Australians have reacted with anger and disbelief to calls from American commentators urging greater gun ownership in the wake of the Bondi tragedy, reigniting a long-standing global debate over firearms, public safety and national values.
In the days following the Bondi attack — the nation’s second-worst gun massacre — Australia’s strict firearms legislation has once again come under international scrutiny. Critics from the United States, where gun ownership is widespread and constitutionally protected, have argued that more guns in civilian hands would have reduced the death toll.
One of the most prominent voices was controversial American podcaster Matt Walsh, who devoted more than 20 minutes of a broadcast to criticising Australia’s gun laws before an audience of roughly three million subscribers. Walsh, known for his opposition to same-sex marriage and support for a total abortion ban, claimed that Australians would be safer if ordinary citizens were allowed to carry handguns — even in public spaces such as beaches.
“There were a thousand people on the beach nearby,” Walsh said. “One of them, if anyone was allowed to own handguns, would have shot these terrorists or at least forced them to retreat.”
Speaking from the United States — a country that has recorded more than 391 mass shootings in 2025 alone, according to the Gun Violence Archive — Walsh urged Australia to adopt what he described as a more “American approach” to public safety. He suggested that even the civilian hero Ahmed Al Ahmed, who confronted one of the attackers, could have ended the threat more quickly had he been armed.
Similar arguments flooded social media platform X, with gun advocates repeating the familiar slogan that “good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns”. Some posts directly referenced Bondi, claiming that if a civilian had been armed, the attackers would have been neutralised sooner and lives might have been saved.
The reaction in Australia was swift and uncompromising. Many rejected the claims as not only offensive but fundamentally incompatible with Australian social norms and lived experience. Academic Dr Jennifer Wilson condemned the comments on X, describing them as the rhetoric of “insane and dumb American gun crazies”.
“In Australia, we don’t respond to massacres with ‘thoughts and prayers’,” she wrote. “The first thing our Prime Minister does is signal a tightening of gun laws.” Wilson went further, contrasting Australia’s approach with the United States, where firearms are often framed as a personal right. “We don’t consider wearing guns to the supermarket a right — we consider it insanity,” she said.
Australia’s modern gun control framework was introduced after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, in which 35 people were killed. The reforms included a nationwide buyback scheme, strict licensing requirements and bans on certain classes of weapons. Since then, Australia has experienced a dramatic reduction in mass shooting incidents, a fact frequently cited by public health experts and criminologists.
By contrast, the United States has recorded more than 5,500 mass shooting events since the Gun Violence Archive began collecting data less than a decade ago, under far looser gun laws.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has responded to the Bondi attack by vowing to further strengthen Australia’s firearms regime, including moves to prohibit non-citizens from holding gun licences — the most significant proposed change since Port Arthur.
For many Australians, the backlash against American commentary reflects a deeper divide: not merely about gun laws, but about how societies define freedom, responsibility and the role of the state in protecting human life.
