The reaction to the Bondi Beach massacre by the Australian government leaves a lot to be desired.
"Officials vowed to pursue tougher gun laws in the wake of the shooting, including potential firearms licensing reforms, as police confirmed one of the shooters was a gun club member and held a license for the sporting-style weapons that appeared to be used in the attack," reports the Washington Post.
Meanwhile, Jews in the U.S. stepped up security at synagogues and social centers with volunteers arming themselves and working with police to prevent attacks.
In a way, the Australian response is pathetic. All the gun control measures in the world would not have stopped two fanatical antisemites from killing at least 15 people and wounding 40 more. Australia's draconian restrictions on guns came about after another massacre, this one in Port Arthur, a tourist town in the Australian state of Tasmania, where 35 people were gunned down and 23 more severely wounded by 24-year-old Martin Bryant, a psychologically disturbed man who should have been locked up.
Twenty-five people remain hospitalized as a result of the attack at Bondi Beach. This prompted Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to call for further restrictions on firearm licensing. It's a measure "more likely to disarm potential victims than to inconvenience those planning a homicidal attack," writes J.D. Tuccille in Reason.com. Sajid Akram, 50, who was also killed, and Naveed Akram, 24, had ties to radical Islamic mosques and Naveed was connected to a radical imam.
The answer isn't locking up Muslims or further restricting firearm ownership. The answer is to protect and promote self-defense as an essential component of the Second Amendment.
The implied right of self-defense has only recently been recognized by the Supreme Court.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for "traditionally lawful purposes," most notably self-defense within the home.
McDonald v. Chicago (2010): The Court extended this, stating that the right to self-defense is "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" and applies to state and local governments as well.
NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022): The Court further clarified that this right extends to carrying a firearm for self-defense outside the home in public.
How long would the father-son team of terrorists have been allowed to fire their weapons at innocent people if there were a few armed bystanders firing back?
In Australia, access to guns had little to do with the attack.
"The issue is not gun laws. It's hatred of Jews," Rabbi Daniel Greyber of Durham, North Carolina, commented after the Bondi Beach attack.
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.
When someone with murder on their mind opens fire, it's already too late for the police to respond. All the cops can do is gather evidence to catch the perpetrator and send him to prison.
My family will no doubt be grateful for the "justice" that's served. As for me, I'm dead, so I'm not caring either way.
