An Australian debunks Australian gun laws for Obama

Recently our Dear Leader commented that the U.S. ought to look at Australia as a model for strict gun control, i.e. confiscation. Australian author, and fellow Liberty Alliance partner, Nick Adams would like to set the record straight with an open letter to the president about Australian gun laws.

Dear Mr. President,

You recently hailed “Australian gun laws.”

In doing so:

  • you praised a government for forcefully removing all semi-automatic firearms from its populace,
  • you admired the banning and confiscation of guns.

We expect to hear that from a European leader. But not you.

You’re the leader of America:

  • the world’s first free country,
  • the nation that has inspired many to be free,
  • that has protected the freedom of others,
  • that has spread more freedom than any other.

I am an Australian and I must set the record straight.

The “success” of the 1996 Australian gun reform is a myth.

The only thing achieved was to take away the guns of the law-abiding, leaving only the criminals armed. Is this what you wish for America?

In Australia, if a citizen has firearms, the police have a right to search their property without a warrant any time. Does that sound like America?

The laws you praise outlawed the Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun that my father played with as a child. Now you need a special permit, gun safe and serial number. For what?

There are just as many guns on the street today. Gun crime is no lower.

In Australia, mass shootings have been a rare event. If strict gun laws mean no massacres, explain Britain’s Cumbria shootings, Monkseaton and Dunblane. Or Anders Breivik of Norway?

Gun laws achieve very little.

Mass shootings are about illness, not guns. Any other so-called “gun issue,” if there are any, is related to the breakdown of the family, cultural decline and the age of entitlement.

The Second Amendment defines American exceptionalism. It speaks to the character of America, and reflects why America is America.

Civilian disarmament is based on the assumption that people are irresponsible (unless they work for the government). America was founded on the opposite premise.
Don’t make America a namby-pamby society.

The right to bear arms is not wrong nor unnecessary. It is:
<ul>

  • the greatest test of genuine freedom,
  • the best protection of you, your family and your property,
  • the ultimate deterrent against government overreach.
  • The Constitutional right to bear arms is pivotal. The American idea is a value system. If you take away the guns of America, you take away America.”
  • You can read the rest of Nick Adam’s letter here at Joe For America.

    But I will close with this. I always say “An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.”

    167 COMMENTS

    1. “The only thing achieved was to take away the guns of the law-abiding, leaving only the criminals armed. Is this what you wish for America?” I think it’s worse, Obama wants to disarm us for an Islamic take over.

    2. Let’s get something straight: This is not Australia, so they’re not taking our guns unless they take some bullets first…it will get downright ugly if these tyrannical mother fuckers try it!

    3. I don’t think Australia has tens of millions of blacks, Muslims and illegals in their country raising hell either. I don’t think their prisons have 50% blacks. We are different.

      • What is it now, 15% black population in America make up 90% of the prison population and 20+ million illegals? Also, Australia has a very strict immigration policy from what I understand..

        • I find it kind of funny I ran across this article as my friend Mike is currently try to get his work visa in Australia. Based on what he’s told me so far I’d compare it to moving mountains. He did work there for a few months and is now trying to go back but one thing he told me that struck a cord with me is that nearly everyone, male and female alike, carried around knives. I can only imagine what the crime rate would be if that practice was abolished. So for those that think Australia is a poster child for gun control, some of the negative effects of gun control were countered by the citizens compensating their protection with knives.

        • Their immigration policy is not strict at all anymore…….and it is beginning to piss off the Aussie citizens.

    4. Our current president was not raised an American. He was raised on all the tenets of third world countries. These countries and religions see America as a bloated whore of excess. They do not understand freedom, and the envy of ours breeds hate. They do not see that the elite of their own downtrodden and lawless countries are living in mansions of Gold. Barack Hussein Obama came here with this one goal in mind, to brings America down. To punish her for offering a chance for everyone to rise above poverty. The land of opportunity, not the land of taking from those that work and giving it to those that do not bestir themselves to take advantage of what opportunities that are offered by hard work.
      If it were not for the color of his skin he would have been impeached long ago for illegal acts, and in my opinion, treason. Time has just about run out for America. These people flooding our land are bringing gangs,disease and a financial burden that cannot be sustained. The America that we know is just about gone if someone does not step up and call this man what he really is, Traitor, Destroyer. Evil incarnate.

      • It seems to me that America rapidly becomes this ‘bloated whore of success.’ It is amazing for me how modern Americans simply DON’T SEE all the freedom they have and all the opportunities laid out for them. The want freebies and all the excessive rights as gay-marriage, soon-to-come bigamy (if it’s ok for two consenting adults, why is it wrong for three consenting adults? or four?), and following pedophilia (they will say that children can love too, I guess). Americans semm to be unable to understand what to do with their freedoms. I only pray that there is a chance for this country. It would be shame if I came here only to meet it’s downfall…

        • Thanks for speaking up. It’s only too bad that our voices get buried under mountains of Hollywood propaganda, infiltrated educational institutions, pseudo-journalistic suggestion and prefabricated “pop culture” formulated in some left wing think tank incubator. Currently, they’re infiltrating the theological domain(s).

        • If I read you correctly you seem to be under the impression that most Americans don’t see the freedoms that they have. I think their still is a moral majority (at least I hope so), although I am standing in the middle of this forest and my view is obscured. This is still the land of opportunity, slowly turning into the land of “I’m here, where are my entitlements”.

        • If I may? Something I put together for those who you rightly identify as ones who refuse to see the truth of the slippery slope. Forgive any prickliness…I’m just copying and pasting what I previously put together. I wanted to make this info available to anyone who’d like to use it.

          it took me about 15 hours to pull this all together. Thank you for being patient. I hope you will read it. You will see I only use impeccable sources… .gov, experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, APA, etc. I just know that this needs to be read in order to pull the veil from the eyes of the blind. Of course, I do know, based on what scripture tells us and the dark core of human nature, many will refuse to avail themselves of what is freely offered. Such is the way of the world. I’ll begin with the most offensive and least believable……there is copious amounts of proof that it is indeed on its way to becoming reality. You will see these are not crazy, conspiracy theorists, but educated, influential experts and doctors at reputable universities and medical institutions. Oh, it’s coming. Believe me, without God’s perfect right and wrong, imperfect people will devolve into less than the lowest one-celled life form. It’s but a matter of time, as time has already proven. So, see, you can say, “Consensus decides what is right and wrong for society that is why we have laws and vote ion those laws” and “Thankfully MOST ppl actually agree on the core questions of morality” but morality by humans is no morality at all and immoral change is permeating all facets of society. Without God’s standards, there is no floor to stop the devolution spiral…..you know, that old “hope and change thing”….. Pedophilia and incest will absolutely be legitimized based on the same grounds as homosexual marriage and abortion…….it’s but a matter of time. Many mainstream sources back this up. I deal only in “mainstream”….shuts down contention that it’s simply a conspiracy theory. Of course, I’ll still get people who refuse to believe it.

          B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile activists and mental health professionals, is behind the August 17 conference, which will include panelists from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois. On their website B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia, observing: “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.” The group says that it does not advocate treatment to change feelings of attraction to children or adolescents. At their conference, “This day-long symposium will facilitate the exchange of ideas among researchers, scholars, mental health practitioners, and minor-attracted persons who have an interest in critical issues surrounding the entry for pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association.”

          http://b4uact.org/science/symp/2011/index.htm
          http://b4uact.org/news/20110725.htm
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8201521/Sex-offenders-including-paedophiles-should-be-allowed-to-adopt-Theresa-May-told.html

        • Even according to HARVARD, “Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change.” However, even with this push to classify pedophilia as an orientation, Harvard noted, “One long-term study of previously convicted pedophiles (with an average follow-up of 25 years) found that one-fourth of heterosexual pedophiles and one-half of homosexual or bisexual pedophiles went on to commit another sexual offense against children.”

          http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia

          Of course, you also have NAMBLA, an organization of pedophiles who are, in their words, “a beacon of moral support for all individuals who feel a natural love for boys“, and who “consistently highlight injustices and harm in age of consent laws.” They contend, “Instead of protecting young people, these laws have done the very opposite.”

          Similar lobbying, by homosexual activists, led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 in the DSM. As a result of the DSM declassification, debate regarding homosexuality and the many documented harms associated with the homosexual lifestyle has been all but shut down in academic psychological circles.

          I know that “free-thinkers” completely discount this correlation, but consider this documented on a government ( .gov) site: “Americans Move Dramatically Toward Acceptance of Homosexuality” proving humans’ morality is definitely changeable.

          https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=121977

          and from less than a month ago:

          http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/

          Then, you have an article from a homosexual citing the very “credible” Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University, “If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 11 who’s intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual … then I would not call it pathological in any way.”

          http://contests.eyeweekly.com/eye/issue/issue_05.02.02/columns/feelings.php

        • One of the trailblazers of this view, who died recently, is Dr. Harris Mirkin, associate professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Kansas City wrote, “Children are the last bastion of the old sexual morality.” In his article “The Pattern of Sexual Politics: Feminism, Homosexuality and Pedophilia” published in the Journal of Homosexuality, he likens the battle to legalize pedophilia to that of women’s rights, civil rights of blacks and homosexual rights. He believes the acceptance of pedophilia as another sexual orientation will happen when society moves the discussion to the “right” of children to have and enjoy sex.”

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10207822

          Even NAMBLA idolizes Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins University stating, ““Who we are is perhaps best understood from Dr. John Money’s account of two boys, who speak about how they view their adult lovers: Andy – “Just as normal as anybody else. He is like a second father to me.” Burt – “He’s neat; and he’s nice, and gives me more respect than anyone ever has … he treats me like an adult, not like my parents treat me. To me, he’s my best friend.””

          http://nambla DOT org/whatis.html (FB is blocking this link so you’ll have to actually put the . where the word DOT is and copy and paste.)

          Moving on, we also have the incest case of Columbia University professor David Epstein who was charged with incest, accused of carrying on a three-year affair with his adult daughter. David Epstein is Professor of Political Science at Columbia University and a HuffPo blogger. His fields of expertise include presidential and congressional elections, game theory, the regulation of markets, and political economy. His lawyer on the charge of incest: “It’s OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home,” he said. “How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not.”

          http://abcnews.go.com/Health/switzerland-considers-legalizing-consensual-incest-columbia-professor-accused/story?id=12395499

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/15/david-epsteins-lawyer-we-_n_797138.html

          http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/12/10/professor-david-epstein-charged-incest-his-daughter

        • Then of course, you have the Arizona University Law School, in the FAMILY LAW: CASES, TEXT, PROBLEMS 3D EDITION on pages 8 & 9 dispelling myths regarding incest by expert, Dr. Arno Motulsky, a professor emeritus of medicine and genome sciences at the University of Washington. He and his colleagues said no one questioned the right of people with genetic disorders to have children, even though some have far higher levels of risk than first cousins. For example, people with Huntington’s disease, a severe neurological disorder that comes on in adulthood, have a 50 percent chance of passing the disease to their children.“ Dr. Arno goes on to say, “Contrary to widely held beliefs and longstanding taboos in America, first cousins can have children together without a great risk of birth defects or genetic disease, scientists are reporting today. In terms of general risks in life it’s not very high,” Dr. Motulsky said. Even at its worst, 7 percent, he said, ”93 percent of the time, nothing is going to happen.”

          “The risk of birth defects in children born to first cousins is increased from a baseline of 3-4 percent to 4-7 percent according to the National Society of Genetic Councilors (NSGC). In this modern age, this risk could be mitigated by mandating — as the State of Maine has done — pre-marital genetic testing. The NSGC, however, considers the risk to be so insignificant that it does not recommend additional testing or screening……..As the maternal age exceeds 35, the incidence of fetal abnormalities creeps up to the 4-7 percent range. Should we also ban such women from having children then?”
          http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~ira01/Supplement/supp%20all.pdf

          http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/geneticists-research-debunks-taboo-against-first-cousin-marriages-26053127.html

          http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/faheem-younus/why-ban-cousin-marriages_b_2567162.html
          .

        • “Switzerland has proposed decriminalizingconsensual sexual relationships between first-degree relatives, like siblings and also between parents and their adult children. Any coercive sex or incest with a minor would still be illegal.”

          http://abcnews.go.com/Health/switzerland-considers-legalizing-consensual-incest-columbia-professor-accused/story?id=12395499#.UV7v_pNQHpt

          And the Journal of Genetic Counseling, Vol. 11, No. 2, April 2002, recommends “genetic counseling” with regard to incestuous relationships…no moral issue there….

          http://www.lotscave.com/files/Journal%20of%20Genetic%20Counseling%20(Vol.%2011,%20No.%202,%20April%204,%202002).pdf

          Then ironically, there is this, “Some LGBT people don’t understand the desire for poly or consanguineous marriage, often because the LGBT people discussing the issue aren’t interested in such relationships, or they find the very idea of them repulsive, and so they don’t see why those other relationships should have the freedom to marry.” Smh

          http://fullmarriageequality.tumblr.com/FME

          http://fullmarriageequality.tumblr.com/post/71429212266/ten-myths-about-consensual-sibling-incest

          http://fullmarriageequality.tumblr.com/Consanguinamory

          And Professor Emeritus, Christine Metteer Lorillard, a former lecturer at the University of California, Los Angeles before joining Southwestern Law School’s faculty in 1979, writes, “Some Incest is Harmless Incest: Determining the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to Marry of Adults Related by Affinity without Resorting to State Incest.”

          http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fkjpp10&div=54&id&page

          Then you have a quick pulse of how the American public is “coming around” to accepting incestuous relationships….the homosexual faction is doing its job nicely. 50-50 support/against.

          http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-incest-between-consenting-adults-be-legal

        • Somewhere, somehow America went off the rails and it was just the right time in history, enter Barack Hussein Obama. Instead of having the leadership that could have staved all these excesses, a man gets voted in that sees the opportunity to make his dream of his America come alive. The leveling of America. So he sets about making her into the abomination that the more radical haters of America always said she was. We are about to reap what has been sown the last 6 years.

    5. Approximately a year ago I decided to do a little research into Australia’s gun violence. On their government website are the stats for gun violence to include suicide. While it is true that gun violence and suicide by gun have gone down since the law was enacted, criminal violence and death have increased. As well, suicide by gun may have gone down, but suicide has not. So not sure why the Australian government is so proud of their gun laws.

      • We won’t be hearing about this inconvenient truth from ‘Ol Al “The Fear Monger” Gore. Looks like another instance of “settled science” not being quite so settled. Thanks for the breakout on these stats, Cyndi.

    6. we have firearms banned in Russia. Why won’t Obama look at my country? Oh, well, our homicide rate is more than twice higher than in U.S. where guns are allowed. Besides, tell me about last mass shooting that happened in gun allowed area as counter to gun-free zone. And if it did happen, compare it with shootings in gun-free zones. This is really no-brainer. But it seems that liberal sculls are so thick that they cannot comprehend even non-brainers that contradict their agendas.

      • Since barry was trained for the job starting a long time ago, he is a marxist, muslim Puppet/Tool for the Elite/Progressive/Left…Actor James Wood has called him a Socialist Meat Puppet……So barry is a very Special MORON.

    7. From the globalist/leftists’ perspective this Australian law would be deemed a smashing success in that it eliminates the concept of freedom by eliminating , effectively, the concept of private property. This article admits that property may now be searched without a warrant. Does that sound like property ownership? I don’t think so. Without final say-so as the private landholders, homeowners are no longer the “kings of their castles”, but said homes then become the domain of a collective electorate over the will of the private landholder. This is a back door way of rendering another private sector public. It is, when you think about it, part and parcel of a larger overreaching communist collective-based “society”. But then again, today, even the facts themselves are being accused of being paranoid.

    8. Words, words, words,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and all for naught. Nothing you say here means a hill of beans because you are talking to the choir. Until the Main Stream Media stops supporting and propping up these socialist, they win. Many of you are so much brighter than I. I ask you, how do we change the MSM agenda?

      • Propaganda will only carry King Obama so far. At some point even the cool aid drinkers will feel the pain of his policies and lawlessness thus forcing a radical change back to the small, less powerful government our forefathers intended for us. The only way I see this process stopped is if Obama and the democrats manage to get enough people on welfare to out vote the folks that pay for them. This they are trying to do through amnesty and policies that cause businesses to halt hiring due to an uncertain future. If that happens, we’re all doomed to follow modern days France’s foot steps.

        • I often wonder if obutthurt really understands the army of citizens he is trying to disarm. We outnumber the military, law enforcement, Coast Guard, and National Guard…combined. He’s outnumbered, outgunned, and outclassed. He must assume that “his” military will fire upon U.S citizens. He’s in for a rude awakening, as are his cronies in DC.

    9. Yes, Obama wants to arm only the criminals. He is one of them. Remember, he believes our Constitution is fundamentally flawed.

    10. Gun control is and always has been, at the gov. level, about control. It’s not about safety or anything related to protecting the public. Those who want gun confiscation are the very ones who want total control and domination over the populace. They also know without total confiscation, they can never achieve that goal. They use all the bad news about guns to further their agenda…control…and their minions chime right in, giving their support, never realizing they help pave the way for the destruction of their own liberties. Sheep being led to slaughter. Remember, any gov. call for gun control is really about people control.

      • I will add that the press and the gun grabbers also neglect to report any crimes or lives saved because of a firearm. HMMMMM, I wonder why that would be???? sarcasm intended, included, and required. Long live liberty!

    11. Politicians always assume that if they pass a law, the people here in the US will follow it. IF they manage to pass a confiscation law, most people will just ignore it. We are not like the other countries of the world.

    12. since when has facts got in the way of a Politian when they want to do ? they conned the English people into turning in their guns, now they’re wanting to ban butcher knives. yes the president has used any example real or otherwise to push his belief, and try to get people to go along with it.

    13. Australians were never armed anyway. We have never carried guns for self protection so how does removing certain types of firearms affect personal protection?
      I’m Australian, I own several guns (Yes we still have guns) but I have never felt any need to protect myself using lethal force. Comparing Australian firearm legislation with US law is as intellectually dishonest as comparing apples to oranges. Mr Obama is mistaken when he is trying to extol the virtues of the Australian Apple whilst trying to sell the American people an Orange.
      Mr Adams is also in the wrong by being very loose with his facts. There are statistically far less gun related crimes. Police are not allowed to search your property at any time without a warrant. You do need submit to an inspection of your firearms but it is a pre arranged time made to be at your convenience. My last inspection was 3 years ago and was booked 2 weeks in advance.

      • Many Australians were armed, and many lost valuable firearms. I carry every day, but for my job. I also have personally known three people who were gunned down by illegal firearms in this so-called safe country. They are all dead. If Australians were able to carry as civilians, there would be less gun crime. You obviously have not checked the statistics for violent crime since 1996. It’s my job to know.

        • When were Australians armed? When was it acceptable in our culture to need a gun to protect yourself in public? Can’t say I’ve ever seen someone walking down the main drag with an SKS “just in case”

          Only those who could not qualify for a C class had to sell their guns. I qualified for a C class and kept some guns but others I decided to sell. I got a good price for a barely functional SKK. I still have my SKS

          I am well aware of the statistics regarding homicide and gun crime. Fewer than 16% of homicides involve guns. Also Australian stats wander quite a lot because of lower overall numbers. A 20% increase in the national homicide rate is only 40 more annually. If you knew 3 blokes that were murdered with firearms, they would constitute nearly 1% of all people killed in this country in a year. Because they were all shot, that means they would make up more than 12% of all gun murders based on current rates.

          http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

          Most firearms in the illicit gun market are stolen and sold on.
          Less than 1% of all firearm thefts are C classed. Handguns are under 10%. Most guns are either left overs that were never registered or handed in from way back in 96′
          The clear majority of illegal firearms are bolt action long guns.
          Have a read of the actual reports and collated statistics.

          http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rpp/116/rpp116.pdf

        • I have an SKS which is 7.62×39 and uses a very similar action to the AK. Besides my .22 semi, all my other guns are bolt or break action.

        • I had a Russian SKS, brought back from Vietnam; useful little bugger and 3″ at 100m was much more accurate than the AK.

        • My first one was a Chinese knock off, second was a Russian job. Good little banger for culling pigs and roos

      • “but I have never felt any need to protect myself using lethal force.”

        You’re lucky, and you’re a fool if you think it can’t and won’t happen in the future. I am glad I live in a free country, where I determine my levels of self protection, not the Gov’t. You are not a free man, you are a subject, controlled by your Gov’t. Our current admin would love nothing more than to emulate Australia, but it will never happen here. The “III” (Three Percenters) will never allow it. http://freepatriot.org/2013/07/08/the-meaning-behind-three-percenter-or-the-iii/

        • I am more concerned about non sustainable economic practices and the inevitable critical and unrecoverable collapse of the global financial system.
          Just to qualify my statement that you quoted, it only pertains to Australia. I have been to other countries where I have had to use a weapon to defend myself.
          I also need to make sure that you understand that I do not think the US should change any Gun laws. They are your laws and I respect that. I just think it is dishonest by both sides of the argument to use Australia as an example for or against.

        • You clearly don’t have a problem with ‘home invasion’ type of robbery, or you don’t have anything worth stealing. Over here we do. I also have an aversion to having myself or wifie raped at gunpoint. I don’t carry downtown, but have a small auto locked in my car’s trunk along with the jack, spare tire and first-aid kit. Why not?

        • We don’t have a CCW here. My opinions may or may not be shared by other people but I only speak for myself.

        • I am not sure why Andy Martin was so hostile after reading the whole thread, I think you have been quite rational in your arguments. I would ask, though, about the crime in Australia in general. I will look it up too but would be interested in your personal observation about violence in general, murder with other than guns. I know in New Zealand you can own rifles after getting a license, getting some personal references as to your mental stability, having an inspection of your home and intended gun storage strategy by a police officer, and sitting and passing a written test. Those are for a hunting rifle of some sort. Getting a hand gun is a little more difficult and there are restrictions as to where you can shoot them. However the criminals who don’t have guns just use knives, bats, guns if they have them, all manner of weapons. Murder and violence isn’t lessened by having these gun laws, only the use of guns for that violence is less. More / stricter gun laws will not stop those who wish harm on others. There is only one reason the Obama administration wants to toughen up gun laws and it is a nefarious reason with the ultimate goal of confiscation. He is using every crisis to further another agenda, not to lessen gun violence. If he were sincere about mass shootings he would be looking at the mental health system not gun ownership.

        • It’s not common to be attacked in your home or on the street here (Speaking in general terms) Most violent crimes are between people who know each other or people punching up after too many beers. That being said, there has been a trend towards fist fights getting out of hand and people getting glassed etc. Generally though, people don’t get killed by strangers. (It does happen though)
          Any person with murder in their heart will find a way to kill the other person with the resources available to them. You cannot legislate away murder. It will always happen. If they have a gun, they might use it, if not, a large rock may suffice.
          As for criminals, my personal opinion is that a man is not a criminal unless he commits a crime. Therefore any man that has committed a crime is statistically a criminal.
          There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics.
          Sorry if my answers appear short or curt but it’s just passed 2am and I am basically replying in point for (without the dots) so I can get to my fart sack and do some snooze.
          I’m more than happy to discuss this with you though once the sun comes back up.

        • I think you are quite correct about the cultural differences. There is a tradition of gun ownership here and of course the whole reason we have the second amendment is to protect the population from coming under the thumb of another tyrant. I think this is why the battle between the pro and anti gun lobbies is so fierce right now because there are many of us who see the writing on the wall, inch by inch we head towards confiscation. It has happened so often in history and we don’t want it to happen here because it always ends very badly for the citizens.

        • Sorry for my late reply, I have been away at school (You’re never too old to learn)
          I’ve often wondered about the possibility of a grand conspiracy and the existence of a puppet master pulling on all the strings. Then I look at things like the F-35 program or the ISIS offensive in Iraq and realise that it’s all just random. Mass Media (Both the mainstream and alternate) do their level best to re-enforce partisan political and ethical standpoints for no other reason than people like to feel like they belong and will generally accept the information fed to them if they identify it as being from their own brand.
          Confiscation won’t happen in the USA simply because the people don’t want it. At the end of the day, if it does turn out that there is a man behind the curtain and he does want your guns, you are protected by the fact that the man he will send to take them is a fellow citizen and that man will refuse.
          Partisan politics is designed to divide a population and is the single biggest threat to a free society

        • I wish I had your confidence about confiscation but I don’t. Every gun control concession will lead to another, it already has.

          Regarding fellow citizens will refuse to confiscate, I don’t believe that although I would like to. Not sure if you have read about the militarization of the federal bureaucracies or not but departments such as the Department of Education, IRS, USDA, and there are many more, have their own SWAT teams now. Why does a federal bureaucracy outside normal law enforcement bureaucracies, need SWAT teams? An example of overreach? The Department of Education using ‘their’ SWAT team to break into someones house who is suspected of tuition fund fraud. Another disturbing progression is the purging of military leaders who have said they will not fire upon American citizens.
          Progressives are persistent. As Leighton Smith always says, inch by inch.
          In history, registration of guns and strict control of guns very often leads to confiscation, not necessarily by the administrations who enact the controls. They may be enacted with genuinely noble intentions however given an authoritarian leader, as we have now in the US, and a crisis, either convenient or manufactured, confiscation will occur. The left has already shown they will confiscate and / or refuse gun ownership as they did with the Black Americans in our history and I have no doubt they will try it again.
          Cheers!

        • Militarisation of of federal departments is concerning. Proliferation generally leads to escalation. Police have a mandate to maintain order and as such, should be the only internal force with the powers of arrest.
          I do wonder however, how much of the threat of confiscation is manufactured to sew fear and garner support for opposition.
          The USA was at it’s peak during the Cold War when the Nation was united against “The Reds” so a social engineering exercise to bring unity through fear is not unheard of.
          Democracies and Republics only ever have a short life span because eventually an elite class emerge who have no loyalty to the people and system collapses. The “Have nots” will eventually band together and take everything from the “Haves” and in the process, destroy themselves as well.

        • Chicago is a prime example of what happens when you have strict gun control. Only cops and criminal’s have guns.

      • [[ but I have never felt any need to protect myself using lethal force. ]]

        I don’t expect to have a car accident either. But I buy insurance.

        • Are we still talking about guns or have we moved on to cars?
          I buy car insurance because there is a good statistical chance that I’ll be involved in a car accident. There is however, more chance of winning Lotto than being confronted by a gun in my day to day life.
          I don’t buy Lotto tickets.

        • Good for you Aussie. But I look at a gun as insurance. And don’t fool yourself. You don’t have to be faced with death by firearm only. There are many ways to be taken out. Now I’ll await your next smug retort.

        • I don’t disagree that in the US, a gun would be a prudent investment. The main idea of all my posts so far though has been that any comparison between the USA and Australia is intellectually dishonest.
          There are anti-gun groups here that use US stats to try and legitimise their arguments but even though the numbers appear valid, the methods are fundamentally flawed.
          Australian style gun laws wouldn’t work in the US for a plethora of different reasons. I think anyone advocating that, has very little understanding of the cultural differences between our nations.

        • [[ I think anyone advocating that, has very little understanding of the cultural differences between our nations.]]

          What does that have to do with gun laws?

        • Culture has everything to do with law. It is a written down version of what we as a society deem to be the rules.

        • My nation was founded in 1901 made up of peoples from all over the globe. Pretty much the same as yours except we achieved federation through negotiation instead of war. We are now a self determined nation with all the tools we need to move our country in the direction that we want it to go. Every person has an interest in politics because voting is mandatory, no one can sit on the side lines. We have minor parties and independent representatives who hold the balance of power in several states and also at a federal level.
          I’m not sure where your hostility comes from but I assure you it is misplaced.

        • [[ I’m not sure where your hostility comes from but I assure you it is misplaced.]]

          From you——————–‘Culture has everything to do with law. It is a written down version of what we as a society deem to be the rules’. Again. Meaning what? That your ‘culture’ is above owning guns? I don’t get that.

        • I own guns. Quite a few of them I suppose. It has never been part of our national identity to carry them though. That’s all I’ve been getting at the whole damned thread. It’s not about above or below, just differences.
          Our change in gun laws in the 90’s only affected recreational shooters because that is all we have traditionally used our guns for.

        • You either do not know or are denying the truth and history about being a penal colony at the beginning. Look it up.

        • We were a Penal Colony before we were a Nation and before that we were a land of many Aboriginal Nations. What the dirt was 200 or 300 years is irrelevant to who we are as a Nation today.

        • There have been interviews with Australians who have had collectible and antique guns forcibly destroyed. They were given no choice. They had guns they planned to use to defend their businesses taken or they would have been considered criminals. I guess you are calling them liars. What about the pictures of huge piles of guns being run over by steamrollers? Maybe the cities are being more harsh than rural areas. That happens in the USA, too.

        • We have insurance for our cars. Our lives are more important, guns are our insurance we can protect ourselves. How sad that you lack the intelligence to understand the comparison.

        • Oh I understand the comparison but if it’s not a relevant one to my circumstances. Being condescending is an ugly trait.

    14. As a 51 year old Australian who was brought up on recreational hunting and shooting and still partake in that with my teenage son who also enjoys belonging to a shooting club, I am not sure I agree with much of Nick Adam’s letter except for quote “In Australia, mass shootings have been a rare event.”. Prior to the Port Arthur shootings that cost some 32 lives and many injuries, the only other mass shootings were two that I can recall, Hoddle Street in Victoria (8 deaths) and Strathfield Mall in Sydney (6 deaths). The close proximity time wise of these shootings made the federal government react to public concern so to my mind fair enough. Other than that the only thing I will say is that guns, mainly automatic weapons were removed from the law abiding public whilst criminals can still get a gun quite easily if they want one….

    15. “An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.”

      Those of you that live Australia have becomes subjects, instead of citizens.

      • Australians have always been subjects. They are still part of Great Britain. They have a prime minister, not a president, and a governor-general who represents Queen Elizabeth. I think that’s why the government had such an easy time disarming the Australians – they are used to thinking of themselves as subjects, because they are. It is not a natural mindset for most native-born Americans.

        • It will be their mindset, though, as we loose the older generations. Just think, most young people today don’t have any idea about the freedoms we have enjoyed. It is all just normal to them what is going on now, freedoms being taken away at an accelerated rate.

        • They take those freedoms for granted and have no idea the high price paid for them. Their freedom may soon be lost because of their ignorance.

        • Now they are subjects AND more likely to become victims – because of their government’s desire to control.

    16. WOW, he’s not even an American, but an Australian that knows what happens when you gun rights are taken away! Good on him! Pretty sad when people of another country know what is going wrong with this country and it’s current administration. While the sheeple (Obambabots) are asleep at the wheel!

      • He was a victim of gun control that took their weapons of defense. He has lived through it and is warning us.

      • Sir I couldn’t agree more! Unfortunately the progressive leftists desire a nany state that isn’t anything about safety it’s always been about control. A globally engineered society that uses the guise of public safety to remove liberties and allow the elites total unfettered control over the subjudacated masses

    17. So does that mean the parents of children who died in gun violence can go to Australia and tell the country how the NRA cares more about their guns than human life? How our politicians happily take $$ from the gun lobby and vote accordingly. How the American people want background checks, but our government officials don’t care. How gun nuts drape themselves around the flag and claim it’s their right to bear arms, but than harass
      pro gun control groups.

        • go to a gun show after committing a felony, I mean you specifically. Ya I am daring you to do this. Go hit your partner have them press charges and honestly tell me they can go get a weapon the day after, legally. If they can it is a problem with your local or state government not the federal government. Federal is big, once you localize your governing things become simple, fast and uncomplicated. that is what our constitution was really founded on. If we go back to the basics, there would be very little crime. Let it be known you or I could be stabbed, beaten, kicked, tortured and well, you get the point to death. It doesn’t matter how we die during an assault. What matters is how we went. Defending yourself or curling up in a fetal position while getting beaten or shot to death the outcome is still the same, your dead. If guns are outlawed, what’s next? butcher knives, baseball bats, hammers? You are a fool just for thinking a government agency will be there to save your ass when there is only seconds to live.

        • I only wish the media would starting reporting on wether the crime victim had a gun in the house. You will quickly see people don’t always have time to get to a gun to shot their rapist, attacter , murderer, etc. You hear abt the old grandma or young mother, etc shooting her intruder , but never abt the dead person who couldn’t reach the gun next to the bed. Or grabbed from behind or gun taken awY by attracter

        • If guns kill how do people survive attending gun shows? No, it takes evil and/or mentally ill people to use guns against innocent people. As is often said “Good people with gins stop evil people with guns.”. Don’t encourage leaving innocent people unable to protect themselves. Be an attractive potential victim – others chose not to do that.

      • I don’t know how people can come to the conclusion that if you support gun ownership you don’t care about human life. I contend that it is precisely the fact that we care about life that we want people to own guns. The ones who don’t care about our individual rights are those who would take away our guns but ensure they themselves are well protected.
        I truly believe that some are very well intentioned in their call for expanded background checks, banning certain weapons etc although I disagree that these measures in any way stop gun violence. I don’t believe the Government is well intentioned. Governments have proven time and time again that their gun control measures are purely ‘control’ measures for individual law abiding citizens and they cynically ‘use’ tragedies to further the agenda which has nothing to do with protecting the innocent.

        • You are kidding right. ? Cynically use tragedies? How ? Too many pictures of dead kids? Pres Obama with families of victims? Too bad , it drives the point. What about gun nuts in Tx carrying guns into family restaurants for the purpose scaring people. They say it ‘s a gun rights demo. How about showing up at gun control rallies and making a scene ? Or harassing gun advocates. ?

          I wonder how a republican president would handle new town or aurora? ” sorry dead kids, but I got to get to the bank and cash this check from the NRA”

        • Cynical because they use the tragedy of children being killed for an agenda that has nothing to do with protecting children. It is the same way they use any crisis whether it tragically happens, such as New Town which involved a mentally unstable person, or is manufactured, such as crisis occurring at the border right now. There are children suffering there, live children, yet the Government created this crisis and is allowing these children to suffer from hunger and disease but because they want this crisis they have prohibited pictures being taken of these children. The double standard is so clear.
          I want people in Chicago to be able to protect themselves from criminal punks that terrorize their communities, I want to be able to pull a gun if I am threatened. If you don’t want to fine, don’t buy one, but leave me alone.

        • I would love to see a republican handle New Town “sorry parents of dead 6 year olds, but we “responsible gun owners needs our guns”.
          You want the people to protect themselves in Chicago, How brilliant. Tell me the difference bet a Responsible gun owner and a criminal? How can we tell the difference while you are walking down a dark street?
          As for prohibited pictures> I would if the congressman had the proper permission to gain access to the base? You did he know the army would automatically send him and he had a great photo op?

        • So where are the pictures from this so called S.H. shooting? Wouldn’t those have catapulted the Dumo’s to power and really put forth a gun ban of some sort in place?Oh they were to gruesome to run,but what about Columbine?Over and over.What about 911? over and over.But nothing from S.H.
          Something isn’t right.

        • Let me get this straight , you are saying that SH was a conspiracy ? That means that the whole town was in on it, costing somebody millions of dollars to keep the whole town silent ? Not to mention grandparents and other family from far away.
          And no enterprising journalist could find one person tell talk?

        • That’s another one you buy into.It’s for the children. Tell me oh wise one where was that mantra before Sandy Hook?Oh wait it wasn’t.Guess the one at Aurora wasn’t enough was it so guess what. And another is due with elections coming up.Lets hope not but this reeks of bad ju ju.

        • You’re just a commie liberal fool. I really don’t see the need in elaborating further as your ideology speaks clearly in volumes of your own ignorance :/

        • Right, and what are you? You can’t even stay current. The article was written June 15, that’s a full 30 day ago. Also, anytime you want to answer this commie liberal fool’s questions, please go ahead. You have 30 days to come up with something.

        • Nice try dick head I just came across the article today dumbass! Look I’m gonna throw this out there simply and clear cut for you buddy! If guns offend you then you are a pussy! If guns offend you then leave this country because this is a gun country.Hey here’s a suggestion, go to gun controled Chicago and see how well you fair there because I guarantee you will not. Funny how so much gun control and yet Chicago leads the highest murder rate along with D.C. you liberals live in a fantasy world it’s really comedic the level of ignorance of your ideology. It’s in the bill of rights and the constitution and I suggest that if guns and liberties offend you, your desire for a nanny state and socialism, then move somewhere else!

        • Can you be anymore unoriginal!!! nanny state, socialism, Chicago, leave the country if you don’t like it. Now I see why you are such a slow loser. I hope this is the last time we connect, bec I have answered all your demands, just look at my other posts. You will see I will never back down.
          1), only tyrants tell others to leave if you don’t like it here. Why can’t I disagree or have another opinion? It’s in that constitution you care so much about. The first amendment. You know it’s above no. 2.
          2) You fools think Chicago is the argument that will stop a liberal dead in their tracks? Why not give guns to every law abiding citizen of Chicago? And tell me how you can spot a law abiding citizen coming at you on a dark street?

          3) You have to right to a gun. No problem. But you don’t have to right to be an ass hole. GUNS GUNS GUNS. Is that all you fools think about? The constitution says plenty of wonderful things and we salivate over guns. Your gun rights are a myth provided by the NRA and gun markers to keep you leaving in fear to sell you more and more guns. Every time Obama opens his mouth, it’s fundraiser time!!!! Do you know how much money these guns makers made off Obama’s gun control measures? They made millions and you got a gun to shot the liberals.

          CONSPIRACY THEORY- NRA pays millions to Obama to threaten gun control. Paranoid fools buy up all the guns they can, $$$$$ for gun makers. AND, liberals hold stock in gun markers to fund Hilary for president. WIN WIN, mother f**ker!

        • Guess you haven’t noticed how the BOL’s are being chipped away at?How the feds wanted monitors in the news rooms(just to make sure the correct news was given).Bet if the 1st was to be in REAL jeopardy you’d be the first to scream.
          Give every law abiding citizen in Chicago a gun? Watch the crime rate fall.You probably bought into the myth :
          “oh the streets are gonna run red with fights over parking spots” blah,blah,blah.
          Just saying since you seem fond of myths.

        • Chicago? Tell me how many republicans have shown up there? Not even to give a speech ? Also, give every law Abiding citizen in Chicago a gun? And how can you tell the criminals from law Abiding?

        • I just found this site and agree 100% with what you say,only I think he/she should just move to Mexico. No guns nice and safe.

        • What about the psycho that entered Luby’s cafe? The girl that was not allowed to carry inside(gun free zone) so left her weapon in the car?How did that turn out?

        • Wow few people died because of a few mentally ill people lost it. Hmmm that is ehat courts, jails, and some rope are for.

          60k deaths from cars…..
          More people die from Tripping the legal guns.
          more die from knives, bats, including “Fists” then ALL girearms legsl and criminal.

          so are we stopping cars? Knives? Baseball bats? How about those “Fists”

          oh wait.. 14k falls vs less then 80 from mass murders in a year.

          oh wait those people would be alive if we did not have GUN FREE zones. ALL happened in gun free zones.

          You will never win this fight.
          Simple more gun control, more Crime!
          less gun control, less crime!

          more cities n states are now reducing gun control then those adding it. Try and take them away … it will not end well.

      • Harvard and the FBI have published reports showing where more citizens own guns crime goes down. Violent Chicago and D.C. are prime examples of what happens where there is strict gun control. Criminals don’t obey laws and will always find ways to get guns. People should be able to defend themselves and others.

    18. “The only thing achieved was to take away
      the guns of the law-abiding, leaving only the criminals armed. Is this
      what you wish for America?” Obama: Yes, it is.

      “I always say “An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.”
      A citizen IS a subject. A Citizen is a different class of subject. A Sovereign Living-Man/Woman is without subjects (Chisholm v Georgia, 1793 USSC).
      Please learn the difference between John Henry Doe and JOHN H DOE.
      Rules of English apply, especially in the legal realm.

    19. America will follow your persuit & those who have Gods law on their hearts will always retain some or all of their weapons.

        • Who are you and why do you ask?

          Festus49: The Bible is the book of the law.
          Psalms 119.160 the sum of which is to be taken.

          Thou shalt love יהוה thy Elohim with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

          What’s the promise: Jer 31.31-33 & Heb 8.10-11

          I John 5.3 For this is the love of יהוה, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

    20. Why do Obama and commies do all of these things ? “Because,
      the world is hell. But we have a chance to start over in the rubble.
      But first there has to be a rubble.”

    21. Now compare it with Austria. The official estimate of firearms in private hands legally for Austria is 10,000,000. In the ministry of the interior and federal police this is considered to be a very conservative guess.

      Yes, semi-automatic rifles and all handguns require permits. Those are so called Category B weapons. Military grade hardware is Category A, but fully automatic rifles can be obtained by civilians if a special permit is issued by authorities. There are several thousand such permits.

      Now why are those 10,000,000 a guess?

      Because the actual number of Category C and D weapons is not known. C and D are repeating rifles, double barrel shotguns, that sort of stuff. In order to buy a C or D weapon an Austrian citizen requires only two things: he must be of legal age and he must not have been convicted of any crime.

      That means, when you’re 18 you can go to your local gun shop and buy whatever C or D type weapon you want.

      Right now old military grade bolt action rifles are very popular and that has spawned a shooting sport called “Ordonnanzschiessen” (bolt action rifles up to 1945, open sights, 100 meter distance on a 25 meter pistol target.) C and D type weapons are also shipped by the postal service, even without insurance because nobody would bother stealing them as they are so easily obtainable.

      Now, the EUSSR has invented a new firearms registry, which serves absolutely no purpose other than adding more red tape and giving the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels a bit more power. Needless to say that the numbers of firearms registered are very low. The vast majority of owners ignores it and the only fully registered weapons are Category A and B, because those were registered by the ministry as that info has already been registered at the ministry because A and B require permits.

      Worse yet (for gun grabbers.) In Western Austria there is a thing called “rifle companies”. They trace themselves back to the Napoleonic Wars and Tyrolean resistance against the invaders. Today they are seen more as a folkloristic thing, a tourist attraction, but they wear traditional uniforms, parade and drill with real rifles. Shooting sports are big among the members and having served in the country’s military is pretty much a requirement to join.

      One word about the permit for A and B type weapons.

      A WBK, a so called Waffenbesitzkarte, a permit card, is really easy to get. All it takes is legal age, going through a psychological assessment (which is laughable at worst) and a “need” to own a firearm. It’s enough to say that you want to take part in shooting sports. Plus, the usual background check to see if you’re a convicted criminal. That’s it. With that WBK you can buy whatever is legal. Handguns, Steyr AUGs, AR15s, etc.

      A carry permit, a Waffenpass, is a lot harder to get, of course, and requires an actual need to carry a weapon for self defense. However, that carry permit makes no distinction on whether you must carry your weapon open or concealed. It permits both, just nobody ever carries open because of the troubles that could potentially cause with oversensitive fools.

      With all those firearms in private hands one would think that gun violence in Austria should be high?

      It’s not.

      The legal firearm is the least used tool for violent crime. The only cases that pop up every now and then are murder-suicides and suicides. But despite all those firearms, and let’s face it, a hunting rifle is actually “high powered” compared to a Steyr AUG, there has not been a single spree shooting in Austria. And funnily enough, all the EU countries with stricter anti-gun laws have more violent crime than Austria… Hmmm….

    22. He said Australia not Austria you numb nut…before you waste your time reading it, I can sum it up in half a sentence.. Hut hum.. there’s no crack cocaine in Austria.. And the crowed roared ..
      At Pamela k.. Washington D.C only banned hand guns not exactly a fair test on lowering gun crime when someone can still LEGALLY carry an AK47 is it?

    23. If mass shootings are about illness not guns then why has Australia not had a mass shooting since introducing gun legislation when during the same period there was no significant increase in mental health care provided by the state? Gun control laws absolutely work in Australia. Whether the same thing could be implemented in the US is a red herring issue, we didn’t need to buy-back 300M guns and our population is roughly 6-7% of the US so the economic cost of implementing the measures was significantly less than it would be here.

      I get it, you don’t want gun control in the US. But if you’re going to say such damn silly stuff about the impact of gun legislation then why are you using by far and away the BEST case study of gun control in action to support your idiotic theory? The Australian gun control laws have massive support from…wait for it… gun owners in Australia. And everyone else. They created a significantly safer social environment in which the fear that everyone lives with in the US is a non-issue. Australians don’t think they need guns for self defence, Americans like yourselves think you do. That’s the real difference. We trust each other, you’re scared of each other.

      • Yeah, but everyone else isnt America. Shame people think other people shouldn’t have the right to defend themselves as effectively as they want. Yes firearms are dangerous, it is important that adults and children alike understand the seriousness of gun ownership and operation. No matter what laws you impose, you only hurt the law abiding citizens.

        Take into account the population of the US too, PER capita, crime rates are not significantly different from other countries. Someone from the UK called us out on having the most police shootings, but after taking to account that the UK is half the size of Texas, those numbers became very insignificant.

        Look at the hostage situation going on in Australia right now. I guarantee you none of the guns involved were registered in the country. What if those hostages had some kind of protection on them?

        • Agreed. That’s one of the point’s little timmy refuses to see.
          If the Au. people were able to be armed, they would not be “hostages”.
          Nor would they be viewed as helpless children by their own gov.

          It is horrifying, but not surprising, that Pres. Obola, and most Dems. wish to disarm the country, making us weak and literally turning us into slaves to the gov. for handouts.

          He should have paid more attn. in school instead of being an “activist” and read-up on past presidents like President James Madison who wrote, ”The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

          This is why former House Rep. Allen West said: “An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject”.

        • This article wasn’t about the US. It was about Australia. And it was completely inaccurate. I’m Australian. I live happily in the US. I’m taking the time to explain the difference between the two places and our thinking for your benefit.

          But seriously, the author isn’t doing himself any favours here. He’s trying to use literally the most effective case study of gun control to prove the total opposite. If you guys are so confident of your ideas, why are you using Australia as an example? It doesn’t support your case at all.

        • Yeah laws working great.. shootups everynight in Sydney and the Gold Coast.. Gunman taking hostages in Sydney CBD.. Home invasions and assualts at an all time high..

        • more like a disarmed citizen is just soil in a potato field.. never forget what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto…

      • Must be related to ol Johny himself.. mate I am not sure what or where you got your facts from but aussie shooters did not want the laws they had no choice!! I am at ranges every week and all I hear is the disgust of what John Howard did. It has done nothing and has been shown over and over, by just saying there hasnt been a mass shooting since is flawed in its own.. Take New Zealand they have no requirement for firearm registration and can still own the evil guns that John Howard took away and their has not been mass shooting in the same recordable time.. Then you have to look into this fact Martin Bryant purchased those firearms illegally he had no license so from the get go he was breaking the law!! Here’s another point.. there is actually more firearms in Australia now then before Port Arthur and no mass shootings, if anything the States are looking at relaxing the laws as they are old and outdated (they where actually drawn up in 1989). I am a shooter and I would be happy if the laws where relaxed, I am sick of being treated like a criminal everytime a criminal uses an illegal gun to shoot up streets of Sydney. Instead of restricting law abiding people, make the laws for illegal firearm use stricter.

    24. Look at the hostage situation today in Martin square, Sydney. If there were one or two armed citizens among the hostages the situation would be over already.

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here