...Get real Andrew! Laws always impact most adversely on the innocent! In this article, the innocent are the people that are (statistically) saved by current gun control, which included the facility of gun buy-back, (which if my memory serves correctly, was a dogs breakfast for farmers exchanging old weapons for new, with a tax payers subsidy).

...But, of course the real issue with weapons and their uses in our communities, is who actually holds the weapon, legally or illegally! Daily, news is broadcast of another drive-by shooting in the two major crime cities of this great country (that once was ours), Australia.

...As loudly predicted at the time, criminals operating in the “one third zone” of the black market economy, will always have the availability of a weapon if desired, and will not hesitate to use them.

...Here is a link in support of the counter argument:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-gun-crime

diver dan
The do-gooders have innocent blood on their hands. The innocent are not allowed to defend themselves & what's theirs, yet the criminals have easy access to guns & when a tragedy occurs they get legal aid paid for by the victims & their famailies. The Left has got it so wrong that no sane mind could ever comprehend how the mentality of Left works. If there were a gauge for measuring sanity from 1 to 10, a gauge for the Left would need to read 0 to .5.
Magistrates are the worst offenders.

Have to agree with Diver! It's not the gun that is the problem, just the hands that hold it!
Apply the same logic to road deaths, and nobody would be able to get a licence to drive!
Had we had a prohibited persons register years before Hoodle street, then Hoodle st or Port Arthur may well have been averted!
The port Arthur tragedy, was carried out by a virtual moron, able to get his hands on an SLR, and then use it at pointblank range.
As Diver has already pointed out! We see plenty of drive by shootings by criminals armed with illegal weapons!
Make laws where no legal guns are able to be held by any law abiding citizen, and guess what?
The drive by shootings, by criminals armed with illegal weapons, will not only continue, but increase, with impunity.
I mean, if penalties would prevent this behavior, why hasn't the death penalty, stopped all the killings in the states?
Perhaps because, simplistic thinkers like Andrew, reject as they always have, a prohibited persons register.
And weapons fairs, where any gun sold, and then used in a crime, makes the seller an accessory before the fact!
Those folks, would make dam sure, that they had the very latest copy of a prohibited persons register.
And indeed, all licensed firearms sellers, would contribute to it! And there'd be both a cool off period/mandatory police check!
Conversely, what simplistic anti-gun thinkers like Andrew, need to contemplate, is a legal firearm, [now quite hard to get,] ought be able to be used, for self protection purposes, particularly, by properly trained homeowners, the subject of drive by shootings.
I mean, if you can't identify a legitimate target, then no trigger should be pulled! That's how professional soldiers/police persons are trained!
The average crim is not a hero, but a rank coward, who, if he thought, there was any possibility, that the trained, intended victim, could fire back and perhaps with lethal consequences, he will either desist, or go out and make a threatening phone call?
Rhrosty.

In the decade after the 1996/97 NFA, we did have a mass shooting. SEVEN people were shot, in a school (Australia's first school shooting). Of course, you might say well ONLY two died (too bad if you're one of the two, or one of their family members?) and 5 were hit, but lived. How is the poor aim of the shooter, and/or good fortune on the part of the victim, plus a lot of bravery from unarmed students and teachers, an indication of GOOD gun laws?

There was never a massacre every year, but there was about a 5 year period where we averaged one per year (three happened in the same year). Prior to that year there were 3 in 13 years, if you include the one incident where a person only killed their family, not the general public.

Queensland had, for a long time, some of the most relaxed firearms laws in the country. Yet it never had any massacres. By your logic, one could argue that having relaxed laws also stops gun massacres. Sure, QLD had shootings... but so did everywhere else... typically at a higher rate. But no massacres.

Its an interesting, and probably convenient statistic that you use the numbers of firearms brought back, versus the number of deaths in that state. The number returned has little bearing on the availability of firearms, just an indication of those that did have firearms that were prepared to comply with the law.... the people we least had to worry about.

I will give you credit that you admit (where convenient) that most of the reduction in gun deaths were from reduced suicides. Levels of method substitution are argued about, and its impossible to eliminate that in the wake of a massacre by a mentally ill man, authorities and even families would pay more attention to troubled individuals, perhaps giving them the support needed before a final act is taken. It may have had nothing to do with the lack of firearm availability at all.

I find your articles mostly concerned with specious reasoning. We change gun laws this way, and we had no massacres, therefore it worked. New Zealand also had a gun massacre about the same time, and did not make anywhere near the draconian changes Howard made, and also had no massacres... despite retaining greater numbers of firearms per capita. Hence why to say as you say that the NFA stopped massacres, is specious reasoning... because if what you said were right, without the overbearing laws that Howard introduced, New Zealand by rights, should have had another mass shooting. It didnt, whereas Australia did.

The Australian model DOES undermine sports shooting - even in your own electorate. Service Rifle shooting, is a competition which - on almost every other level in the world - uses semi automatic rifles. This is a traditional competition that has been around for over a century. When we go to New Zealand to compete, we are hopelessly outclassed. It is even worse in the US.

Also in your electorate, there would be IPSC practical pistol shooters. Everywhere else, this competition is run with firearms over .38 calibre - the limitation imposed by the NFA for target shooting, and with magazines typically around 15-17 rounds - also restricted to sports shooters in Australia. Again we have little opportunity to practice to a sufficient level to compete on a world scale in some classes (in other classes we have WORLD champions). This is a classic undermining of my ability to compete in a safe, internationally recognised sport.

If you talk to almost any shooter in the US, they too would be equally concerned about teens taking firearms out on a saturday night, since in almost every state the minimum age to possess a handgun is 21, and similarly with permits to carry a firearm in public, its minimum age is 21. I am sure you will argue this still happens, but it only highlights that laws dont stop them, but they do stop those that can obey laws, leaving them at a significant disadvantage, just for complying with the law. Fortunately in most states in the US, the law doesnt penalise you in this way, and actually recognises and supports your right to have the advantage - or at least a level playing field, in a defensive situation. In Australia, we cannot even carry pepper spray, except in WA.... and then with restrictions.

I would also note that in Australia, I can do a 10 day course, get a background check, and pay some license fees, and be lawfully allowed to carry a handgun openly, or in some cases concealed, in order to protect money or valuables over about $2k, or in some cases a VIP like a judge, an MP, or even a rock star. Why is it, Mr Leigh, that John Howard, the present government, and you, see my family, and myself, as worth less than 2 grand... or less worth of protection than say, a member of the Rolling Stones, or a judge? Why is it that I cannot do the same course, the same checks, and the same licensing, and suitably protect myself and my family?

A don't believe the guns buy back prevented so much as a single killing.
But tougher gun laws may have?
I mean, A SLR, still needs to be aimed and at a vital organ.
And that's not always easy!
As some who probably have never ever held or used any class of firearm, propose; if simply owning a firearm make one a merciless killer, then we'd all run and hide from the police!
And think, Gun crimes by police persons, match the bog standard average!
The Hoodle st massacre, was carried out by a trained soldier, armed with a bolt action rifle! Ditto Washington?
No one knows, when somebody trained to kill, is going to crack, or perhaps, already has!
However, an experienced firearms dealer, can see them coming a mile away!
Control freaks always seem to think, that some new law or prohibition will work; even though there are countless examples, where that is blatantly shown to be false! [Alcohol, abortion.]
The largest effect of the new tougher gun laws, was to make the law abiding firearm owner, far less ready to assist the authorities, for fear of somehow becoming implicated or involved.
After all this time, perhaps its time for a rethink, that as a first consequence, doesn't automatically, make the law-abiding firearm owner, the central problem!?
Switzerland was never attacked during WW11, according to German war-room documents, because they the Swiss just had too many guns in too many homes.
I believe that remains the case, and that gun crimes there, around the median average!
Rhrosty.

"Tough gun laws"?

'Tough' against whom though, certainly not 'tough' against the criminals who predictably are unaffected by the redundant bureaucratic mess of 'gun control'. All the 'gun control' does is inconvenience, irritate and introduce a raft of new high taxes for the respectable, law-abiding police-certified good citizens who seek and obtain licences and would never offend anyhow. Honestly, when will politicians like this fellow stop sledging the law-abiding and take action against the offenders?

<POLICE are seizing guns at an unprecedented rate amid deep alarm at the number of illegal firearms in the hands of criminals.

The rate of people caught illegally carrying and using guns in Victoria has jumped by 30 per cent in the past decade as black marketeers cash in.
..
In recent days, guns have been seized from members of the Finks and Outlaws motorcycle gangs.>
[Sun Herald, June12,2014]

and
<Many of the guns being seized are found by specialist squads such as the anti-bikie Echo taskforce, the armed crime taskforce and the Santiago taskforce, which was started after dozens of non-fatal shootings linked to crime families.

Some of those pictured were confiscated from Hells Angels motorcycle gang members in a major blitz on the outfit last October.>
[SunHerald,June162014]

Must be 'embraced' and 'celebrated' as part of that 'diversity-we-have-to-have', eh what?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-18/melbourne-police-target-middle-eastern-gangs/5327324

The Victorian police apparently do not agree with Andrew Leigh's positive spin on Howard's 'gun control' as being effective at all against offenders and their illegal weapons and their crimes, of course. In the Vicpol police reports, albeit hysterical as usual, there is a pointer to where the gun crime problems are coming from too, namely Middle Eastern gangs of criminals involved in stand-over and drugs. Do something about them, Mr Leigh, or does your own rigid political correctness prevent you from even identifying the real criminals?

to be continued..

continued..
Of course the leftist 'gun control' activists - who are alleged to have links with astroturfing foreign interests (eg that currency billionaire) who interfere in the social and political life of other countries, and the 'more-diversity-at-all-costs' mob are trying desperately to blame farmers for thefts committed against them. Blame farmers for crimes committed against them?! That is nasty spin.

However the real truth is that very, very few of the illegal firearms in unlicensed hands come from thefts from private licensed owners. It is very rare indeed for a crime to be committed with anything stolen from a licensed owner, as in a private citizen. Criminals prefer the new scarey, 'gangst' guns they import themselves. Even where thefts from 'private owners' have occurred -and most are from official sources such as the police themselves and park rangers have happened there have been allegations that the information could have come from lapses in police security - from police computer records including gun registry details.

What you are forever doing Mr Leigh is conflating the crimes of the criminals and their illegal firearms (which are being illegally imported to order), with the respectable, licensed, law-abiding citizens who are farmers, target shooters and the like. That is obvious and shameful, Mr Leigh. Be aware that law-abiding, respectable citizens can think independently and they vote.

According to Wikipedia in an article on Australian Massacres,
there was one massacre by fire before 1996, the Whisky Au Go Go nightclub fire in which 15 people were murdered.

Post the Gun Laws there were three massacres by fire resulting in the deaths of 36 people.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia.

Quite obviously the Gun Buy Back resulted in more murders by fire.

How astonishingly simple. The author believes that something is so and derides any opposing view, even peer reviewed academic study. No wonder he is a now a politician.

A look through past items published on this forum show nothing more inventive than the expected party lines, neatly toed.

I can show categorically that all people who die in Australia had consumed water. Clearly the water in our society is leading to all death and as soon as water is banned, death will stop soon thereafter. How ridiculous.

The author fails to note several factors; media involvement, the capture of the person accused, changes in attitude to mental health care and as has been pointed out, the fact that numerous multiple shootings have taken place since 1997.

Unfortunately for the author, the clear involvement of criminals in the majority of crime involving firearms doesn't seem so scary as portraying any of our fellow citizens as killers in waiting. This cheap vote grab must stop.

The ONLY good thing johnny coward did.
The deniers can deny it all they like but the fact remains that there has not been a single gun massacre, let alone the dozens we use to have, since the gun buyback.
Well done johnny.

Australia did not have any "mass shootings" for most of our history, Andrew, even though for most of our history since Federation, we have had very lenient gun laws. But something happened around the 1970's which caused men and kids with problems to want to mass murder people.

Guns have no will of their own, Andrew. They don't run down the street and go off by themselves. Somebody has to point the things at somebody and be callous enough to pull the trigger knowing that they are going to seriously hurt or kill somebody.

During the 70's Australian boys in school cadet uniform got on buses and trains with military rifles on their shoulders and nobody batted an eyelid. The citizens of the day did not care that kids were carrying military rifles knew that the kids carrying the guns knew right from wrong. That is a concept the kids are having trouble with today, Andew, because kids are now killing kids. One kid on the North Coast copied a rock video where a schoolboy committee suicide in class. That boy put a loaded shotgun to his head in class and pulled the trigger. Years of research has proven that glorifying suicide will cause people to emulate it, and that is why there is prohibitions on the media doing just that. But rock video's seem to be immune to that law, Andrew. Why did that happen?

Another kid shot a girl at school with a crossbow, and another one shot an other schoolboy down at a bus stop in Bankstown.

Instead of blaming guns or any other weapon, Andrew, figure out what is causing our children and our young men to think that killing somebody with a gun, or a knife, or a crosssbow is acceptable behaviour.

Culture can glamourize committing suicide for the emperor, and cause young men crash a plane onto a US navy ship. Culture can glamourize committing suicide for Allah. Culture can glamourize smoking. And culture can glamourize violence, drug taking, and the idea that murdering people for personnel reasons is a manly thing to do.

LEGO, Govts and their Corporate masters are the biggest killers on this planet by far. Wars are all about a few elites making profits and attaining power.

Motor vehicles kill more people than guns. Do we then ban them also ?

The truth is in an age of corporate control of our planet,they do not want a population than can resist their oppression.

In the 2008 GFC many lost 50% of their super/savings and no one has been charged for fraud or theft.

Now their plan is called "bail in" which is a Cyrus style theft of bank deposits.http://www.cecaust.com.au/ Joe Hockey knows all about it.

We don't have the gun murder problems anywhere near on the same scale as the USA does.....where 'the right to bear arms' seems to over-ride all other rights.

If Australia has stricter gun laws than trigger happy America, then blind Freddy can see that we are living in the safer country.

Thanks to the social media and other Internet sites which are not controlled by just a few people as the mainly anti gun mainstream media is, aspects of shootings which have been hidden in the past are now becoming more widely known. A very important one is that some massacres allegedly carried out on the initiative of a deranged "lone nut gunman" actually had far worse real causes. They have been planned by psychopathic anti gun activists to try and drum up public support for tougher gun laws. Nowadays anyone interested can Google eg "Port Arthur Massacre Coverup" and examine the large amount of info that comes up. Far more than those who don't want the real story revealed can dismiss as unfounded conspiracy theories peddled by gun nuts.

It is obvious for several reasons that MARTIN BRYANT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE PORT ARTHUR GUNMAN! Also, that he was selected and some work was done to set him up to take the blame well in advance. Seems one important reason for it being the last of a run of massacres - of which some others also have strong indications of being planned is that it was in some ways a big stuff up.

Firstly, it appears the original intended victims were a group of elderly American tourists. This would have helped than US President Bill Clinton's anti gun agenda. The shootings were planned to happen on the Isle of the Dead, the Port Arthur cemetery, which could have minimised possible problems from un co-operative witnesses. Problem was planners did not realise ferry timetable had been changed and it left too late to fit in with other arrangements. So the (real) gunman instead shot a number of people starting in in the Broad Arrow Café. Seems this unintentionally included operatives involved in the conspiracy which would have made subsequent planned massacres in Australia more unpalatable. Unlike as it seems in the USA, where Sandy has been obviously just one of many. (continued)

The massacre ended as planned with a siege at the Seascape Cottage to enable the real gunman to get away and frame Martin Bryant, who had been friends with the owners. Seems thought he was playing hostage - In a police exercise witn staged supposed "lone nut" shootings, gunman usually supposedly commits suicide or is killed in shootout with police. However, this failed and so did attempt to have him fatally burnt in fire at Seascape Cottage. So then he was portrayed as guilty by what amounted by contempt of court by mainstream media. However, any attempt to prove this against a proper contested defence would undoubtedly have been thrown out of court. Martin was then kept in illegal solitary confinement for six months. Until he could be cajoled to plead guilty to all charges as undoubtedly at leats most charges would have been thrown had there been a proper defence

Susieonline.

If all of the people murdered in the USA with firearms were taken completely out of the US crime statistics, their homicide rate would still be twice the Australian rate. Blind Freddy would then conclude that something other than the mere presence of firearms makes Americans more violent and more prone to use any kind of weapon to solve their personnel problems, than Australians do.

Two aspects of US culture makes them different to us. First, their ethnic demographics. As in Australia, gun crime is concentrated among those ethnic communities which are already notorious for their violent cultures. Here in Australia (according to the NSW Bureau of crime Statistics) in 2001, 55% of the handgun shootings in the entire state of NSW occurred within the precincts of two ethnic ghettoes notorious for their high rates of drug abuse, welfare dependency, and crime rates.

You and I both agree that strict firearm laws can greatly aid in the prevention of serious crimes like massacres. But yesterday, the Sydney Opera House banned a speech by Uthman Badar, entitled "Honour Killings are Morally Justified." because of public outrage. If you import people like that with those attitudes into your country, then women are going to be beaten and murdered despite whatever gun laws you initiate.

The second factor is that US culture under the First Amendment allows much greater freedoms for greedy media corporations to present the idea that taking illegal drugs is fun, using any sort of weapon to solve personnel disputes is manly, that mass murderers are really admirable men, that bashing skanko ho bitches is what a streetwise homeboy does, and that shooting kids down at school makes you famous.

Violent societies need strict gun laws and non violent societies do not. For most of Australia's history, our firearm laws were very lenient but we are now seeing levels of crime undreamed of in even our parents day. We are also seeing the media producing entertainment media with anti social messages aimed directly at our kids, and then we wonder why they are beginning to think like Uthman Badar.

"Put another way, there is better than a 99 in 100 chance that Australia's gun buyback helped avert mass shootings."

I agree. I agree with a "gun buy back" I do NOT agree with the more stringent gun laws. In the time it took you to write this, more people died of TB in PNG then were "saved" by controlling whether others purchased guns. So why is saving the most lives not more important to you ? Why not advicte we pay for vaccinations for all of the citizens of PNG if you're concerned with saving lives ? I suspect concern has nothing to do with it and it's a cloak under which gun law advocates hide.

I put it to you the deaths are the theatre to distract people, for three main reasons:

1. guns scare some people, mostly city folk who are scared at their own shadow. I don't have any empathy for being scared when there is no threat. Grow up, you're not a child.

2. by using this theatre people are distracted from the very real issue of mental illness which is swept under the table. In this I think you are complicit in making mental health issues worse.

3. sociopaths love being a control freaks, whether that's at the end of a gun or at the end of piece legislation where they outsource the bullying of some citizens to others.

Imagine; for "owning" an unlicensed gun you are put in gaol... Not hurting anyone, not damaging anyones property but to have armed "thugs" invade your house, put cuffs on you and take away your freedom ? To advocate that action is justified, to do such a thing to a fellow citizen, repugnant and shame on you.

In part answer to mox, an arrogant and feckless Australian media ensured that the police investigation of Port Arthur and trial of Bryant were frustrated and contaminated. As is only to be expected, the media acted disgracefully to publish unflattering photos of the alleged offender as well as other details that could result in a mistrial.

It is the same media selfishness and lack of concern for the public that continue to exhume such dreadful events to further sensationalise, causing untold suffering to surviving families, and to buff the notoriety of offenders, which gold-plates the dreadful deeds as a serious consideration for any disaffected, angry person who is alienated against society and would like similar public notoriety for himself.

I will leave that alone because I do believe that the offender is in gaol and should remain there forgotten until fungus grows over him.

My interest is in laws being based on evidence and that government demonstrates that value for taxpayers' money is always being obtained, which requires transparency through independent comprehensive audits. That is not being done on 'gun control'. It is not being done in several other areas of government that soak up millions of taxpayers' $$ annually for scant returns and indigenous affairs is one such.

Glib politicians who cynically pursue populism and cannot be frank, candid and practical with the public might 'win' in the short term and sometimes in the longer term too, but how do they sleep at night?

Onthebeach, there are a number of things that indicate Martin Bryant was not the main Port Arthur gunman. I seems that there was more than one person who fired shots but maybe only one responsible for killings. A couple of important points are that Martin Bryant had previously been a left handed obviously very amateurish shooter. Could not have suddenly transformed into a right handed crack shot. Also, several witnesses who police did not want statements from said the gunman was probably aged around 20 and had a heavily pock marked face. Martin Bryant was obviously in late 20's and had a smooth complexion. It seems the real gunman was a young bloke from South Australia who committed suicide six months later. His father, who had apparently been a police officer in the past was at Port Arthur when the massacre occurred and almost certainly had some involvement.

What is needed is a proper trial for Martin Bryant, who almost certainly should be acquitted and pardoned. Then it needs a proper investigation as to who were the REAL CRIMINALS arranging and covering up this atrocity. Obviously includes some senior politicians and police. Including John Howard who has claimed that getting his gun laws through was his greatest achievement. Wonder what his comments will be if he faces charges of accessory after the fact of murders and perverting the course of justice for his helping with the coverup.

Among all the recent shootings in the USA recently, it seems some of those to alleged to be done on the initiative of deranged lone individuals have been planned by anti gun psychopaths to generate propaganda. Needs proper investigations into incidents that appear suspect. Including the widely publicised Sandy Hook and Columbine incidents. Evidence which the mainstream is not inclined to publish can now be readily circulated via the Internet and anyone interested can often readily locate it using Google searches.

Re the compulsory so called gun "buyback" in Australia: This cost around %500 million and was financed by a surcharge on the Medicare levy. "What did it achieve to promote public health and safety though? Bureau of Statistics figures and academic studies I have seen indicate it had no significant effects at reducing deaths from gunshots. Even if it had, as claimed by spin from anti gun activists, would have still been very inefficient use of public money. Think of the lives that could have been saved if instead, for example, 500 hospitals had been each given an extra million dollars in funding.

Martin Bryant had a measured IQ of 66 and had been granted a state disability pension for that reason. Laughed at and bullied at school, socially inadequate and unable to make friends, he was desperately lonely and nursed deep feelings of anger at his rejection.

As expected from such a young man with low social self esteem, he become obsessed with firearms and violent video's. His favourite saying was "Don't fuckk with the Chuck!", an expression used by the psychopathic doll in the movie 'Child's Play", the same movie thought to influence 11 year old James Bulger to murder a 4 year old boy in England.

One by one, the people who had maintained his mental equilibrium died or left. The last was a young girl with whom he had had a brief relationship. For Bryant, there was nothing left but his feelings of loneliness, inadequacy, rejection and anger.

People like Bryant, or Wade Frankum, or Julain Knight, or any of the other people who go on shooting sprees, had always existed in society. But never before had it gotten into their befuddled heads to commit massacres, even though self loading hunting rifles had existed since 1887. But today's violent movies where heroes shoot down the people they despise all over the place (including the police in the "Rambo" FIRST BLOOD movie), provided a script for men like Bryant at how a Real Man reacted to people or communities who persecuted or humiliated them. For Bryant, it meant more than life itself for him to be seen as a person who should be respected and admired, instead of a weak and stupid one to be laughed at and shunned.

To produce movies which show mass killers who kill for personnel reasons as strong and powerful heroes to be admired by the public, instead of what they really are, weak and stupid, is to sow the seeds of infamy on fertile ground.

It is wrong to cast these murdering mongrels as victims of society or their upbringing. They are mean, vicious, jealous, envious, lazy, evil SOBs who chose to murder. Death is too good for them. They should spend long lives in a cell somewhere, forgotten.

Mass murderers always existed. Their methods vary and bombs, fire and other means can be choices. We shudder at the thought of a poisoned water supply, or petrol down a drain in a crowded area.

Maybe the narcissists are presently more likely to choose a modern automatic gun because of the media regards guns as 'sexy' and media will give them the notoriety they seek. Guns are noisy, limited and result in arrest. The cowardly offender must assure himself too that it is unlikely that a victim might have the means to send some lead back.

The cynical, feckless media build the image of increasing numbers of mass murders with guns, 'spates of gun homicides', for the same reason that the media stereotypes everything else - easy to build the story line and it is instantly re-usable. The truth is very likely that the incidence of mass murder (and mass murderers of course), hasn't increased at all and might even have decreased. However fact and truth don't sell an audience for advertisers.

However 'gun control' was never about stopping crime or even stopping mass murderers. 'Gun control' is about disarming the law-abiding public, the citizens. Why is something that needs to be asked of such people as the shadowy foreign billionaires and their buddies (?!) the international socialist 'Progressives', the self described 'wolves in sheep's clothing' who presume to always know what is best for us (or so they say) and are re-engineering our society and interfering in domestic politics.

to be continued..

continued..
Before Howard, Australia already had a robust licensing system and restriction of the firearm used by Bryant. That gun was turned in to police prior as part of a gun amnesty. Howard's expensive, redundant, bureaucratic 'belts and braces' procedures and paperwork waste police resources that should be out there detecting the likely offenders.

It is all window dressing, there is nothing in anything Howard did that could stop a Bryant clone, and the media is relentlessly buffing up Bryant's and other killers' fame.

An honest politician with guts, a statesman, would be frank with the public on the existence of that tiny percentage of the population, of all populations, that is a risk and the limitations on treating the risk. What prevents politicians from acting as statesmen, apart from the pre-selection that chooses yes-men (like L'il Willie Shorten) is that the dogs of the media bay for populist 'solutions', that they themselves know are expensive wastes of taxpayers money.

A Statesman would also tell the media to apply principle and ethics when reporting such dreadful crimes. Mind you, the same media are just as likely to show footage of a injured woman lying in a pool of blood with her underclothes exposed. They say that is in the public interest too.

I could go on, but most would get the drift.

suseonline is perfectly entitled to her belief that a woman's best weapon is her scream and that while women can still scream then they should not be allowed access to any weapons that will give them a chance against a rapist and/or murderer.

Of course women need to be able to scream loudly.

The quote by Mark Twain that "It is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled" seems very applicable regarding the PAM. Most people have so far been thoroughly convinced that Martin Bryant acting alone was the gunman because it has been part of the "official" story promoted by authorities and the press with their anti gun agendas. Hopefully those reading this forum will at least examine information that has long been suppressed but can now be readily found on the Internet.

The more any intelligent person studies and pieces together information now available - including trying to identify what is deliberate or speculative disinformation the more they are convinced that parts of the official story are lies and important details associated with the Port Arthur massacre remain hidden. Especially that MARTIN BRYANT WAS NOT THE MAIN GUNMAN and probably did not even handle a gun that day. He was deliberately selected and set up to take the blame. As with some other alleged "lone nut gunman" massacres that also on close examination appear have been arranged by anti gun psychopaths, he was a person of low IQ with few friends or relatives likely to support him.

Something particularly worth examining is the police record of interview with Martin Bryant regarding his movements earlier on the day of the massacre. It is differs considerably from the official story regarding details - apparently largely of what the real gunman masquerading as Bryant did. Including things that would have been out of character and /or he was incapable of.

Lego,
“...but today's violent movies where heroes shoot down the people they despise all over the place (including the police in the "Rambo" FIRST BLOOD movie)...,”
That might happen in the crappy Z grade movies but I challenge you to give an example of that in a popular successful film. Watch First Blood again without any preconceived notions of what you are expecting to see and you will notice the mortality rate is surprisingly small. Rambo throws a rock at a police officer in self-defence, which causes him to fall to his death, but after that few, if any, people die. There is, in fact, no confirmed shooting death by Rambo of anyone, whether or not John Rambo despised them.

Mox,
Everyone has a right to introduce conspiracy theories, however when they are as contrary to accepted belief as yours, it is incumbent upon you to offer some substantiation. (more than “google this phrase”)
Why not sell your evidence to a newspaper. If proved this would unquestionably be the scoop of the decade and you could make bundles of money out of it.

Edward Carson, because a belief has been widely held and long standing does not mean it should just be dismissed as a conspiracy theory which should not be examined. Now thanks to the Internet, anyone can study enough details about the PAM that to realise that the official story, which many high places have strong vested interest in perpetuating includes lies and important omissions. Some sources have summaries of maybe a page of headlines of important points. eg For a start, Martin Bryant had a background as a left handed amateurish shooter with appearance of being in late 20's and with smooth facial complexion. Gunman at Port Arthur proved RIGHT HANDED crack shot and described by witnesses as no older than early 20's with heavily pock marked face. Martin was arrested next day after the siege at Seascape Cottage, north of where witnessed fatal shootings occurred. Are important inconsistencies and dubious claims in reports of siege, which partly served as a diversion to allow the real gunman to get away.

Oh goody, Edward Carson, I would be very happy to accept your challenge.

Movie producers know their markets and they know who their customers are. They know why their targeted audience will buy tickets to watch their movies. Violent shootout movies are specifically engineered to appeal to young, low status white males, the very demographic most prone to getting into real trouble committing massacres emulating the on screen behaviour of their violent role model heroes.

Violent revenge type movies are dangerous because...

1. Violent heroes are societies low status outcasts who know that legal means of resolving problems and their resentments, is ineffective or unobtainable.

2. They fuel the fantasies of immature young men who harbour strong resentments that they feel they are unable to resolve. These movies provide a script by a role model hero on how an admirable, and publically acclaimed type of man resolves his personnel problems.

3. The criminal misuse of firearms (and violence in general) by role model, on screen heroes, to solve their personnel problems is a constant theme.

4. The linking of violent men to a strong sexual attraction to high quality breeding females is a constant theme.

5. The glorification of violent youth gang behaviour.

6. Irresponsible behaviour (spectacular jumps, car chases) is portrayed as heroic and cool.

7. The grooming of criminal heroes to be objects of admiration. Bad guys usually have the sexiest girlfriends, plenty of money, nice cars, great wardrobes, are confident and totally in control of themselves, and get to say the coolest lines.

8. The movies encourage a callous disregard for the victims who get shot down all over the screen. The hero never goes to the funerals, meets the grieving families, or ever concerns himself with the wider communal effects of taking another person's life. The Heroes never suffer from guilt or Post Traumatic Stress disorder.

Continued

Continued

Now to your claim that Rambo was not really violent because only one police officer was indirectly killed by Rambo.

In First Blood, Rambo...

Viciously attacks several police officers in the movies opening and escapes from lawful custody. He subsequently stabs another police officer, uses a ruse to make another police officer shoot another one, impales another on panji stakes, causes another to fall from a helicopter where he is killed, ties another officer to a tree, bashes another on the head, shoots a civilian dog handler and kills his three dogs, assaults a bystander and steals his motorbike, runs two police vehicles off the road (one is seen to explode after impact with a safety fence) throws a National Guardsman from a moving truck, commits two serious acts of arson, steals government property, possesses an illegal weapon, shoots up many shops in a town with an M-60 machine gun, and breaks, enters and steals from a gun shop.

What a man! No wonder "Rambo" knifes became so popular. Like so many products advertised on the screen, the manufactures know that many people in movie audiences are desperate to model their lives on their on screen role model heroes. Any product associated with the role model hero is sure to sell.

The problem is, that some will try to emulate the on screen role models behaviour as well.

Two weeks ago in Canada, two police officers were ambushed and shot dead. I wonder what grievance the perpetrator felt he was avenging over that massacre?

Reality check Lego! I was responding to your line “...but today's violent movies where heroes shoot down the people they despise all over the place (including the police in the "Rambo" FIRST BLOOD movie)...,” With emphasis on “…where heroes shoot down the people…”
Spare me the straw man argument “…your claim that Rambo was not really violent because…”

My sole argument was that in First Blood, Rambo (the hero) shot down no one, and only caused the death of one, and that in self-defence.
Neither I, nor Wikipedia, are aware of him shooting the Dobermanns’ handler, and using the body of someone with intent to harm you, as a shield from further harm, is not “shooting someone down”. In war you never blame the enemy for instances of friendly fire.

Also the challenge was to name a film, not to give arguments against violent films.
To paraphrase what I said earlier, please read these posts without any preconceived notions of what you are expecting to read.

Apologies for the tardy reply, Edward Carson, but I have been unwell lately.

I have a copy of "First Blood" and I watched it while I responded to your last post. I stand by everything I wrote in my last post describing the killings, shootings and stabbings in the movie. You seem to be suggesting that you have never seen it, and had to use WIKI in order to get a summary of the action. I forgot in my last post, that Rambo also shot down the small town police chief with an M-60 machine gun, and is about to finish him off when his former CO intervenes.

Modern societies are incredibly complex. There are entire law libraries laws governing nearly every aspect of human civilised behaviour. There are tax laws, company laws, criminal laws and a host of civil laws enacted by every layer of government. Within such a controlled environment, it is not hard to understand how many people can have a sneaking admiration for those individuals who completely flout any law or convention, and do as they please. This public admiration for on screen role model heroes is what the movie industry capitalises on. Of course, mature and well socialised people with average intelligence understand that the on screen heroes complete lack of legal and civilised behaviour is simply for entertainment. But people exist who are not any of these things, and violent role model heroes who are publically acclaimed as Real Men, give these immature, poorly socialised and not real bright individuals a script on how to behave in order to get the recognition and respect they crave.

Do you think it is right to shoot, stab and assault police officers, or kill them by running them off the road? If we as a society say "no!", then why do we allow the entertainment industry to produce movies like "First Blood" which justifies revengeful lethal violence towards police officers, as well as a plethora of other serious criminal activities, by an on screen role models hero?