It’s a familiar script in the United States. Another mass shooting tears through a community. Voices on the left call for tighter gun laws. And conservatives – politicians, pundits, and voters – push back: “It’s too soon. Let people mourn. Don’t politicise tragedy. We’re too emotional to discuss policy while communities are grieving.”
It’s framed as decency. Respect the grieving. Wait until the funerals are over.
But when a mass shooting claimed 15 lives at Bondi Beach on December 14, 2025 – targeting a Jewish Hanukkah celebration – that restraint vanished almost instantly from many American conservatives.
Within hours, pro-gun voices – including that of the U.S. vice president – were declaring Australia’s strict laws a failure. To paraphrase; “See? Even with gun control, mass killings happen.” “If only someone in the crowd had been armed.” “Disarmament leaves people defenceless.”
Never mind that the attackers used legally obtained firearms in a country where such weapons are heavily restricted. Never mind that 15 dead is devastating – but experts note it could have been far worse without those very laws limiting access to high-capacity weapons. And never mind that Australian families were still in shock, identifying loved ones, and holding the first funerals.
Suddenly, “too soon” didn’t apply. A foreign tragedy became instant fodder to defend the status quo at home.
This isn’t just insensitive – it’s peak hypocrisy.
The same voices demanding silence after American shootings show no hesitation using Bondi to argue against reform. Australia’s pain is fair game if it fits the narrative that gun laws don’t work and more guns are the answer.
But the evidence says otherwise.
Australia’s post-1996 Port Arthur reforms – bans on semi-automatics, strict licensing, buybacks – dramatically reduced mass shootings. Before the laws: 13 in 18 years. Since: virtually zero, until the Bondi terrorist attack breached the system with legally held guns.
Firearm deaths plummeted. No significant substitution to other weapons. Australians overwhelmingly support the laws, and even after Bondi, the national conversation is about tightening them further – capping ownership, closing loopholes – not loosening.
We didn’t trade freedom for safety. We chose a society where mass shootings aren’t routine.
So when Americans – especially those blocking change amid hundreds of mass shootings yearly – rush to mock or lecture while we’re burying a 10-year-old girl, a Holocaust survivor, a rabbi, and others, it stings.
We didn’t invite commentary during our darkest days. We certainly don’t need it from a nation where “thoughts and prayers” follow tragedy like clockwork, without action.
If “too soon” is a real principle, apply it everywhere. Let Australia grieve without turning our horror into your talking point.
Selective decency isn’t decency. It’s opportunism.
Australia will heal, strengthen our laws, and stand against hate. We’ve done it before.
Perhaps it’s time for consistent respect – or admit the “mourning” rule was never about compassion at all.
See also:
JD Vance’s gratitude for the Second Amendment: bloodstained and blind
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
The USA is being flooded with “peak hypocrisy” to the point where it is in danger of becoming normalized, many would argue it already had been.
It is important that we guard against that ourselves. Hypocrisy has obviously always existed, but it is important to point it out when it happens.
There have been numerous examples of egregious hypocrisy since the shootings. Josh Frydenberg’s naked weaponization of this tragedy followed by taking offense at being confronted by it is one such example. News Corp and in particular Markson and Bolt are another, where criticism of Graeme Richardson’s actions during his life were condemned by them but weaponization of grief is fair game (Richo was possibly not the best example available, but first to come to mind.) The pro-Israeli lobby extremists, led by Jillian Segal, who rightly speak of the grief within our community but then trample all over it to pressure a weak Albanese government into authoritarian suppression of solidarity against a genocide.
The list of those mouthing grief out of one side of their mouths but pushing a political agenda out of the other is long – Sussan Ley, Chris Minns, Pauline Hanson, Barnaby Joyce, Josh Burns, Julian Leeser off the top of my head.
Sadly, politicians will be sought out and pressed by some within the media at times like these, but a couple stood out tall for me. The first was the new NSW Liberal leader in Kellie Sloan who when faced with a dog whistle of question from Sharri Markson rightly refused to take the bait and instead expressed grief and shock only at a time when she was clearly in shock. The other was Mehreen Faruqi who when basically and ridiculously accused of being the cause of this massacre by Sharri Markson, quietly stood her ground as best as anyone could as Markson disgracefully tried to coerce an apology.
Surely the simple fact that Ahmad Al Ahmad has been widely praised for preventing more deaths is proof in itself that the guns are the problem!
And what did he do ?
He took the killer’s gun!
That’s it! With no weapon the killer was unable to kill more people!
If guns are so effective at preventing shootings, why does USAnia have so many firearm deaths?
Your point is well made Kerrie, but the the killer got another gun and… whether or not he slaughtered more people… I don’t know. But what a paradox… the hero acted righteously by not shooting the terrorist when he could have… yet doing the right thing gave evil another opportunity to have its murderous way.
Paul Smith – the hero clearly did NOT want the death of another human on his conscience, we cannot blame him for that even though a desire for revenge is strong in most people. He also needed to ensure that he did not present himself as a target, a man with a gun, to other police who did not know he had disarmed the killer. He behaved in the most exemplary fashion, holding his arms out before putting the gun down and stepping away all the while making sure the killer did not come back to grab it. We can all learn a great deal from him.
Look up US Koch Network’s Heritage Foundation, then search ‘Project Esther’ where the plan is plain sight…..