In the aftermath of the horrifying terrorist attack on Bondi Beach, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns wasted no time stepping up to a podium — not to demand answers for the public’s burning questions about security failure, or to explain how law enforcement allegedly stood down while innocent people were gunned down in broad daylight — but to call for even more gun control.
The bodies weren’t even buried yet.
Minns, when asked whether more stringent laws could be enacted, answered with an emphatic “yes,” then went on to suggest that unless you’re a farmer or work in agriculture, there’s no reason to own what he calls “massive weapons.” The implication is clear: civilians don’t need them, shouldn’t have them, and the government will be there to protect you — eventually.
Except that’s precisely what didn’t happen on Sunday.
Let’s be clear: One of the terrorists reportedly legally owned the firearms used in the attack. He had a license. He passed the checks. The system worked — until it didn’t. That’s the part Premier Minns glossed over. No explanation as to whether the attacker was a farmer. No clarification about how those background checks failed to red-flag a man capable of mass murder. No accountability for the response time or for the claims from eyewitnesses who say police were already on scene but didn’t engage the shooter.
NEW: Chris Minns, the Premier of New South Wales, is calling for stronger gun-control measures in the wake of the deadly attack at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, which left 15 victims dead.
“It means introducing a bill to parliament to — I mean, to be really blunt — make it… pic.twitter.com/26WQz63Ssg
— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 15, 2025
Instead, we’re offered the standard pivot: tighten the laws further and squeeze law-abiding citizens, the very people who weren’t the problem.
This is the well-worn playbook. A tragedy occurs. Public grief becomes public anger. Politicians redirect it toward a familiar target — the tool, not the hand that wielded it. Never mind that the attacker didn’t obtain the gun illegally. Never mind that no law proposed by Minns would have disarmed this killer. Never mind that Australians, already living under some of the strictest gun laws in the Western world, are being told that freedom must shrink even further in the name of safety.
And what about self-defense? Minns offered no words about the right of innocent people to protect themselves. No plan for quicker police intervention. No solution for terror threats in open public spaces. Just a condescending reminder that, unless you’re tilling soil for a living, you have no need for “massive weapons” — whatever that vaguely means.
Premier Minns seems more concerned about law-abiding citizens than those who break the laws in the most horrific fashion possible. And that’s the most dangerous assumption of all.
