NSW Puts Rifle-Armed Police on Street Corners. An Op-Ed Calls That Dangerous.
The New South Wales government under Premier Chris Minns is posting police carrying long-range rifles on street corners and plans to allow armed private security at public events. An Australian opinion piece pushes back, claiming that giving good people guns creates bad people with guns. The op-ed's logic falls apart against the record. Australia's gun laws did not prevent the Bondi Beach attack, and the same argument has been tested in America and Britain for decades. The results do not favor the author.
Key Details
The op-ed centers on two policy moves in New South Wales. The first places police with long-range rifles at street corners. The second brings armed private security groups into event venues. The author concedes that protecting members of parliament at their homes and offices might justify extra security, but he draws a hard line at armed presence in public spaces.
- Jurisdiction: New South Wales, Australia
- Government: Minns government, led by Premier Chris Minns
- Measure one: Police carrying long-range rifles on street corners
- Measure two: Armed private security groups at events
- Core claim: Giving good people guns creates bad people with guns
- Cited incident: The Bondi Beach killers, who used legally obtained firearms rather than weapons from ISIS
The Bearing Arms writer who responded to the op-ed points to three historical data points. The United Kingdom effectively abolished private gun ownership in the home. Knife and blunt-instrument crime rose sharply afterward. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 passed during a sharp spike in American homicide. The federal assault weapon ban ended in the years that followed, and the homicide rate declined afterward.
Background
Australia's firearms regime changed fundamentally after the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania in April 1996, which killed 35 people. The National Firearms Agreement that followed imposed licensing, registration, and a semi-automatic and pump-action rifle and shotgun ban. Supporters credit the NFA with ending mass shootings. Critics note that the country still faces firearm violence and that the 2024 and later debates over licensing failures remain active. The op-ed's author treats the NFA model as a baseline for public safety, which makes the Bondi Beach reference awkward. Legal ownership and state licensing did not stop an attack that the op-ed itself cites.
The U.S. side of the argument has its own record. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was signed on October 22, 1968, and expanded federal licensing and restricted interstate firearm sales. The federal assault weapon ban, enacted in 1994 under the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, expired on September 13, 2004. The Bearing Arms writer says the ban sunset in 2006. That date is wrong. The ban lapsed in 2004 and Congress never renewed it. Homicide rates in the U.S. did fall in the mid-2000s and kept falling for several years, but the decline came after a spike that predates both the ban's expiration and the 1968 law.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
This fight is not just about Australia. The argument that armed civilians or armed guards make communities more dangerous shows up in U.S. city councils, state legislatures, and event venue policies. Any gun owner who holds a permit or works security should expect this line of attack to reach American courtrooms and statehouses. The claim sounds reasonable until you test it against the data. Places that allow civilians to carry, such as Vermont and Alaska, which have permitless carry, have not seen the bloodbath the op-ed predicts. Gun owners in states with restrictive event and venue rules should track whether local governments copy the NSW model of armed police on every corner. A rule that appears in Sydney can show up in a county commission agenda within a year. Watch your state's preemption laws, your venue's carry policy, and any local ordinance that restricts armed private security. Document your training and permits, because the people who want to restrict you will use every incident to argue that armed presence creates risk.
DownRange Analysis
The op-ed fails under Bruen. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, decided June 23, 2022, requires that gun regulations match the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. A blanket claim that armed civilians create bad actors does not identify a historical analogue that justifies disarming law-abiding people in public. The argument also ignores the basic fact that criminals do not obey gun laws. Bad actors who want a weapon will find one, with or without the legal system. Disarming the people who follow the rules only shifts the advantage to the people who do not. For gun owners right now, the practical move is simple. Keep your carry training current, know your state's rules on armed security and venue carry, and stay informed on any proposal that copies the NSW approach. Ideas do not stay in one country. The worst policy ideas get exported first, and the argument that good people with guns make bad people is a clear example of one that deserves a direct answer.
