Uploaded December 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Regarding the father-and-son duo who murdered 15 people in Bondi over the weekend in Australia’s second-worst mass shooting, second only to the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were killed in 1996: Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke confirmed the son is an Australian-born citizen, while his now-deceased father came here on a student visa in 1998, transferred to a partner visa in 2001, and held permanent residency in Australia ever since.
Although Burke never gave any details of the man’s nationality. I guess this was in a vain attempt to not cause any more social disunity in a country where social cohesion is clearly on a knife’s edge. Unsurprisingly, the attackers are both said to have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist group.
The father is reported to have been a licensed firearms holder who owned six firearms, so it is believed the firearms used in the terror attack were all legally sanctioned by the government.
Of course, the government’s immediate reaction is stricter gun laws. SBS reported: “Albanese sets ‘immediate’ gun control priorities following Bondi Beach terror attack.”
In the aftermath of this horror, where people were fleeing for their lives from a couple of heavily armed offenders, waiting desperately for police to arrive to deal with the terrorists—an agonising wait. Some viewers might suggest that gun laws need to be loosened in order to allow regular law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from such extreme violence.
As many of you would know, since the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, Australia’s gun laws are among the strictest in the world. It is essentially illegal to carry a firearm for self-defence, indeed, any weapon unless you’re an armed security guard or a police officer.
So, if you’re a regular citizen enjoying your Sunday in a park and a person with a gun starts attacking people, it would be illegal for you to pull out a firearm and shoot that individual, even if you saved lives. But if you’re a police officer in the same situation, not only would you be allowed to pull out your pistol and shoot that individual, you’d be praised as a hero.
So basically, the government / society has created a situation where innocent law-abiding citizens have no ability to defend themselves from armed attackers and are forced to wait for police to arrive while being shot at. So essentially, our gun laws have created a situation where armed terrorists get free rein for however long it takes for police to respond.
Obviously, there are exceptions to this rule as we saw with Ahmed al Ahmed who, in an extreme act of bravery, snuck up on one of the attackers and disarmed him of his firearm. Although, he was shot multiple times in the process.
If instead Ahmed was allowed to carry, say, a concealed pistol, well, perhaps this whole disaster would have been averted.
But no. Instead of thinking of sensible ways to allow some responsible community members to carry firearms just in case of these situations, the Australian Government’s natural reaction is to make it even harder for people to own firearms, thereby forcing people to be even more reliant on a police force who clearly cannot respond to these events in a timely manner. And I’m not blaming the police. They can only respond as quickly as they can, but we have to recognise that when seconds count, police are minutes away.
In those agonising minutes waiting for the police, you’re by yourself, which will seem like an eternity in a true emergency. And not only are you by yourself, the government has made laws saying that you’re not allowed to own a firearm—or any other weapon—to defend yourself, because, you know, guns kill people. Only the government are allowed to kill people.
Anyway, I’m not here to say what is right or wrong when it comes to gun laws. But certainly, gun laws weren’t the real problem in this case. Whether these guys had six guns, or five guns, or two guns, doesn’t change the fact that they were willing to kill innocent people. If they didn’t have guns, they probably would have had knives, or a car, or multiple cars. Are you telling me they couldn’t have caused equally as much terror just by driving at people in a crowded park?
Trying to blame this on guns, is like trying to blame the matches or lighter for the arsonist, or trying to blame bricks for the person who uses it to smash a window. Yes, guns are a deadly weapon, but are you telling me a vehicle isn’t a deadly weapon?
So why are the government going after guns? Because it’s the easy option. It makes it look like they’re doing something. The harder option would be to figure out what has gone wrong in Australian society, where individuals who are Australians or permanent residents are willing to murder others because of their religion. That’s obviously a much harder problem to solve, and one that this government clearly isn’t capable of solving.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
Regarding the father-and-son duo who murdered 15 people in Bondi over the weekend in Australia’s second-worst mass shooting, second only to the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were killed in 1996: Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke confirmed the son is an Australian-born citizen, while his now-deceased father came here on a student visa in 1998, transferred to a partner visa in 2001, and held permanent residency in Australia ever since.
Although Burke never gave any details of the man’s nationality. I guess this was in a vain attempt to not cause any more social disunity in a country where social cohesion is clearly on a knife’s edge. Unsurprisingly, the attackers are both said to have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist group.
The father is reported to have been a licensed firearms holder who owned six firearms, so it is believed the firearms used in the terror attack were all legally sanctioned by the government.
Of course, the government’s immediate reaction is stricter gun laws. SBS reported: “Albanese sets ‘immediate’ gun control priorities following Bondi Beach terror attack.”
In the aftermath of this horror, where people were fleeing for their lives from a couple of heavily armed offenders, waiting desperately for police to arrive to deal with the terrorists—an agonising wait. Some viewers might suggest that gun laws need to be loosened in order to allow regular law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from such extreme violence.
As many of you would know, since the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, Australia’s gun laws are among the strictest in the world. It is essentially illegal to carry a firearm for self-defence, indeed, any weapon unless you’re an armed security guard or a police officer.
So, if you’re a regular citizen enjoying your Sunday in a park and a person with a gun starts attacking people, it would be illegal for you to pull out a firearm and shoot that individual, even if you saved lives. But if you’re a police officer in the same situation, not only would you be allowed to pull out your pistol and shoot that individual, you’d be praised as a hero.
So basically, the government / society has created a situation where innocent law-abiding citizens have no ability to defend themselves from armed attackers and are forced to wait for police to arrive while being shot at. So essentially, our gun laws have created a situation where armed terrorists get free rein for however long it takes for police to respond.
Obviously, there are exceptions to this rule as we saw with Ahmed al Ahmed who, in an extreme act of bravery, snuck up on one of the attackers and disarmed him of his firearm. Although, he was shot multiple times in the process.
If instead Ahmed was allowed to carry, say, a concealed pistol, well, perhaps this whole disaster would have been averted.
But no. Instead of thinking of sensible ways to allow some responsible community members to carry firearms just in case of these situations, the Australian Government’s natural reaction is to make it even harder for people to own firearms, thereby forcing people to be even more reliant on a police force who clearly cannot respond to these events in a timely manner. And I’m not blaming the police. They can only respond as quickly as they can, but we have to recognise that when seconds count, police are minutes away.
In those agonising minutes waiting for the police, you’re by yourself, which will seem like an eternity in a true emergency. And not only are you by yourself, the government has made laws saying that you’re not allowed to own a firearm—or any other weapon—to defend yourself, because, you know, guns kill people. Only the government are allowed to kill people.
Anyway, I’m not here to say what is right or wrong when it comes to gun laws. But certainly, gun laws weren’t the real problem in this case. Whether these guys had six guns, or five guns, or two guns, doesn’t change the fact that they were willing to kill innocent people. If they didn’t have guns, they probably would have had knives, or a car, or multiple cars. Are you telling me they couldn’t have caused equally as much terror just by driving at people in a crowded park?
Trying to blame this on guns, is like trying to blame the matches or lighter for the arsonist, or trying to blame bricks for the person who uses it to smash a window. Yes, guns are a deadly weapon, but are you telling me a vehicle isn’t a deadly weapon?
So why are the government going after guns? Because it’s the easy option. It makes it look like they’re doing something. The harder option would be to figure out what has gone wrong in Australian society, where individuals who are Australians or permanent residents are willing to murder others because of their religion. That’s obviously a much harder problem to solve, and one that this government clearly isn’t capable of solving.
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
