Whether Bryant chose his method from media reports of other killings is not the point. No-one knows because he was never put on trial, more is the pity. However it is known that copy cats do exist and media reports encourage them. Copy cat suicides following a sensationalised report of suicide give an example.

What is relevant is whether the white elephant gun registry and the mountains of bureaucratic paperwork for Police weapons branches that were created as a result of John Howard's gun control 'initiative' could prevent criminals similar to Bryant from offending.

These cowardly killers were not deterred by the available laws and punishments at the time and it is fair to surmise that they would not have any regard for doubled or tripled laws. How many times is it necessary to say you must not kill?

Further, since the Howard inspired laws are aimed at and complied with by honest, respectable citizens of certified good character who can be relied upon to be very, very unlikely to ever offend, the laws should be see for what they are, political window dressing. After all, exactly what is there in those laws that could prevent a mongrel like Bryant from offending? The answer is absolutely bloody nothing.

To claim that the 'Howard' laws prevent multiple killings is ridiculous. No-one and nothing can stop a lone wolf, but the vigilance of people near to the offender. He is not prevented from fulfilling his awful mission by limits on the availability of tools. He is not concerned about breaking laws. He can obtain tools illegally or legally and easily, eg for arson. There are many options that could create mayhem and allow for a concealed escape. A gun practically guarantees detection (possibly before the event as well) and capture.
contd..

contd..

Howard set in train an expensive, ineffectual bureaucratic mess that takes good police away from detecting and collaring offenders. It is stupidly pointless having weapons branch police constantly looking over the shoulders of known, certified, legally licensed owners and conducting random inspections in their homes. What better outcome for offenders than police being forced behind desks with heaps of paperwork on ordinary law-abiding citizens? The police computers jam-packed with the personal details of the respectable, law-abiding citizens that Howard caused to be classed as 'persons of interest'. ie likely criminals.

Imagine, all of those ordinary respectable citizens, farmers and Olympians with legally-obtained firearms licences are red-flagged on the police computer in the patrol car when they are pulled over for a random breath test. What is the next stage in ratbag gun control, will these citizens be thrown to the ground and intimately searched US-style while a loaded gun is pointed at them?

Lets not do the gun control thing and conflate ordinary law-abiding citizens and their lawfully approved and lawfully used firearms, with ferals and criminals who are involved with all manner of illegal activities including illegal weapons, again of all descriptions. Instead lets talk about illegal firearms and the law-breaking offenders who put them to bad purposes. Better still, lets release trained police from monitoring law-abiding citizens and let them do what they want to do, detect and arrest the wrongdoers.

d'Helm,

In you initial post you had said, "Do sporting shooters need military weapons to be able to enjoy their sport?"

Well, no.. they do not need military weapons to enjoy their sport. However, the same argument could be made asking if they really need real guns to enjoy their sport. This question frames the argument in such a way that you have limitless justification, as you are basing restrictions off of a subjective need for enjoyment. This is a slippery slope.

For that reason, I think this is the wrong question to be asking. I would first define my terms.

What is a military weapon?
Does it share similar capacities to it's civilian counterpart?
What are the technical differences between what is considered military, military styled, and a traditionally accepted firearms?

'Gun control' is not the right goal. Nor would (say) 'car control' be a fruitful aim to reduce road accidents and wrongful use and theft of motor vehicles.

The focus should be on reducing violence in a general sense. Not something some might want because it would imply and necessitate national coordinated research of violence, which could challenge some of the government bandaids, oops policies, in place. It might also affect the promotion of that legal and often misused drug alcohol too.

All government programs should have integrated effectiveness and efficiency measures and the annual reports on such measures should be made public. Of course that implies that government programs and services ought have proper goals too.

It is heaps easier just to talk up cr@p like 'gun control' than do the hard yards to ascertain what the real goals should be. Governments have relatively short terms, there are career politicians and populism rules, even if that results in wasted billions of taxpayers dollars that could have been better applied elsewhere. The elites who presume to always know what is best for everyone but are never accountable themselves, much prefer superficial, emotive BS too.

David, thankyou, thankyou, thankyou. Finally, some sense on this issue.

I too am sick of all those flaky, lefty academics fudging the numbers to support their pinko political beliefs. Three cheers to you, Sir.

Now, for the next step. Can you please write an equally articulate article defending our right to possess automatic weapons.

And please include the right to possess Rocket Propelled Grenade launchers. I have some rather large rabbits on my property that I wish to kill and dispose of in one fell swoop.

With love and the warmest regards,

Your fellow defender of the right to kill things as efficiently as possible.

Evidence for the activists and media causing massacres?
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14495&page=0

This article claims that Lee Rhiannon, Roland Browne and Rebecca Peters of the NCGC, along with partner journalists, taught mass killers how to get guns to perform massacres.

You need to check the sources. Here they are!

Cantor, C. (2001). Civil Massacres Ethological Perspectives. The ASCAP Bulletin Vol 2 No 1 , 29-31.

Cantor, C., Mullen, P., & Alpers, P. (2000). Mass homicide: the civil massacre. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 28:1 , 55-63.

Cialdini, R. (2001). Influence: Science and Practice. Allyn and Bacon.

Cramer, C. (1993). Ethical problems of mass murder coverage in the mass media. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 9 .

Hansen, J. (1995, 10 2). Tassie Guns, featuring Peters, Rebecca; Browne, Roland. . A Current Affair . Australia: NINE Network.

Lovibond, J. (1996, 5 21). Hobart gun death related to TV show. Hobart Mercury , p. 2.

Mullen, P. (1997, 3 4). Copycats to Blame for Massacres Says Expert - Courier Mail. (K. Hannon, Interviewer)

Phillips, D. P. (1980). Airplane accidents, murder and the mass media: Towards a theory of imitation and suggestion. Social Forces 58 , 1001-1024.

Pinker, S. (1999). In How the Mind Works (p. 672). Norton and Company