This past weekend irrevocably altered the national self-image of Australia. Bondi Beach, that global symbol of carefree hedonism and sun-worship, is now synonymous with slaughter. On Sunday evening, December 14th, two men dressed in black opened fire with long-barreled weapons into a crowd gathered to celebrate Hanukkah. Sixteen dead. Dozens wounded. This was not an “isolated incident” or a “mental health crisis,” but a brutal act of terror that struck directly at the heart of the multicultural dream.
The situation report from Bondi is chilling. It is not merely a story of violence, but a story of the total failure of the security apparatus. For decades, Australia has prided itself on having the world’s strictest gun laws—the “Gold Standard” of 1996 that was supposed to make such events impossible. And yet, in 2025, in the middle of one of the most surveilled cities on earth, two perpetrators managed to acquire heavy weaponry and execute a mass murder. The authorities were powerless until it was too late. The blood on the sand is concrete proof that the promise of a “disarmed and safe society” was a lie. And again PM Albanese gov’t’s only knee-jerk solution was “moh gunrestrictions” I find it extremely hard to believe, that ISIS terrorists would be hampered by these measures. “Five eyes” will help solving the incident, which is all and good considering they did nothing to prevent the act of terror.
Germany: The Land of Ruler-Wielding Bureaucrats
In Europe, the picture is equally bleak, though the shade of incompetence differs. The aftermath of the Solingen terror attack in 2024 remains a towering monument to bureaucratic cowardice. When a “festival of diversity” ended in a knife attack, German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser and the political elite did not discuss border control or ideological radicalization; they discussed the length of knife blades. The proposed solution was a six-centimeter limit on blades in public places—as if a terrorist measures their weapon with a ruler before committing an atrocity.
Now, in December 2025, we received another reminder of how thin the thread of our safety truly is. German police managed, at the last moment, to foil a planned terror attack on a Christmas market in Bavaria. Five arrested, including an Imam, who planned to drive a vehicle into the crowd. This time, intelligence services worked, and a catastrophe was averted. But this “success” does not remove the fundamental problem: the threat is permanent. A society that is forced to turn its Christmas markets into zones fortified by concrete bollards, relying blindly on the police getting lucky every single time, is not free. It is an open-air prison where the guards just happened to be awake this time. A foiled attack is not proof that the system works; it is a symptom of how much hatred we have allowed inside the gates.
The Prohibition Paradox: The British Black Market Bazaar
To understand the futility of the Australian government’s inevitable clampdown, one need only study the economic reality of the United Kingdom post-1997. After the Dunblane massacre, Britain banned handguns completely. The establishment cheered, believing they had “solved” gun crime. The reality, however, was a masterclass in the law of unintended consequences.
Far from disappearing, gun crime in the UK actually rose by 40% in the two years following the ban. The legislation succeeded only in disarming Olympic athletes and law-abiding hobbyists. For the criminal underworld, the ban acted as a form of deregulation. A bifurcated market emerged, driven by pure capitalism.
At the top end, “clean” and reliable firearms like Glocks or Sig Sauers became status symbols for organized crime bosses. Their scarcity drove prices up—a pristine Glock can now command between £3,000 and £5,000 on the black market. But at the bottom end, the ban created a terrifying flood of cheap, dangerous alternatives. Street gangs turned to reactivated antique weapons and, more alarmingly, converted blank-firing pistols smuggled from Eastern Europe. Reports from the mid-2000s and 2020s revealed that a lethal, albeit unreliable, firearm could be purchased in British cities for as little as £50 to £200—less than the price of a decent pair of sneakers.
Furthermore, the high cost of quality weapons gave birth to the “rent-a-gun” economy. Since a good pistol is too valuable to discard, it is now leased out by “armourers” to foot soldiers for specific hits, then returned. A single ballistic signature now links dozens of shootings across different postcodes. The government’s ban didn’t remove guns; it simply forced criminals to share them, while flooding the streets with cheap, converted junk that is harder to trace and just as deadly at close range.
The Prohibition Paradox: The British Black Market Bazaar
To understand the futility of the Australian government’s inevitable clampdown, one need only study the economic reality of the United Kingdom post-1997. After the Dunblane massacre, Britain banned handguns completely. The establishment cheered, believing they had “solved” gun crime. The reality, however, was a masterclass in the law of unintended consequences.
Far from disappearing, gun crime in the UK actually rose by 40% in the two years following the ban. The legislation succeeded only in disarming Olympic athletes and law-abiding hobbyists. For the criminal underworld, the ban acted as a form of deregulation. A bifurcated market emerged, driven by pure capitalism.
At the top end, “clean” and reliable firearms like Glocks or Sig Sauers became status symbols for organized crime bosses. Their scarcity drove prices up—a pristine Glock can now command between £3,000 and £5,000 on the black market. But at the bottom end, the ban created a terrifying flood of cheap, dangerous alternatives. Street gangs turned to reactivated antique weapons and, more alarmingly, converted blank-firing pistols smuggled from Eastern Europe. Reports from the mid-2000s and 2020s revealed that a lethal, albeit unreliable, firearm could be purchased in British cities for as little as £50 to £200—less than the price of a decent pair of sneakers.
Furthermore, the high cost of quality weapons gave birth to the “rent-a-gun” economy. Since a good pistol is too valuable to discard, it is now leased out by “armourers” to foot soldiers for specific hits, then returned. A single ballistic signature now links dozens of shootings across different postcodes. The government’s ban didn’t remove guns; it simply forced criminals to share them, while flooding the streets with cheap, converted junk that is harder to trace and just as deadly at close range.
The Australian Government’s Logical Somersault
The reaction from the Australian government following the Bondi massacre has been predictable, performative, and intellectually dishonest. Immediately following the attacks, a chorus began demanding even stricter gun laws. There lies a fallacy so obvious that ignoring it requires willful blindness.
How does tightening laws deter criminals who have just demonstrated total disregard for one of the strictest prohibition regimes in the world? The perpetrators possessed weapons that were likely illegal or acquired on the black market. When the government now floats ideas of tightening the national registry or freezing licensing processes for hobbyists, it is punishing sport shooters and hunters for the actions of terrorists. It is collective punishment directed at the wrong demographic. The government’s logic is circular: because prohibitions didn’t work, we need more prohibitions. It is akin to trying to extinguish a fire by throwing gasoline on it, hoping that this time it will suffocate the flames.
This reveals the state’s deep insecurity. It cannot prevent evil, so it seeks to control those who are controllable—the law-abiding citizens.
Britain: A Cautionary Tale of a Disarmed Dystopia
If the Australian government wishes to see where total civilian disarmament and “safety rhetoric” leads, it need only look to Britain. The island nation has served as a laboratory for a policy where handguns were banned first, followed by the tightening of every other weapon law. Once the firearms were “eradicated,” violence did not disappear; it simply changed shape.
London is now a metropolis of stabbing crime, where teenagers wage gang wars with “zombie knives” and machetes in broad daylight. Britain’s answer? Ban the knives, ban their postage, and finally, have the police proudly tweet about confiscating screwdrivers and bicycle spokes as “dangerous weapons.” Britain is a warning that when the state strips citizens of the capacity for defense, it does not create peace; it creates a society of victims. Criminals will always find a tool—be it an illegal pistol, acid, or a car—but the ordinary citizen is left completely defenseless.
The Anglo-Saxon Silence: Free Speech is More Dangerous than Guns
Perhaps the most disturbing feature of this trend in the Anglo-Saxon world (Australia, UK, Canada) is not just the physical insecurity, but the psychological climate. Governments appear to fear the reactions of their citizens and open debate more than they fear the terrorists themselves.
In Britain, and now in Australia, a doctrine prevails where, following a terror attack, the authorities’ primary concern is the combatting of “misinformation” and the policing of social media. While the bodies at Bondi were still being counted, the political machine was already worrying about whether the event would “incite hate.” It is easier and politically safer to arrest a citizen for an “incorrect” Facebook post or to suppress discussion about the link between migration policy and security, than to admit that the state has failed in its primary duty: the protection of its people.
In the modern Anglo-Saxon worldview, the desire of individuals to protect themselves—whether with arms or even with words—is seen as a threat to state authority. If you carry a weapon to protect your family, you are signaling that you do not trust the police to arrive in time. The events at Bondi Beach demonstrated in the harshest possible way that such mistrust is entirely justified. But rather than admitting this, the state prefers to silence the conversation and tighten the screws on those who would never shoot anyone.
We live in an era where the ultimate “unfashionable thought” is to state the obvious: Evil is not stopped by laws, hashtags, or blade measurements. It is stopped by force. And when the state monopolizes force but fails utterly to use it effectively—whether on the sands of Australia or the markets of Germany—all that remains is grief, anger, and a paper-flavored bureaucracy preparing the next prohibition.
How did it go? On your own opinion?
Epämuodikkaita ajatuksia 