Obama cites Australia’s gun confiscation program as example for US

originally posted by: bellagirl

originally posted by: BlastedCaddy
So another scenario where the lawful folk lose their guns and the criminals keep theirs. Mint.

well i am posting from here in beautiful australia.

i have commented on a few different posts over my time here trying to understand the whole gun culture thing in america. i have finally reached a conclusion.....YOUR ALL IDIOTS.

we as a nation had a mass murder and our prime minister had the balls to stand up and say never again. i was only a teenager and my parents had a rifle in the top of the cupboard. they handed it in and that was it...end of story.

my kids are now in their late teens they have never held a gun..never seen a gun and would be frightened to even be near a gun. BUT...they all went to school and the last thing ever on their mind was a school shooting. they have never had to do drills of what to do if there is a gunman in the school etc.

i work in a major sydney hospital only about 50 minutes away from the centre of sydney. in my 10 years there i have probably only ever seen 5 shooting victims. all were criminals and one was a child who shot his friend while playing with his dads gun. i have never seen an inocent victim just randomly shot.

yes there are still shootings here but i can safely say over 90% have a middle eastern name and its gang related just shooting each other in gang wars. that doesnt bother me....shoot away at each other. one poor innocent man got caught in the cross fire once and was killed.

so fellow ats friends....flame away as i know you will ... stand up and chant USA USA...bang your chest and tell me how you love your guns and your rights then go and watch the nightly news about the latest mass shooting.

Wait, the child who shot his friend while playing with his dad's gun ... that wasn't an innocent victim in your eyes? How did that poor kid do something wrong? Is it a crime to even associate with someone who has a gun now in Australia?

originally posted by: bellagirl
no wonder there are so many shootings....your all just so bloody annoying.

Are you just here to insult people and avoid answering questions?

Obama in that quote is lying through his teeth and someone needs to call him on it but sadly I'm all too sure that no one in our mindless drone media will even attempt to do that. Gun violence is contrary to what Mr. Obama claims NOT off the charts. In reality what the charts show is that year after year in good times and bad the amount of violent crime in the United States has dropped precipitously (like an airplane falling out of the sky) since its peak in 1993. So don't buy this BS people... not for a minute . There is an agenda at work here and Obama stated exactly what that was...the elimination of the Second Amendment and the confiscation of all guns. Why? Because it's much easier to rule people when there is no serious threat of armed resistance. Be very afraid...

The founders were right. An armed populace keeps the powers that be in check. The only statistic in terms of violent gun related crimes that is increasing are US government sponsored shootings which are designed with one intent: make you think that guns are out of control so you will roll over and give em up.

a reply to: Glassbender777

Luckily I dont live in Australia.

Luckily, I do live in Australia.

Why do you think it is luck to not live here? Australia is the second greatest country on Earth.

I am an American, grew up in Arizona in a hunting family, and personally owned and used guns for hunting.

I no longer hunt, and spend only short times on friends farms and vinyards, I no longer have use for a gun. If I need a gun in Australia I can get one. Emphasis on 'need'. It is not difficult if you have a need; my farming friends have shotguns and rifles for dealing with birds, foxes, rabbits, feral cats, and injured livestock and wildlife. I have helped with a feral deer cull on other properties.

The Gun is just the tool, not the reason they are doing this. they could outlaw all guns and people will still find a way to commit mass murder.

The simple fact is that before the Australian gun control laws were put in place (by the most Conservative government in Australian history, by the way) they averaged more than one mass shooting every year (FYI: mass shooting = more than 4). Since gun control has come in there have been NO mass shootings. 20 years - ZERO mass shootings.

As to finding other weapons, the worst that has happened is a gang fight in Melbourne where rival gangs went after each other with machetes. Two guys were chased into the river and drowned and another was cut up pretty badly. It is not a mass murder (not 4 deaths) and they weren't sitting in a sniper nest picking off innocent people from 200 meters away. Yes, of course there are still individual shootings and suicides, but even those have dropped precipitately.

Of course the best way to prevent insane folks from shooting people is to prevent folks from going insane. I think that is a little difficult to achieve, don't you? OK, once upon a time, we used to lock up folks who we decided were insane, and hopefully did that before they killed too many people. They are in the community now and we need to deal with it. Making it easier for insane folks to get weapons of mass destruction is not the answer to stopping them killing people.

I think the unfortunate one's are not those who, like me, get to enjoy the privilege of living in Australia, but folks like you who just don't know what you are talking about when you imagine what Australia is like.

It's too late LaBumba! He's just scared that his citizens are armed and ready to put up a fight.

a reply to: MarlinGrace

I think the President should be asking himself why he has the highest incidents of mass shootings under his tenure that any other POTUS.

Perhaps you could include other stakeholders in that that self-reflection?

Obama isn't on the airwaves (and internet conspiracy websites) 24 hours a day telling people to stockpile weapons because the Government is coming after them. Obama isn't on the airwaves (and internet conspiracy websites) 24 hours a day telling people that he is an anti-American, Muslim, NAZI-Communist, terrorist, usurper devil, anti-Christ and is sending Government agents to put them all in FEMA camps.

Obama isn't on the airwaves (and internet conspiracy websites) 24 hours a day talking directly to that guy reading Stormfront in his grandma's basement, teetering on the edge of sanity, putting all these over the top, no way out but '2nd amendment remedies' (and don't forget to buy gold) propaganda hypnotic bovine excrement suggestions into their head. Obama isn't on the airwaves (and internet conspiracy websites) 24 hours a day purposely trying to incite a 'lone wolf' lunatic.

Obama isn't on the airwaves (and internet conspiracy websites) 24 hours a day encouraging tax cheats to steal public property and set up private militias to serve as a breeding ground and self-validation for future 'lone wolf' lunatics.

I agree that Obama should, just as we all should, reflect on his contribution to the social environment as it exists today. It occurs to me however, his contribution to that environment as it relates to the lunatic shooting events, is only that he is guilty of 'Presidenting while black' - and that in turn serves as a focus for all those other folks who ARE on the airwaves (and internet conspiracy websites) 24 hours a day spewing forth their anti-American, anti-Christian, and fundamentally anti-Human, filth.

Guns?....We dont need no stinking guns!!

We got kangaroos that can rip your guts opens with their hind legs, snakes that swallow crocodiles, spiders as big as your head, sharks that can swallow you whole, and cute furry animals that can kill you with their poisonous spikes.

Guns?..No........We need freakin Bazzookas and Howitzers!!!!

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

The one USA has gun control but there is no such thing as gun shootings (like the example of Australia above where they had one shooting 20 years ago and then none)

Not quite right: Australia averaged one mass shooting per year. Finally, the shootings as Port Arthur were the 'straw that broke the camels back'. There have been ZERO in the twenty years since.

- and on the other side an USA *without* gun control but mass shooting every couple of weeks almost, in schools, cinemas, malls etc..

Since Sandy Hook in Newtown, there has been, on average, more than one school shooting per school week.

Tuesday’s Shooting In Oregon Is The 74th School Shooting In America Since Sandy Hook

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

All this proves is the US president's ability to misunderstand the Australian culture, trying to compare it to America's. If an Australian wants to shoot someone, they can and do. If Australians want a gun, they can get one.

It's probably worth noting that if the Australian authorities behaved in a manner similar to their American counterparts, Australians would likely want access to own as many guns as their US cousins. The American people shouldn't allow themselves to be disarmed, not because of some idiot amendment to their constitution but because take one look at the government and you can tell they're going to need them at some stage.

You should take your own advice and make an attempt to understand the Australian culture and legal framework properly.

The Australian government has far more power over the every day lives of Australians than the US government has over Americans. The simple existence of the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers built into the Constitution ensures that that is so. People claiming that this right or that right is being infringed by Government action is 999 times out of 1000 false, misunderstood, or just a misplaced feeling of entitlement - and when there are legitimate claims, there are legitimate legal remedies.

Australia has no limits of any kind in its Constitution, people don't even have the comfort of being able to bellyache that their Constitutional rights are being violated, because they have no such rights. There are stories that judges have to constantly remind the accused, witnesses, and juries that Australian courts are not American TV court room dramas; there is no such thing as 'taking the 5th' in Australia. Freedom of the Press is limited by the fact that the Government can suppress stories, any story, on national security grounds, and there is no appeal, and there is no way for anyone to find out if or how often these 'D' notices are issued. I suspect there is such a suppression in effect right now over 'illegal' refuge boats. Since Abbot became Prime Minister, we have no way of knowing how many boats have been sunk and people drowned by Australian Navy actions in effecting his 'turn the boats around' policy. We do know that several life boats, that the government purchased for hundreds of thousands of dollars each, have washed up on various remote Indonesian islands with hundreds of refugees aboard.

The original inhabitants of Australia, the Aborigines, have absolutely no power to deal with their own lives in any way. Progress in their community is always two steps forward, one step back. Until the government needs a distraction and decides that an 'intervention' is necessary and instead of one step back pushes them back into the 1950's all in one fell swoop. Such new 'policies' are not decided by public debate, but over wine and cigars in expensive Sydney restaurants, and without reference to Parliament as a whole, let alone those whose lives are being turned upside down all over again.

Governmental power in Australia is absolute. The only limits are tradition and political; not legal. Any legal limit anywhere can be over turned at anytime. The Federal Constitution is hard to change, true, but as I said it doesn't have any rights identified anyway. State Constitutions are, in general, trivial to change. The State of Victoria Constitution is changed by a simple Act of the State Parliament.

Your assertion that the U.S. Government is somehow acting in a way that is worthy of armed insurrection is infantile.

a reply to: marg6043

if history doesn't fail me they started as nothing but a penal colony.

The first British impetus for colonizing Australia was as a replacement for the loss of is American penal colonies in Georgia and the Carolinas.

The first penal colony was at Botany Bay south of Sydney. However, free colonies followed quite quickly, in South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania.

I don't believe that either South Australia or Victoria ever had a penal colony as such. Though there were prisoners among colonists in Victoria, I don't think there was actually a 'destination' prison there. They were sort of 'trustee' prisoners on work release, and included some of the most honored Architects and Engineers in the colonies.

On the other hand, the first British impetus for colonizing America was to get rid of troublesome religious bigots and fanatics. Americans like to think of the Puritans fleeing religious persecution in England, when in fact if there was persecution going on it was the Puritans persecuting the "mainstream". The British view is that they were very happy to see the back of these folks - good riddance to them. Americans like to think of the Puritans coming to America to practice Religious Freedom, but their purpose was anything but that.

a reply to: bellagirl

Actually bellagirl, we didn't have to hand our guns in. Only certain types of semi-auto rifles. I grew up with guns down here in Victoria and had a junior gun licence as a kid, which still is available to children today. Violent crime is actually higher now than before the gun reforms. Especially home invasions, kidnapping and others which have been committed by people with firearms. What you are saying is completely incorrect bulls%$#.

And by the way, don't believe everything the media tells you about The Port Arthur Massacre and Martin Bryant, the so called lone shooter in that incident either. Tell me why it took the help of the Victorian and NSW Special Operations Group members along with the Tasmanian members to take down an intellectualy disabled Martin Bryant, whose IQ was only 66. Also tell us how Martin Bryant managed to shoot 19 out of 20 people in the head, shooting a milatary carbine rifle from the hip. I know a couple of Victorian SOG members who were actually there that night and they told me that they were under fire from 2 or more people using night vision/Inca red equipment and that it was never just one shooter, especially the guy they pinned it on.

Also John Howard, our prime minister at the time decided that there would be no legal trial for Martin Bryant or Inquest into the shooting which is totally 100% illegal and is not in his jurisdiction to do so. He's excuse was that the family members of the victims have been through enough and then closed all files on the shooting and locked them for 30 years.

This was a complete 100% preplanned event, which dates back to the Hoddle Street Massacre in 1987 (which was a lone nut shooting spree), Just after that the NSW Premier at the time -(his name was Barry Unsworth) spoke to John Howard's government saying, and I quote "It will take a massacre IN Tasmania before we get National Gun Laws"

. And guess what? Tasmania had the biggest gun lobby at the time, as a lot of hunters live there. The Australian Government will never get to take mine or any of my friends guns ever.

Here Is An Interesting Article from The Tasman Times, written in 2010

Were Government Security Agencies Involved In The Setting Up Of The Port Arthur Massacre?
Tasman Times
John G. Wollaston
14 December 2010

tasmantimes.com.au...

Edit for grammar

Hi Everyone,

I feel obligated to Join in on this debate. I am also from Australia, and I'm going to point out what my life has been like in a nutshell since being born here.

1. Have not seen a real gun in my life.
2. My family members have not seen a real gun in their life.
3. No one that I personally know has been shot, or killed by a gun.
4. There has been no mass shootings here in Australia for a very long time.
5. Most roberies that occur, the main weopon that's involved is either a Knife, Bat, etc. Most roberies that do take place here, not guns are involved.
6. I'm not affraid of anxious about my safety.
7. The only time I have come across a security check point is either an airport, or a court.

In my opinion its too late to ban gun's all together in the united states. The damage has been done. However I really don't see why we should all "have the right" to hold automatic weapons. What do we need to use automatic weopons for? Seriously.

There's no one good solution to fix this mess. But you do need to come to turns with the fact that something does need to be done.

If New York can turn around, and be a lot safer than what it use to be. Then why not all of the United States?

a reply to: rnaa

The American revolutionary war and the war of 1812 were infantile?

I am astounded that you think an adult human being is subject to the law of the land before anything else. There is no absolute power in any government that the people who own the government do not give it and I do not give mine any, thank you very much.

If you do, more power to you - or less, as the case may be.

originally posted by: Skyline74
a reply to: bellagirl

Actually bellagirl, we didn't have to hand our guns in. Only certain types of semi-auto rifles. I grew up with guns down here in Victoria and had a junior gun licence as a kid, which still is available to children today. Violent crime is actually higher now than before the gun reforms. Especially home invasions, kidnapping and others which have been committed by people with firearms. What you are saying is completely incorrect bulls%$#.

And by the way, don't believe everything the media tells you about The Port Arthur Massacre and Martin Bryant, the so called lone shooter in that incident either. Tell me why it took the help of the Victorian and NSW Special Operations Group members along with the Tasmanian members to take down an intellectualy disabled Martin Bryant, whose IQ was only 66. Also tell us how Martin Bryant managed to shoot 19 out of 20 people in the head, shooting a milatary carbine rifle from the hip. I know a couple of Victorian SOG members who were actually there that night and they told me that they were under fire from 2 or more people using night vision/Inca red equipment and that it was never just one shooter, especially the guy they pinned it on.

Also John Howard, our prime minister at the time decided that there would be no legal trial for Martin Bryant or Inquest into the shooting which is totally 100% illegal and is not in his jurisdiction to do so. He's excuse was that the family members of the victims have been through enough and then closed all files on the shooting and locked them for 30 years.

This was a complete 100% preplanned event, which dates back to the Hoddle Street Massacre in 1987 (which was a lone nut shooting spree), Just after that the NSW Premier at the time -(his name was Barry Unsworth) spoke to John Howard's government saying, and I quote "It will take a massacre IN Tasmania before we get National Gun Laws"

. And guess what? Tasmania had the biggest gun lobby at the time, as a lot of hunters live there. The Australian Government will never get to take mine or any of my friends guns ever.

Here Is An Interesting Article from The Tasman Times, written in 2010 (and includes a couple of comments also):

Were Government Security Agencies Involved In The Setting Up Of The Port Arthur Massacre?
Tasman Times
John G. Wollaston
14 December 2010


“It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we get national gun laws”
NSW Premier Barry Unsworth, 1987


The date of the 28th April 1996 is deeply etched into the minds of all who in some way became involved in the tragic story of what happened in Port Arthur on that day. Thirty five innocent people were massacred, supposedly by a registered disabled, intellectually impaired, left-handed invalid, whose only weapon’s training had been with a single shot air rifle given to him when he was 16.

Confused and disoriented, Martin Bryant, was charged, without trial, for the offence and taken to serve 35 consecutive life sentences in Risdon Prison – where he now spends his endless days in a drugged haze, trying to make sense of what actually happened on that day.

To understand why he couldn’t possibly have committed this crime, let us first look at some of the many bizarre events leading up to this tragedy and question why they occurred.

It is said that Bryant first met the Tattersall’s heiress, Helen Harvey, in 1991 when he was hitchhiking in Tasmania. He moved in with her and a year later she was killed in a ‘freak car accident’ not far from where they lived. Bryant inherited the house and a very large sum of money from the estate. The next year his father, a waterside worker from the mainland, visited Bryant. His body was later fished out of a nearby dam. In spite of the fact that he had a gunshot wound and a diver’s weight belt around his waist, and no weapon was ever discovered, the coroner strangely found no evidence of foul play.

Two other people were also involved in this family inheritance – Dr. John Flynn and his brother Father Jeremy Flynn. Shortly before the massacre Dr. Flynn was arrested in India on trumped-up charges of smuggling artefacts and held without trial until after the massacre. He was later released, without apology, to return to Australia.

Just one week prior to the massacre, Father Flynn disappeared while flying his twin-engined Beech Baron from the mainland to Tasmania. Neither he, his passenger, nor the plane were ever recovered.

A Mortuary truck, with 22 body racks in a refrigerated unit, was commissioned and specially built in Tasmania just before the massacre and then sold shortly afterwards.

Seven hundred reporters from 17 nations attended a seminar in Hobart on that weekend, ready to take the story to the world media.

On the day of the massacre some 25 specialist doctors from the Royal Australian College of Surgeons, from all over Australia, attended a training course in Hobart. Their last lecture was on ‘Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds’. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.

Two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away on the east coast, on the pretext of a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers.

On the 27th March, Martin Bryant is said to have entered Terry Hill’s gun shop in New Town, Tasmania, carrying a fully loaded AR 10 assault rifle wrapped in a towel, saying that there was something wrong with it. Hill, realising that Bryant had no idea of how to load, unload, or even handle an assault rifle - even though he somehow had obtained a photo licence for prohibited and automatic firearms - disarmed the weapon and kept it for repairs.

Hill, at his police interview on the 6th June, 1996 denied having sold arms and ammunition to Bryant. The next day he received a letter from the attending lawyer, containing veiled threats “unless you are prepared to in effect change your story, they (the police) will press on and try and find sufficient evidence to charge you with some offences …” It finished with, “However, it was also made abundantly clear that the Director of Public Prosecutions is prepared to offer you an indemnity against prosecution if you are prepared to accept that you did sell guns to Bryant ...”

Hill refused to admit the lie and a week later his shop was raided by police and his licence revoked. His determination to maintain the truth and not provide the DPP with a vital missing link in the trail of evidence cost him his livelihood.

On the day of the massacre an anonymous phone caller lured the only two policemen on the peninsula away from the site on the pretext that a cache of heroin (later proven to be fictitious) had been discovered in a remote location at Saltwater River on the far west coast, some 30 minutes by car.

As though waiting for this signal, four minutes after the police radioed their arrival, the massacre at Port Arthur began.

When the gunman began pulling out his weapons in the Cafe, a man (later identified as Anthony Nightingale) stood up shouting "No, no, not here!!" Nightingale was shot by the assassin for giving the game away.

CONTINUED NEXT POST



Edit for grammar

With professional precision the gunman killed 32 people with just 29 rounds, shooting, without benefit of laser sights, from the right hip– an almost impossible task for even the best of the world’s top 1% of combat marksmen, let alone an mentally impaired left hander.

Of the 20 fatalities at the Broad Arrow Café, 19 were due to a single shot to the head from an Armalite AR 15 assault rifle. The percussion and recoil of such a weapon in a confined space would have disoriented even the most highly-trained marksmen – unless he were wearing combat earphones under his long blonde wig.

The killer left the Café and swapped over to a Belgian FN assault rifle – a heavier weapon with twice the recoil – and yet he somehow immediately compensated to maintain his awesome 1.6 to 1 killed-to-injured ratio -- 35 dead to 22 injured. An almost impossible task for someone with Bryant’s low IQ and lack of weapon’s training.

As Brigadier Ted Sarong DSO, OBE, the former head of Australian Forces in Vietnam, and one of the world's leading experts on counter-terrorist techniques, said, in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald (10th April 1999), “Martin Bryant could not have been responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur. There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance. Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am. Whoever did it had skills way beyond anything that could reasonably be expected of this chap Bryant ... if it was someone of only average skills, there would have been many less killed and many more wounded. It was the astonishing proportion of killed to wounded that made me open my eyes first off." Brigadier Serong believed that for this to have been carried out in this way, more than one person would have been involved. He went on to say, "It was part of a deliberate attempt to disarm the population, but I don't believe John Howard or his Government were involved. Howard is being led down a track. He doesn't know where it's leading, and he doesn't much care . . ." (Knowing that the Anti-gun legislation had already been prepared in advance, I tend to disagree with this last statement. J.W.)

The killer’s prowess was further confirmed when he shot at Linda White and her boyfriend driving towards him in their four-wheel drive. From an unsupported standing position, he fired a ‘sighting shot’, a ‘kill shot’ and then disabled the vehicle with a single shot to the engine – typical counter terrorist training for ‘Special Forces’ personnel.

The trail which led the authorities to the Seascape Cottage, where I believe Bryant was already installed, was staged. Just to make it absolutely clear who they were looking for, Bryant’s car was left at the tollway with a bag of ammunition for the FN rifle, a combat shotgun and, guess what, his passport – just like 9/11.

In spite of his awesome reputation as a combat marksman, not one of the 250 rounds apparently fired from the Seascape Cottage, actually hit anyone!

On the pretext that this was a ‘Terrorist Attack’ and not some crazed gunman running amok, ASIO, way out of their jurisdiction, took charge of the site and prevented the Tasmanian Police from attending for just over six hours. The time delay was obviously crucial to allow certain people to escape over the Dunalley swing bridge, which, according to emergency procedures, should have been closed to prevent anyone from leaving the crime scene or contaminating it. To this day nobody knows the identity of those who escaped at the time.

At 8.30am the next morning, Bryant stumbled from the now ‘mysteriously’ blazing Seascape Cottage. Unarmed and confused, with third degree burns to his back and side, his first words to the arresting officers indicated that he had absolutely no idea what was happening or had happened.

The guns that were supposedly used in the massacre were completely incinerated in the inferno and yet on November 9, 1996, Channel 9 showed two immaculately preserved assault rifles that had purportedly been used by Bryant.

With no ballistic information, no fingerprints, no DNA, no blood splatter, and no undeniable eyewitness description, he was indicted and yet never taken back to the crime scene for questioning. (Standard police procedure in such cases.) Forensic Detective Sgt. Dutton later admitted to the media that there was actually no forensic evidence to place Martin Bryant at the Broad Arrow Cafe. It is also interesting to note that the only real eyewitnesses to the tragedy, two people who survived the shooting, Graham Collyer and Wendy Scurr, described the killer as being shorter than Bryant, that his hair was longer, probably a wig, and that he had a pockmarked face. Neither, despite volunteering to police, was ever placed on the witness list or interviewed further.

Despite his continued plea of innocence – even under the relentless pressure of non-stop questioning and harassment by a team of interrogators and psychiatrists while in solitary confinement – Bryant was finally forced to plead guilty when his mother, Carleen, was pressured to tell him that she and his sister would suicide if the matter ever went to trial.

In an article in the SMH on the 5th Dec. 2010, his mother said, ''I regret asking him to plead guilty, which denied him the chance to answer a lot of questions, There are conspiracy theories that Martin was not, and could not, have been the gunman. These would have been addressed with DNA, witness statements and fingerprints, to prove it one way or another.''

Considering that Bryant had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome and that the Tasmanian Supreme Court was told that he had the mental capacity of an 11-year-old, it’s hard to believe that this person could ever have organised, let alone carried out, such a spectacularly horrific event in such a coldly professional manner.

In November 1996, seven months after the massacre, and just the night before Bryant’s sentencing, amateur video footage of the massacre, which ‘just happened’ to turn up from America, was given to the media by the police. It showed someone who looked like Bryant leaving the Café carrying what appeared to be an automatic weapon. The only problem was that according to the weather at the time, it was taken on a totally different day, there were missing vehicles in the shot, and three men were seen lounging in the background; one smoking a cigarette and another filming with a video camera as they calmly watched the gunman leave the Café. Not the sort of behaviour one would expect during such a horrific massacre.

Gun Control legislation was enacted with extreme haste in May 1996 – destroying over half a million legitimately-purchased firearms and virtually leaving all of the remaining illegal or unregistered weapons in the hands of those who had reason to hide them.

A ‘D Notice’ (high security, ‘need-to-know’ basis) was later issued by the Federal Attorney General’s Department (which controls our intelligence agencies, ASIO and ASIS) to stifle any contact with Bryant or any further detailed investigation into what actually happened at Port Arthur.

We’ll probably never know who really committed those atrocities –

but, in my opinion,
It wasn’t Martin Bryant!

As well as being an author and publisher, the writer of this article, John G. Wollaston B. Arch. FRAIA, was
Director of Commonwealth Property and Special Advisor to the Commonwealth Government from 1978 – 1984,
during which time, cleared above ’Top Secret’, he gained insights into the inner workings of government and its
various security agencies.

He spent nearly nine years researching and writing two Fact/Fiction novels, ‘CONSPIRACY?’, ISBN 0 9580559 0
4, and its sequel, ‘THE FACE OF EVIL’, ISBN 0 9580559 1 2, (amazon.com) which deal with various massacres,
including Port Arthur, Dunblane, Oklahoma, 9/11 and its aftermath.

END OF ARTICLE

a reply to: rnaa

Hi you said

"The simple fact is that before the Australian gun control laws were put in place (by the most Conservative government in Australian history, by the way) they averaged more than one mass shooting every year (FYI: mass shooting = more than 4). Since gun control has come in there have been NO mass shootings. 20 years - ZERO mass shootings".

Actually this is not a fact at all. There was never an average of one mass shooting every year! If you can prove that, go ahead, but I don't think you have a chance in hell proving this with some source material. The lone nut, mass shootings were:

9th August, 1987 - The Hoddle Street Massacre (7 dead & 19 injured) Weapons= Ruger 10/22 (.22LR), Pump action shotgun and M14(M) (7.62x51mm)
8th December, 1987 - The Queen Street Massacre (8 dead (9 including the perp). & 5 injured) Weapon= M1 Carbine
17th August 1991 - The Strathfield Massacre (7 dead (8 including the perp) & 6 injured) Weapons=Knife & Nornico SKS
22nd October, 1992 - Central Coast Massacre (6 dead & 1 injured) Weapon= Pump Action Shotgun

And Of Course, the one that changed things, although it was actually a Conspiracy, not a lone nut shooter -
was:
The Port Arthur Massacre, 28th April 1996. (35 Dead & 24 Injured) Alledged Weapons= Colt Ar-15 Sp1 Carbine (.223) and L1A1 SLR Battle Riffle (.308)

There was not one Mass Shooting every year on average at all!

a reply to: Morouaesby

I thought it was your Second Amendment rights!! Glad to know you are all on the ball with defending your rights even at the expense of dozens of mass shootings that just seem to keep happening. Something does need to change... exactly what that is, is up to the American people but to continue to allow people to have guns, the type of guns and the amount of guns and ammo has nothing to do with your constitution. They had muskets when it was written. Are you suggesting each and every individual should be entitled to possess surface to air missiles, tanks or nuclear arms?? The whole argument about your rights being interfered with are absolute rubbish. I guess a country like Australia realised that crazy people with guns more readily kill innocent people in larger numbers and more frequently than crazy people who can only carry a knife. I personally would place my bets on myself being able to run away from a person with a knife than a gun. Unfortunately you continue to allow a minority of people who happen to be gun owners and also statistically own the majority of guns to destroy any rational discussion about controlling them.

Good luck!!

Keep your guns America and continue to see far to many innocent people massacred. Your choice however y

Seems clear to me that the reasons gun violence perpetrated by blacks on blacks, gang violence ect is not a point of demonstration used by the anti gun types and are not events that produce much anti gun sentiments like those voiced by the president and others, is because they really demonstrate a cultural failure on the part of the folks in question and a failure of social programs and the politicians who have championed them.

How many times over the years have we read about gangbangers "hosing" down crowds here and there leaving multiple dead and wounded? The phenomena was even given a name...."drive by"...and glorified in song, news and popular culture. Yet it doesn't carry near the connotations as "going postal"....a term that is synonymous with a white person gone mad for the most part.

There really is a lot to be said and pondered about the fact that 500 back folks can die in a month or two around the country due to gun violence, armed gang violence, drug and vice driven syndicated and sanctioned murder as sad but normal. But let some nut case white guy on mind candy go off and there are calls to suspend the constitution. There is thrown up a "great outcry" and shuffling around in the press, by politicians, "social critics", constitutional critics, the anti gun lobby....accompanied by great streams of crocodile tears and postures of truly great heart felt distress. It becomes a cultural indictment about the love affair with guns.

Two weeks before that 15 folks were shot and wounded, some killed, in front of a night club somewhere......and nothing really but the sound of crickets afterword.

gunsnfreedom.com...

Looks like gun control in Australia left guns only in the hands of those who don't abide by the law anyway.
Surprising, eh?
The increase in false flags in America is an attempt to confiscate guns in the same manner that had worked so well in the UK and Australia. It's just recycled tyranny and Americans aren't falling for it.