According to that logic, if the australian shooter was inspired by religious ideology, he too would have gone to a different place, right?

Yep it is and now it is time for the rest of the world

"Infidels" can be found anywhere in Australia, not many Islamic people there.

Never. It is a sad flaw in human society that will never go away. After all, The Black Hand, a group of terrorists were responsible for starting the first World War and that was 100 years ago. Well, technically, they were a "secret military society" but if you read up about them and their goals, they weren't all that different from groups like ISIS. The scary part is by the end of the war, they got exactly what they wanted. 

Certain groups will disappear and certain causes will fade but the idea of bringing attention to an issue or trying to change things through the act of terror will always be around. 

The Australian gov't didn't outright ban guns (which is a wet dream for the political left here in the US), they severely restricted the sale and usage of most guns and made the requirements for owning a gun even stricter.  The thing that many people fail to mention when pointing to Australia's gun laws as a model policy that should be replicated in some form in the US is that Australia already had realtively low gun crime rates prior to the 1996 gun control laws being instated...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#/media/File:Gun_deaths_over_time_in_the_US_and_Australia.png

The US experienced a similar decline in gun crime over the same time period despite a far larger circulation of guns in the country, and the fact that the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" which was enacted in 1994 and designed to curb the manufacture and sale of scary-looking rifles actually expired back in 2004.

And citizens can no longer rise up and challege a tyranically government in modern times?  Tell that to any number of countries in Central & South America and over in Africa / the Middle East.  And they're accomplishing it without the benefits of a constitutional right to arm and protect yourself.

*Christians*/*Believers* can be found anywhere in the US as well, no need to go to a church.

I don't get why they bother to use 2 seperate scales on that graph, yes the US is 10 fold higher but you could still easily draw it on the same scale and avoid the first sight confusion that makes them look similiar, it reminds me of the hockey stick graph of al Gore, bad graphs suck. It is also important to note that Australia prior to the strict gun control laws already had laws that were far far stricter than what the US have today, so again you can't make a like for like comparison. I have been a gun owner here since I was a teenager in the 80's. The stat I find interesting is your more likely to die by gun shot in the US than you are to die by car accident in Australia. But this is really off track, Gun laws don't completely prevent bad people getting guns they just make it harder.

http://www.news.com.au/national/crime/five-men-arrested-in-terror-raids-across-sydney-following-parramatta-shooting/story-fns0kb1g-1227559808363

Seems like it wasn't just the action of a single mad man.

Actually, that makes perfect sense once you realize that this is the whole point behind the chart - to suggest to naive people that the US experienced a similar decline in gun crime over the same time period.

And btw, that chart is flawed in multiple ways. A severe, but not instantly obvious problem with this chart is that they mix data from different sources: from gunpolicy.org and CDC.

Here's the raw data from gunpolicy.org for Australia (Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia):

2012: 1.03 ^/ 2011: 0.86 / 2010: 1.08 / 2009: 1.06 / 2008: 1.10 / 2007: 1.11 / 2006: 1.18 / 2005: 1.09 / 2004: 1.20 / 2003: 1.46 / 2002: 1.49 / 2001: 1.69 / 2000: 1.70 / 1999: 1.84 / 1998: 1.68 / 1997: 2.32 / 1996: 2.84 / 1995: 2.61 / 1994: 2.90 / 1993: 2.91 / 1992: 3.49 / 1991: 3.59 / 1990: 3.51

Now if you try to get the corresponding raw data for the same time period for the US (Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states), you get aware of a huge problem:

2012: 10.69 / 2011: 10.38 ^/ 2010: 10.26 ^/ 2009: 10.22 / 2008: 10.39 / 2007: 10.37 / 2006: 10.35 / 2005: 10.39 / 2004: 10.10 / 2003: 10.39 / 2002: 10.51 / 2001: 10.38 / 2000: 10.19 / 1999: 10.35

There is simply no data for the time before 1999 for the US!

"Ah!" one might say, "so that's the reason they used data from two different sources; for the US for the time before 1999, gunpolicy.org has no data, so for the US data before 1999 they had no choice to use the available data from CDC instead!"

Which sounds somewhat plausible at first - but apart from the general problem of mixing data from different sources, there's a much bigger problem that one gets aware of when looking for that missing data on the CDC website

Money quote (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html):

Note: The coding of mortality data changed significantly in 1999, so you may not be able to compare number of deaths and death rates from 1998 and before with data from 1999 and after. Also, cause-of-injury groupings were updated in 2003, which may affect some WISQARS mortality reports.

So even the CDC admits that the US data from before 1999 simply cannot be compared to other data, not even CDC data!

And now have a look at the bar for the US in the chart: All decline in the US was BEFORE that year 1999!

Now when one only uses the available (and comparable) data from the single source gunpolicy.org, which spans the time period from 1999 to 2012, the chart looks somewhat different; suddenly the charts don't look look so comparable after all. And how should they, given that in that time period the numbers for the US rose by about 3%, while the numbers for Australia dropped by 44%?