Bren,

"I can't see the average civilian wearing body armour for protection, though it has a role in the case of police or security guards. The main improper use of body armour, that comes to mind, was by offenders in the infamous North Hollywood shootout."

Civilians in this country are, in a variety of circumstances, required by law to wear body armour.
Cycle helmets (both push and motor) safety helmets in various work places.
Shin guards in many sports as well as protective head and groin area protectors(possibly not required by law but required by sports administrators).
Heavy protective clothing in some industries often heavy enough to stop a bullet.
The heavy protective gear worn by people blasting barnacles from ships hulls will stop .22 long rifle rounds (personal experiment).
Work boots with steel toecaps are also often required by law.

Why then cannot a service station attendant (a vulnerable job as some have been shot dead) have protective clothing that is designed to stop a bullet.

If one possesses a Kevlar jacket for the purpose of defence then one has committed an offence yet if one possesses a Kevlar jacket because the outer layer is a fashion statement, then that is lawful.

It would seem that the ban on body armour only extends to the most vulnerable parts of the body being unprotected and as a protection for police who may have to face criminals wearing such armour, just as firearms controls stop criminals from having firearms so controls on body armour will stop criminals from getting it!!

John Howard wore body armour so why shouldn't any other citizen have equal protection?

I lived during a time when schoolboy cadets like myself went to school on the bus with Lee Enfield .303 military rifles on our shoulders, and nobody batted an eyelid. Firearm licenses did not exist, and the legal age for purchasing a firearm was 16. Most suburban hairdressers sold firearms as a sideline, and department stores sold firearms alongside fishing rods in the "sports" departments. Ammunition could be obtained from corner stores and petrol stations, while firearms could be rented from gun shops. Firearms were routinely sold through newspaper adds.

Yet there were no school shootings, no massacres, and Bankstown and Punchbowl did not resound with gunshots from the nightly round of drive by killings. Kids did not kill kids.

The mere presence of guns does not cause gun crime. If it did, then every society that had a lot of guns would have a lot of crime. This is not true. There is a wide divergence in the degree of violent behaviour between racial and cultural groups. Those cultures which respect the law and who consider inter group violence to be unacceptable, have very low rates of violent crime, regardless of the availability of firearms. Those cultures which have no regard for the law, and who instead value a macho mentality complete with medieval concepts of male honour, will have high rates of personnel violence, regardless of whether firearms are present or not.

The homicide rate for the US is five times that of Australia. But if all of the homicides involving firearms were removed from the statistics, the USA 's homicide rate would still be double Australia's. Clearly, something other than firearms is the problem. Mexico's homicide rate is 15 times that of Australia's, even though the possession of firearms is totally banned. It is not surprising that that most US homicides involving firearms are within the precincts of black and Hispanic ghettoes.

Ethnicity and cultural affiliation is more an indicator of a propensity to violence than the presence of firearms. But we can't mention that, because it is illegal in Australia under 18C to tell the truth.

Chief Flynn (of Milwaukee) after Nov. 6 police commission meeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7MAO7McNKE

In Just 35 Years, 232,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Other Blacks
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=21594

I look at this way LEGO.

If, at the present time, Australia is not plagued with the gun-related crimes that America has, especially at schools, then why would we want to allow our citizens to arm themselves like the American do?

From what I can recall, haven't most of the school based homicides in the USA in recent years been perpetrated by young white men? Certainly they wouldn't have been able to kill so many of their class mates at once if their constitution didn't allow for the 'right to bear arms'.

Australia doesn't need the 'shoot-em-up' attitude and lifestyle of the Yanks.
Anyone who thinks that life sounds good should move there....

Suseonline,

What the US government statistics consistently show is that the 'gun culture' is a furphy, a diversion, where violence and homicide are concerned.

It is another culture, a human culture, that is at fault. See the link provided by Jay Of Melbourne,viz.,
"In Just 35 Years, 232,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Other Blacks"
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=21594

Logically you should be challenging the federal government to ensure that immigration policies do not introduce similar risks to Australia.

LEGO...

In my experience that your last paragraph is perfectly correct. '...Ethnicity and cultural affiliations is more of an indicator of a propensity to violence, rather then the presence of firearms...' ! And S.18c or not, it's the bloody truth !

Until ALL our politicians understand this 'fact' we'll still be caught in this political 'paralysis' of indecision ? And with further strengthening of our existing F/A laws, which will do precisely NOTHING other than by placing a further unfair impost on legitimate F/A's users.

Don't you think it's about time, all you morally corrupt, lazy politicians did your damn jobs, and address the root cause of this F/A violence. Better still, just ask the average working detective, they'll tell you quick smart, that's providing your delicate little sensibilities can assimilate it ! Remember, the voting public are getting rather sick of all this violence, and we're watching you as the next election approaches ?