misanthrope, ITYF the "correct person" would also have a gun, which invalidates most of your argument..

And what's wrong with using a gun to hunt for food?

Wolly B I don't mean you are a bad person but those other kids the senior kids shooting at a barrel for fish is very silly and very dangerous but that's kids playing around with loded guns shows they have no sensce with guns which is very very dangerous.

Aidan asking why not hunt for food with a gun Why? Go to the butcher shop for meat no need for a gun at all really is there? So I think the argument is over because nobody can prove any need to have a gun in our superbs where we all live. No need only cause many troubles for everybody who lives there in the place.

Nobody can prove any need for any gun for any reason except army and police people only. Then police only when in real trouble, not everybody in police need guns show off some of them the young ones show of with guns.

It is proved absolutely no one need guns ever! Just army and (some) policemen only. Imagine if Sydney, no one had any guns at all! No more shooting no more bank robbery no more murders with guns no more accident with guns and no more real problems with guns. Guns always bad for everyone. Guns used only for killing people nothing else at all, just killing people and more killing, nothing else ever for the guns?

Everybody go to bed at night never worry about diying by being shot with gun in bed, at night, never!

Dear Misanthrope,

<<Only ONLY army air force navy and police people need to have a gun at all nobody else for any any any reason - PROVE ME WRONG everyone ?>>

Why prove you wrong when you are right?

Nobody needs anything. We don't need cars for example - we can just walk, we don't need air-conditioning - we'll just get hot/cold, we don't even need food - we could starve but that's OK.

Same for a sense of security? Indeed, who needs it - we can just live in fear, especially the elderly, that's OK.

Most of all, there's one thing we definitely don't need - a government to tell us what we may, must or may not have.

I personally would never touch a gun again (after being forced as a conscript to be married to one against my will), but I would be more than happy if burglers BELIEVED that I have one at home ready to take them if they dare enter.

Dear Mr Cornonacob.

The premise I am pushing, is that crime in Australia was very much lower when Australia had practically no gun laws at all. For fifty years, Australia has tried to reduce our ever spiralling crime rates by introducing ever more restrictive firearm laws. The only result to this has been that our crime rates keep getting worse.

I am not saying that restrictive gun laws do not help. It is just that our political leaders refuse to consider the real reasons for rising crime and instead just keep making our firearms laws more onerous for no tangible result. They are aiming at the wrong target. We are now living in the Age of Islamic Terrorism. The author of this article is I think correct in suggesting that arming some trusted members of our population to defend ourselves from Muslims is a smart thing to do.

The Israelis arm themselves against Muslim terrorism, and it is quite common for a western tourist to get on an Israeli bus and see an Uzi beside the bus driver. Israelis walk around supermarkets packing Uzis, Galils, and Glocks. Things are not as bad in Australia regarding Muslim terrorism as they are in Israel yet, so I am not advocating a general arming of the non Muslim population. But as the Muslim presence in Australia keeps increasing, and since Muslim attacks on western civilians keeps increasing, it is only a matter of time before more ISIL and Taliban wannabees living in Australia take more hostages.

At the very least, serving officers of the Australian Armed forces should be armed with concealed weapons when off duty. This can be extended to NCO's as Muslim terrorism becomes worse. There are historical precedents for this which suggest that arming certain members of the public prevents crime. I lived through a time when jeweller, gun shop owners, bank tellers, and any member of the public who job involved the transportation of large amounts of cash, could carry concealed weapons. At that time, offences such as armed robbery had very much lower rates than they did today.

While I agree with David on a lot of issues, this is not one of them.

For every "liberty" people have there is a cost. For the right not to wear seat belts there is a cost in road fatalities, for the right of self defense, there is a surge in gun crime and violence that vastly outweighs the occasional time someone can defend himself.

A colleague of mine from South Africa gave me an interesting statistic from a culture rife with guns:

Of the people that carry guns for self defense, more are killed with their own weapons than successfully defend themselves.

misanthrope, you've avoided answering my question. I did not ask "why not hunt for food with a gun", I asked "what's wrong with using a gun to hunt for food?". Personally I don't; I get meat from the shops. But that's my choice – why should everyone else be forced to do the same?

And I notice you're silent about those you want cornonacob to pay to destroy the feral animals on his land (rather than doing it himself at a much lower cost) needing guns.

Even if in Sydney had nobody had any guns at all, the threat of gun crime there would still exist because it would not be possible to ensure Sydney stayed gun free.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

LEGO, do you have any actual evidence that "crime in Australia was very much lower when Australia had practically no gun laws at all"? Your claim that "The only result to this has been that our crime rates keep getting worse" is certainly false in the case of the Howard government's gun laws.