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