime Minister Albanese denounced the perpetrators and assured Jews "you have every right to be proud of who you are and what you believe." But then a journalist pointed out inconvenient facts:
"In September, your government recognized a Palestinian State. Your ministers have attacked the Israeli Government. Senior ministers refused to visit the sites of the October 7 massacres. And you created a Special Islamophobia Envoy alongside an Antisemitism Envoy. Have you taken the threat of antisemitism seriously? And can you guarantee the safety of Jewish Australians?"
Albanese's reply wasn't impressive and didn't matter anyway. Rabbi Eli Schlanger, among those murdered at Bondi Beach, wrote to Albanese in September as his government rewarded Hamas' attack on Israel by recognizing a Palestinian state: "As a Rabbi in Sydney, I implore you not to betray the Jewish people." Schlanger wasn't alone in his concerns—other members of the community share them.
Whether or not the Australian government's policy choices promote the country's interests in the long run, it's clear the country's Jews can't look to the state for protection. It's not especially sympathetic to their situation to begin with. Nor does the Australian government much care for people defending themselves. As JB Solicitors, a Sydney law firm, advises: "In Australia, the law generally forbids an individual to carry or use weapons for self-defence." Had Ahmed al Ahmed, the brave man who was wounded while disarming one of the Bondi Beach attackers, used a knife or a pipe to take down the terrorist, he might have faced charges himself.
And yet, Albanese's government plans to further tighten laws that might be obeyed by the peaceful citizens of Australia but will have little effect on people who plan mass murder.
Deference to Authorities Is Foolish in the U.S., Too
Even citizens of the United States, where self-defense rights are better recognized than in most other countries, can fall afoul of demands that we rely on the authorities to protect us. As I write, police in Rhode Island are still looking for a shooter who killed two students and injured nine others.
Brown University policy infamously dictates that "the possession, use, or storage of Weapons or Firearms is strictly prohibited on all University Property and at University-sponsored events." Instead of carrying the means of self-defense, students, faculty, staff, and visitors are expected to defer to the university's extensive surveillance camera system and the help it will supposedly summon in case of emergency.
Not only did help not arrive on time on Saturday, but the cameras apparently didn't capture a clear picture of the attacker. Brown University officials may (or may not) be better-intentioned than those of the Australian government, but their promises of protection are just as empty.
Defend Yourself and Your Community
Such promises are inevitably empty. The only people well positioned to respond to a homicidal attack are those there when it happens. If they have the tools and training to do something, they can deter some people with bad intentions and react appropriately to the crimes of others.
In 2019, Jack Wilson shot a gunman who opened fire in the West Freeway Church of Christ in Texas. At the time he commented, "I don't feel like I killed a human. I killed an evil" when he stopped the attack.
Ideally, nobody would ever have to rise to such an occasion. But we should all consider Ahmed al Ahmed and Jack Wilson as inspirations if it's necessary. Like Boris and Sofia Gurman, who were killed at Bondi Beach, they engaged attackers when the situation called for intervention.
Wilson's big advantage is that he was armed and prepared for such a situation.
Jews in Australia and elsewhere should draw on that lesson; they are the only people they can count on to have their own backs. But so should everybody, even if they trust their local authorities. They will be the people on the scene if something happens—not police or politicians with dedicated security details.
And so, my friend and I will soon be at another menorah lighting, along with armed members of the congregation. I'm confident nothing will happen. But we'll be ready if it does.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
We strapped on armor and pistols to patrol the crowd at the menorah lighting in Sedona, Arizona. Members of the congregation carried concealed weapons of their own.
Nothing happened, but we were there to deter problems and respond if necessary. There's a big difference between doubling down on failed state policies and taking responsibility for your own safety.
‘Nuff said.
NSW Premier Chris Minns says Parliament will be recalled on 22-23 December to pass stronger gun laws, including limits on weapon ownership, shotgun reclassifications and reduced ammunition capacity.
He will also explore prohibiting protests about “international events” if they are likely to cause disharmony to protect the multicultural community.
First - Further disarm the citizenry. Second - remove the speech rights of the white citizens. Can't have them causing disharmony to the POCs who want them dead.
Lawmakers fail to realize criminals don’t follow laws.
The author is arguing that we should make it easier for everyone, including criminals, to acquire guns.
The Bondi Beach killer acquired his guns legally. He apparently had six.
^Incredibly stupid take.
You can't argue with facts. But don't let that stop you from trying.
You are correct - Can't argue with facts.
Fact - Muslims need not be in any western society. They can be Muslims in Muslim countries.
"They can be Muslims in Muslim countries."
According to Trump and the neocons, it's not just Muslims. We can also be there too. Just ask the president about Syria, or Afghanistan or Egypt or Turkey or Iraq or Qatar or Israel or Saudi Arabia. And if we can't 'be in' somewhere like Iran, we just bomb the heck out of it. Everyone's happy.
Don't be more stupid than you have to be. Criminals already have easy access to guns. Your gun control laws do nothing to discomfit those criminals. They only impede law-abiding citizens hoping to defend themselves and their loved ones.
" They only impede law-abiding citizens hoping to defend themselves and their loved ones."
Only? They do more than that. They kill people. A legally acquired gun will do the job just as nicely as one acquired illegally. Encouraging more gun ownership will just make it easier for criminals to acquire them. The perpetrator at Bondi Beach apparently had 6 legally acquired guns.
"Criminals already have easy access to guns. "
And that's not enough for you. You want to make it even easier. You're not thinking this through.
The perpetrator at Bondi Beach was your ally.
I'm not a gun owner. Legal or otherwise.
No gun required - you can buy a can of gasoline and a lighter to follow in Bushnell's footsteps.
Adding sadism to stupidity. Not a good look outside MAGA circles.
Need you to better state your position: I'm hearing "civilian gun ownership is wrong and should be eliminated"? Or is it something else?
Something else.
So, you're a victim.
So what? The ease of acquiring guns will be balanced by the vastly increased likelihood of the perps dying in the defensive reaction. We have clear evidence here that disarming the populace does not work. I don't agree with how JD equates opposition to Israeli policy with anti-semitism, but let the Jews (and everybody else) defend themselves.
"The ease of acquiring guns will be balanced by the vastly increased likelihood of the perps dying in the defensive reaction. "
Victims of massacres like Bondi Beach are a small minority of gun victims. The majority are smaller affairs between relatives and acquaintances, where bystanders are unlikely to do the job you are counting on them doing.
Biggest are suicides, followed by gang violence.
Do you think armed bystanders are likely to intervene and stop the killers in the event they happen upon suicides and gang violence? I find the notion extremely unlikely. In the case of a suicide, a passerby could indeed intervene, but being armed would not be a plus, unless you want to turn the suicide into a murder. With gang violence, the armed passerby is faced with a dilemma. Who to kill? One gang, the other, or both? So many questions, so little time.
And you somehow imagine that the gang members aren't going to have guns in a society that has made them illegal. Criminals use criminal means to obtain the things they want, and that includes guns.
You completely miss the point, It doesn't matter how a criminal acquires his guns, it only matters if law abiding citizens are able to defend themselves against the criminal if he decides to go on a shooting spree.
If there were just 2 or 3 armed Aussie Jewish citizens at Bondi Beach that day, it would've had an entirely different outcome.
"It doesn't matter how a criminal acquires his guns"
If it doesn't matter, why do you want to make it easier for criminals to legally acquire guns?
"it would've had an entirely different outcome."
You mean everyone with a gun starts shooting at each other? Careful what you wish for.
You're clearly too stupid to realize that other armed citizens would have neutralized the shooter almost instantly, resulting in far fewer deaths and injuries. Or do you just prefer sitting ducks being slaughtered, especially if they're Jewish? Yeah, that must it.
Good grief, you leftists are about as stupid as they come.
" other armed citizens would have neutralized the shooter almost instantly,"
That's a possibility. It's also possible that anyone on the scene brandishing a firearm would become target number one for the perpetrator. And, in the heat of the moment, trigger happy bystanders gunning down each other, as well.
"especially if they're Jewish?"
You are the one who wants to make it easier for Jew Haters to acquire firearms.
Your "bystanders will get shot" position is bunk. The incidents of bystanders getting hit by armed citizens putting down a mass shooter are virtually nil. The police responses, however, have resulted in many such accidents. Your thought that the police have some innate ability with gun and civilians are incompetent boobs incapable of effective armed response is a dorm room canard.
"Your thought that the police have some innate ability with gun and civilians are incompetent boobs incapable of effective armed response is a dorm room canard."
What the fuck are you smoking? I want to abolish the police force and replace it with a voluntary people's armed militia. Give everyone who wants to join 6 months training in crime prevention and detection. Civilians are indeed incompetent boobs until they receive the right training and education. I'm sure you'd agree with me if you thought about it for a while.
Without an intact 2nd amendment, your 'militia' would degenerate into another corrupt police force,
" your 'militia' would degenerate into another corrupt police force,"
Then we just keep funding the current system. Is that what you'd prefer?
Sorry friend, but your following arguments strongly suggest that you have decided that private gun ownership should be categorically prohibited, so you willfully misunderstanding the other commenters' statements always leading you back to your prejudiced opinion.
It's hard to be honest in debate with others if your mind is not open to actually trying to understand your opponent's point of view.
"strongly suggest that you have decided that private gun ownership should be categorically prohibited"
No I haven't written that. I'm suggesting that making it easier for criminals to acquire firearms will lead to more murders.
" if your mind is not open to actually trying to understand your opponent's point of view."
I understand your point of view. I don't think you understand it. It's an emotional reaction and you haven't thought it through.
No, he's not. Yes, if the perpetrator had no criminal record, he would still be able to buy guns. Show me where the author said there should be no legal restrictions on convicted criminals owning guns. If the guns are outlawed, the killers would get them on the black market. Prohibitive restrictions or prohibition will spawn or expand the black market. Or in this case, the perps could have used vehicles and done as much damage. The perps had terrorist connections. They'd be more than capable of obtaining whatever they needed, guns or whatever, to commit the crime.
The best defense is to actually have a defense, but also a deterrence - guns carried by peaceable people. The perps don't want to risk being shot and incapacitated and not be able to escape, and not be able to escape via suicide.
Also, society is safer when the bad guys don't know who's armed.
As if you think you can sell the idiotic idea that the black market can somehow be effectively stopped.
All restrictive laws do is make it harder for the law abiding, peaceable citizenry to arm themselves, and you know it.
Disharmony, can you get any more Orwellian than that?
A good article with points well made. Good job Tuccille.
I too say excellent points. I had a shotgun in my room in college. Glad the statute of limitations has run. Not to defend myself but to go hunting, but it would have worked both ways.
When I visited Australia four years ago the police had a roadblock in Newcastle and their were interested in my possession of a weapon and they had that arrogant attitude of people who can carry when a weapon when they know you cant.
No matter, criminals will always get guns, good to have someone can defend when they do.
" but it would have worked both ways."
You say that but how do you know if it's true? Being able to point a gun and pull the trigger on a wild beast while hunting doesn't mean you could do the same with a human. People in this situation are prone to hesitate, even momentarily, leading to fatal results for the person who owns a gun for self protection. Ironically, in this case, if the person was unarmed, seen to be unarmed and posing no threat, they may have survived the encounter.
"they had that arrogant attitude "
Your own attitude is a little arrogant.
You are free to forgo owning a firearm. Leave the rest of us alone, fuckface.
I have no problem with you or the rest of you owning a firearm. I have a problem when one of you massacres a bunch of people with your legally acquire firearm. If you think that legal possession mitigates your evil deeds, guess again.
If you think legal possession precipitates illegal deeds you have all the work in front of you to prove that load of nonsense.
This is not a court of law or a mathematics symposium. I don't have to prove anything.
"If you think legal possession precipitates illegal deeds"
That is crazy talk. We all know It's the affliction called Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) that precipitates wicked deeds.
If you want credibility, you do.
Reason may have final found their calibration standard for the Waltz-o-meter.
You should protest, in the same manner as Bushnell did.
This attacker was an ally of yours.
100%
What the fuck are you doing here commenting on a Reason article? In case you didn't get the memo, Libertarians are staunch defenders of the 2nd Amendment (and that's one of the few things we all have in common these days).
Based on the abject stupidity of your comments, it looks like you're just another extreme leftist posing as a Libertarian and you're here to argue with people who are far more intelligent than you to see if any of your leftist bullshit sticks to the wall (hint: it won't).
That said, you can fuck off whenever it's convenient.
I have nothing against the second amendment. I am simply pointing out that more firearms in the hands of more people more willing to use them will result in more killing. If that's what you want, fine. Be aware that Bondi Beach style massacres are extremely rare. We all love to revel in the gory details but most gun murders are humdrum affairs involving a few relatives and acquaintances. If you don't want more murders, you need to take a moment and think things through. Take a day, even, I'm not rushing you.
If the peaceable people have firearms, it makes the non-peaceable people less willing to do anything that would justify defensive use by an intended victim.
Total bullshit. The annual log of successful civilian self defense gun uses are online for your perusal. The "hesitate and get shot" phenomenon is also a TV theme canard with no statistical support.
" The "hesitate and get shot" phenomenon is also a TV theme canard with no statistical support."
Hesitation in the heat of the moment is no myth.
There is a substantial body of evidence demonstrating humans’ seemingly natural aversion to killing. Much of the research in this area has been conducted by the military; analysts have found that soldiers tend to intentionally fire over the enemy’s head, or not to fire at all.
Studies of combat activity during the Napoleonic and Civil Wars revealed striking statistics. Given the ability of the men, their proximity to the enemy, and the capacity of their weapons, the number of enemy soldiers hit should have been well over 50 percent, resulting in a killing rate of hundreds per minute. Instead, however, the hit rate was only one o two per minute. And a similar phenomenon occurred during World War I: according to British Lieutenant George Roupell, the only way he could get his men to stop firing into the air was by drawing his sword, walking down the trench, “beating [them] on the backside and … telling them to fire low”.[sup]1[/sup] World War II fire rates were also remarkably low: historian and US Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall rerported that, during battle, the firing rate was a mere 15 to 20 percent; in other words, out of every hundred men engaged in a firefight, only fifteen to twenty actually used their weapons. And in Vietnam, for every enemy soldiers killed, more than fifty thousand bullets were fired.[sup]2[/sup]
What these studies have taught the military is that in order to get soldiers to shoot to kill, to actively participate in violence, the soldiers must be sufficiently desensitized to the act of killing. In other words, they have to learn not to feel – and not to feel responsible – for their actions. They must be taught to override their own conscience. yet these studies also demonstrate that even in the face of immediate danger, in situations of extreme violence, most people are averse to killing. In other words, as Marshall concludes, “the vast majority of combatants throughout history, at the moment of truth when they could and should kill the enemy, have found themselves to be ‘conscientious objectors’”.[sup]3[/sup]
LOL. Stick to civilians who voluntarily armed themselves instead of 18 year old draftees plucked from their mothers breast. Six to ten independent media civilian gun self defense reports each month appear in the front of the NRA's hunting and firearms publications for the last 65 years.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/Armed-Citizen The Crime Prevention Resource Counsel keeps a month tally also: https://crimeresearch.org/2025/11/defensive-gun-uses-by-people-legally-carrying-guns-cases-during-february-2025/ You have any published news reports for the last 60 years memorializing your civilian "shit your pants and can't fire" bad outcomes?
The NRA is an NGO dedicated to gun ownership. I suspect their findings. And while you're at it, tell me how you think a heavily armed neighbor is going to stop the drunk next door from shooting his wife and children.
The "Armed Citizen" reports are of verified instances of self defense by the person using a firearm.
You can 'suspect' all you want, but those reports have the citation from the news source they quote from.
How often does that happen? Cite. Without a gun, he could use a baseball bat or knife. Most men have a weight advantage, anyway. If the wife has access to a gun, she could overcome the weight disadvantage and effectively stop the attack.
You're flailing here. Give it up, you've lost.
Good take J.D., thank you.
Legally owned, bolt action, in a land with the harshest restrictions in the pipeline, and still a mass shooting.
However, what is the constant? Religious (Islam shocking) motivated insanity. How about we work on that instead?
"How about we work on that instead?"
Peace on the middle east? That's tough as long as social media keeps flooding the Muslim world with images of Muslim children being starved, bombed, or shot at by Israel, a notorious non Moslem country surrounded by Muslims. Australia made a start with the recognition of Palestine, but Australia is at best a bit player in this game.
"Legally owned, bolt action, in a land with the harshest restrictions in the pipeline, and still a mass shooting. "
I don't know the stats, but I think most gun victims in the US, at least, are shot by legally owned weapons, and mostly by vanilla handguns and rifles, with the odd shot gun thrown in. Not your fancy pants 'assault rifles' of any description.
How about we work on that instead?
How about the entire nation of Israel convert to Islam? They can then carry on with their genocide against Palestine with impunity, and encouragement, both open and covert, from the rest of the planet. Everyone's a winner.
Found the Muslim murder sympathizer. Motherfucker ignores the Oct 7 massacre but vilifies Israel.
Crusades are needed and overdue. No more fucking around.
"Motherfucker ignores the Oct 7 massacre but vilifies Israel. "
Thoritsu was asking about solving the middle east. If we ever get around to it, that'll be part of it, mark my words. The West has a long history of appeasing terror. You can stamp your feet in frustration all you want, but learn from history, at least.
"Crusades are needed and overdue."
Because the first round didn't work so well. Christian don't dominate Jerusalem and their presence is marginal. Advice from first paragraph (learning from history) applies here as well.
In 2018 a guy started to shoot up a restaurant a couple miles from my house and TWO people shot and killed him. That's how you do it.
"That's how you do it."
It's arguably a way to put an end to massacres like Bondi Beach. But the perpetrator would have to pull out his weapon, shoot and likely kill at least one victim before gun wielding bystanders put an end to his life. You want no victims? Maybe bystanders taking the initiative and shooting anyone whom they think is going to start murdering people?
And the vast majority of murders are small numbers of victims by relatives or acquaintances. That's unlikely to change even if the neighbors are armed to the teeth and just as trigger happy.
Remember when you described Goering as Shakespearean?
Falstaffian. A recurring character in some of Shakespeare's historical dramas. Look it up. The science fiction writer Jose Philip Farmer also chose Goering to use as a character in his Riverworld series. And this year's 'Nuremberg,' a Hollywood thriller with Russel Crowe playing the G man. $24 million at the box office so far according to Wikipedia.
Sinwar would have agreed with you - perhaps he accidentally clicked on your blog before his death.
100.000 000 000% gun control is not possible. The system leaks. There are going to be bad people with guns. Get used to it. Sad as it is, the actual solution is more armed people in all places at all time upping the odds that a wacko like the one at Brown gets stopped as soon as he shows his weapon.
You're assuming that the kind of people who frequent the Brown campus are quicker to the draw, more trigger happy, more confident and prepared than a perpetrator determined to kill with months planning and preparing for the attack. Again, I urge you to put the emotional reaction aside and think this through.
Your side is running on pure emotion ("trigger happy" LOL). The pro armed defense side doesn't need to actually to draw and kill to have a life saving effect on a macro level. The deterrence of potentially encountering armed resistance is a persistent force inhibiting criminal violence. The proof is that none of the rabid anti-2nd Amendment folk ever advertise their position by posting for public information on their homes that "This is a Gun Free House".
Criminologist have interviewed serial violent predators to query them on how they selected their victims. The felons responded universally that they avoided attacking anyone who presented the potential of armed resistance.
"Your side is running on pure emotion "
I have an emotional reaction to mass murder. But I can still follow through the implications of the policies you are supporting.
"The deterrence of potentially encountering armed resistance is a persistent force inhibiting criminal violence."
Bondi Beach was not an act of criminal violence. It was a terror attack. Your inability to distinguish between the two underscores the lack of thought you've put into this. Most murders are acts of criminal violence between relatives and acquaintances in the intimacy of the home or workplace. Random armed bystanders and passersby aren't likely to do what you believe they'll do.
You're attempting to use the 'If it isn't 100% effective, it's 100% useless" smear,
Give it up, you have no talking point that hasn't been seen, dragged. and swept into the trashbin for the past several decades.
I didn't say no victims. Three people were shot but none died because good guys with guns stopped him. There could be a shooter that doesn't hit anyone before he's neutralized. Retaliatory force is a response.
If politicians were serious about wanting to stop shootings, they would go into the inner cities and get the guns from the gangbangers and drug dealers. The fact that they haven't shows they aren't serious. They just want to take guns from law abiding cities. Why make more gun laws when they don't enforce the ones already on the books?
Roughly 63 counties, about 2 percent of the country, account for over half of all murders in the U.S.
Just 5 percent of counties account for roughly 75 percent.
Within those counties, violence is often relegated to urban areas, sometimes confined to just a few city blocks. It is an extraordinarily narrow problem and is driven almost entirely by gang violence.
At the same time, about 52 percent of U.S. counties typically record zero murders, many of them with very high rates of gun ownership.
"If politicians were serious about wanting to stop shootings,"
They'd make selling drugs legal. I bet that given the choice, drug users would much rather buy their drugs from non criminals.
Agreed. After the end of alcohol prohibition in 1934, the homicide rate plummeted by 40%. Look up: homicide rates after end of prohibition. The single best measure to reduce gun violence would be to legalize drugs.
After the horrific mass murder by gun in 1996, Australia passed strict gun laws and had a huge gun buy back program. Since then, gun murder had declined by 65%....a huge success.
And for 29 yrs Australia has no zero mass murder by gun, while the US, with more and more guns, has one nearly every day.
Now Australia will again tighten its gun laws, based on the way stricter gun laws and fewer guns reduced gun murder by 65% and no mass gun murders since 1996.
The idea that a nation needs more guns and more armed citizens is refuted by the facts, in every other advanced nation with 90%+ lower gun murder rates than the US where 45,000 die by gun every year, 800,000 since 9/11 and mass gun murders happen almost every single day, while they have not happened for 29 yrs.
To argue that the way to reduce gun violence, given this history, is more guns, more armed people, easier access to guns is pure madness which, in the extreme, leads to a nation where mass shootings occur every day and rather than almost never, almost always. Don't be stupid. The nations with the fewest guns have the fewest gun murders (and overall murders).
Since 9/11, the nation with the most guns (nearly half of all private guns in the world), has had about 350,000 gun murders, while Japan once with as high a gun murder rate as the US, had in 2022, one gun death and the UK, with just as many poor, immigrants, and mentall disturbed has about 25 gun deaths a yar. The US has 45,000....more guns, more gun deaths......a fact.
Nations with the fewest motor vehicles have the fewest motor vehicle deaths. So what? Eliminate motor vehicles? Rational citizens have made the reasoned decision that arms enhance their safety and recreational opportunities. Aberrational incidents overwhelmingly inside liberal urban hellscapes are a poor basis to disenfranchise the overwhelmingly peaceful citizens of their civil right. Better to discuss the fact that most mass shootings occur in areas where citizen gun carry is prohibited, ie, free fire zones for criminals.
The genie is out of the bottle anyway. 400 million privately owned firearms now, in an age where a 3-D printer can create serviceable pistol and AR receivers in a bedroom. You have no realistic way of confiscating the guns that are out there, and voluntary surrender will predictably produce minimal turn-ins as this ain't Australia.
And voluntary turn-in didn't work that well in AUS anyway. Something like 90% of the guns simply went underground. IIRC that was about the same compliance rate as was seen in Connecticut when they passed some sort of gun grabbing legislation a few years ago.
The genie is out of the bottle. Deal with it.
Now Australia will again tighten its gun laws, based on the way stricter gun laws and fewer guns reduced gun murder by 65% and no mass gun murders since 1996.
So the first set of gun laws failed?
If they failed, why not repeal them?
If they succeeded, why tighten them?
Well, how many of those gun deaths were suicides? A lot of them. Also, you should exclude gang bangers killing gang bangers. After that, the US gun death toll looks very European.
I also serve on my church’s security team; it has often been observed that perpetrators assess their intended targets, and when they perceive a defensive ability they go elsewhere to commit their crime. I am grateful that we can take such measures (with the encouragement of local and state police) vs having to rely on the misguided intentions of feckless politicians (who often rely on their personal security while telling you that you cannot).
And the sad truth is that the folks in Rhode Island have made gun ownership difficult, and Brown specifically prohibits non-police from carrying weapon on campus. Ergo: everyone on campus is a sitting duck.
Gun free zones; as with virtually all gun control, it gives someone the illusion that they’ve done something while in fact it just renders those who follow the laws and rules defenseless.
Show me one case, absent thorough screening and enforcement (airport security, federal building) where a “gun free” zone has worked
If you're in Contra Costa county California; You need to remember that the God Dam Mother Fucking Useless Chicken Pigs and our Soros DA Diana Becton will ruin your life for defending yourself, even if there are 30 of them and Porkey is too frightened to get out of it's new Dodge.