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.