What's your alternative policy? How much do you estimate that to cost?

1.Do sporting shooters need military weapons to be able to enjoy their sport?
2. Are shooting deaths and injuries in the US also decreasing in number? If not, why not?

David, whatever the Aussie gun laws are now are good enough for me.

We don't have mad wanna-be 'soldiers' shooting large numbers of people at one sitting most weeks, as they do in the US.

If you don't like the gun laws here, the US sounds like the shooting happy country of choice for you.

d'Helm,

In my considered opinion, and from my experience, sporting shooters do NOT require military style weapons to be able to participate effectively in their choice of recreation/sport/conservation/humane-vermin-control.

As a shooter myself, almost exclusively in target shooting (putting holes in paper in a safe and responsible manner), I have no problem with the restrictions placed on the possession of certain firearms. In fact I heartily support the restrictions on semi-autos - which may of course still be possessed in certain circumstances by duly-licenced professional shooters for feral animal control.

Our firearms licencing system works quite well, with the major benefit, I believe, of due scrutiny of all applicants, which hopefully reduces the risk of nut-jobs acquiring a licence and a firearm.
The lack of universal scrutiny in the U.S. is a major flaw in their system.

Our restrictions, including the registration of firearms, and requirements for their secure storage, hopefully acts to limit the availability of firearms to criminal elements, and to minimize the chances for non-licenced persons to gain access to a firearm, possibly for ill-intent, and also obviating chances of an 'accident', and these are worthwhile objectives.

Our system may have a significant price-tag, but the resultants are well worth the effort, and the cost.

David is baying at the moon, for the debate has been had, and only some relatively minor 'tweaking' of the regulations may be all that remains by way of improvement or simplification - at least as far as NSW regulations are concerned.

The decline in firearms 'incidents' may or may not be directly related to the restrictions introduced, but any significant relaxation of our regulations would be ill-advised indeed, IMHO.

We don't need another Port Arthur, or Hoddle Street, or any 'Columbines'. The price of security is well spent.
(Mind you, I would be in favour of more stringent provisions regarding evidence of psychological fitness. But that is only my view.)

David L, there are some important parts you have not covered in your article.

One, is that the witchhunt against a million innocent people who owned guns distracted from the real causes of shooting massacres - mental illness - and media reports teaching and creating incentives to commit massacres.

Two, Australia's smug monoculture of self-righteousness makes us incompetent to work with data, as opposed to feelings. The vicious treatment of those who disagree with the witch-hunting and brainwashing whether over guns, global warming or the other marker issues of the chattering class, is a disgrace to our country.

I would very much like to see any evidence that Australia's mass murderer Martin Bryant was mentally ill. What is true is that Bryant has low IQ, marginal IQ.

I have never understood why the feckless media and the public must believe that mass killers are 'mentally ill' when they obviously do not believe that of other criminal offenders, be they white collar or violent thugs who murder. It is stereotyping and as such is often wrong.

The simple fact is that there are people who do monstrous things. They plan their dreadful deeds coldly and rationally and carry them through the same. Where mass killers are concerned it is highly likely that the ones who seek personal revenge on the world and celebrity are encouraged to kill large groups of people. That is the 'Gold' method of ensuring media attention.

A gun, bomb or fire are the present methods that ensure sensationalist treatment by the media. Planes guarantee immediate, sustained and wide exposure as well. Offenders are also guaranteed continued celebrity from the media, maybe forever, as current affairs shows and editors 'refresh' their celebrity on slow news days. We all recognise 'those' stories. For example, the disgusting Bryant must relish the continued attention from his gaol cell. Other possible offenders are watching that.

An obvious treatment of risk is to ensure that the media do not sensationalise, but report ethically and with principle. That is impossible where the media chase an audience. What is also impossible is that the media will ever admit any contributing fault.

This is a good article. John Howard, who went against the advice of his ministers and advisers was most likely advised by 'Her Indoors', Janette Howard, the real power and force behind the 'Little Deputy', John Howard. It was $2 billion of taxpayers money wasted, but it did win Howard an election and it did take attention away from the knowledge authorities had of Bryant, and the impossibility of stopping the lone wolf, regardless of what method s/he chooses. Bryant also used fire.

Thank you to the author of the article.