I’d rather be confronted by a knife wielding youth than a gun-toting youth, as bad as that is.
Chances of survival are greater.

Don't you just hate the chafing restrictions of Australia? Inconclusive family friction. Knowing the kids will still be alive when school finishes. Worshipping with no security guard. Workplaces where the biff rarely goes beyond heated voices. Being able to risk calling the cops. Opening your front door, in the enslaved condition of not packing heat. Knocking on other doors, without the adrenalin rush of Russian roulette.

Given a free choice, there can be no doubt Aussies will arm themselves to the teeth. Even with a specialised Ministry of Death, it will take us a while, to arm up to American levels. Silly old me, "nervous around guns", never fired a shot. Among all my wider family and friends, exactly one owns a gun.

Take two:

God..I just remembered something I neglected to mention above. I disarmed two youths with knives a month ago; both of them I’ve been acquainted with fir some time now. That now makes four knife attacks I’ve experienced in recent years.

I’m amazed how knife attacks have become normalised in my life; stop the stressing over guns.

Guns or no guns, Australians are not as murderous and mentally disturbed as Americans and other inferior cultures.

Why are all gun related killings instantly thrown into the ‘Murder’ basket ? How many of those killed with any weapon weren’t murdered but killed because of their instigating ?

Agree with most of this, David. All we ever needed was a proscribed register!

Outlaw guns and the only people with guns will be (wrong hands) outlaws.

And given they're tools of trade for Farmers, why don't we register all tools of trade and make the owners pay an annual licence fee. Seems fair to me.
Alan B.

Back in the 40s & 50s, before myxomatosis Australians ate a lot of Rabbits. Butchers carried & displayed them. My mother tells of "rabbitos" driving a horse & cart around Balmain, [Sydney suburb] & elsewhere selling dressed rabbits.

I was about 11 years when I was allowed the family 22 to go & shoot dinner in the paddocks around Bathurst. If we were going down by the river, where the soil was sandy & soft we would take a mattock to dig out the burrows instead of the 22. That is what a rifle was, a tool like the mattock, for harvesting dinner.

I also carried a hunting knife on my belt, to butcher & clean the rabbits, most did, but no one would ever think of using their knife as a weapon, the public would have dame near killed anyone who did. About half the cost of the new bike I bought myself aged 12 came from the sale of rabbit skins.

We never heard of knives or guns used as weapons in civilian life, the use today can be put down to migration & certain ethnic preferences for the use of such as weapons in preference to fists to settle arguments. The old controlled punch up out the back of the pub was the Ozzie way, with a ring formed of cheering spectators.

This weapon culture has now percolated down to to the more violent Ozzie youth of today, the ones who's stomach would churn if offered rabbit to eat, but think nothing of sticking a knife in someone elses stomach.

David Leyonhjelm claims that several academic studies suggest that Australia’s gun control laws had no effect on crime rates. He doesn’t cite or reference any one of them. In any event, crime rates are affected by lots of factors other than access to guns, and except for gun-related crimes they are largely irrelevant.

David Leyonhjelm claims to respect facts not emotion. Here are some relevant statistics. Unlike Leyonhjelm, I’ll even provide sources.

In the 10 years up to the government tightening gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia averaged 575 gun deaths a year, or 3.4 deaths per 100,000 people. In the 10 years to 2019, we averaged 216 gun deaths a year, or 0.9 per 100,000 people.

In 2019 the USA recorded 36,682 gun deaths, or 12.09 per 1,0000 people – more than 10 times the rate in Australia. Vermont, whose example the author would like us to follow, had 10.74 gun deaths per 100,000 people.

Both the number and the rate of gun deaths in the USA have trended upwards in recent years. In Australia they trended down to about 2011 but have since levelled off.

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/

In Australia mass shootings are very rare – less than one a year on average - and are most often family murder-suicides.

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/inside-nine-of-australias-worst-modern-mass-shootings/news-story/08e777d0678e51fbbb9ba23696aa3256

The USA has recorded 17 mass killings so far in 2023 with a loss of 88 lives.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/mass-shootings-in-u-s-on-a-record-pace-in-2023-so-far

The odds that the absence of mass killings in recent years is a coincidence not a result of changing gun laws are 1 in 200,000

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/03/13/gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-in-australia.html

Gun-related death rates among American children and teenagers have risen particularly sharply – from 2.4 deaths per 100,000 in 2019 to 3.5 per 100,000 in 2021.

<https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/>

Firearms are now the leading cause of death among American children, exceeding motor vehicle and other injuries.

https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/

I was never a great fan of John Howard, but will always admire his courage and conviction in reforming Australia’s gun laws

I’m waiting for a PM to reform the mentality of the indoctrinated leftist Australian which would prove the greatest life saver of all !

ttbn,
Many murders in Australia are not committed by Australians !

Why is that, whenever the idea of Australian's having more guns is discussed, its always assumed by those of a certain leaning that we'll become the US? Why couldn't we become Switzerland?

The problem, it seems to me, is that there is a segment who have a very low opinion of their fellow Australians and will always think the worst of them. They ought to be ignored.

Just a couple of points about US gun deaths

* the majority of US gun deaths are suicides. (54%). To make a proper comparison, we really ought to be looking at comparing suicide rates since in Australia those who want to commit suicide generally don't have the option of a gun. FYG, suicide rates in Australia - 12 per 100,000. that changes the comparison dramatically.

* the vast majority of non-suicide gun deaths in the US are gang related. Estimates range from 70% to 85%. That is why gun deaths for teenagers in the US is so high. Australia does have a gang problem but nothing like that of the US and in any case, gangs here don't seem to be having problems accessing illegal guns.

Just taking a few numbers from each location and assuming they tell the whole story is never right. The differences in those societies need to be considered but never are when the anti-gun crowd get on their high horse.

Personally I don't care one way or the other. Even if they were legal I wouldn't have one because I have no need. OTOH I don't mind borrowing a friend's when I occasionally visit his outback property and we go hunting feral pigs, goats and dogs.

Cultural relativism leads ignorant Australians to believe that looser gun laws in Australia would lead to massacres like those in America.

Just because Americans speak English doesn't mean that they are like us culturally.

What Hasbeen and Mhaze said.
Alan B.

Ttnb

You may be right that culture is a factor, but there are far fewer mass shootings, murders, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms in Australia nowadays than there were before we tightened gun laws. Why would we want to go back?

And what Leyonhjelm wants is to shift our culture closer to that of the USA, where owning firearms is considered a right and is a core issue for like-minded libertarians.

MHaze

You are right, most gun deaths in the USA are suicides, and if suicidal Australians simply shifted from using guns to other methods when gun laws were tightened, then the drop in gun-related deaths would overstate the impact of tighter gun laws on the overall death rate.

But the data show that suicide rates in Australia dropped dramatically after we tightened gun laws, especially among men, reversing what had been an upwards trend. It is well known than women are more likely to attempt suicide, but men are more likely to actually die by suicide, because they tend to choose more rapid and violent means, such as guns. So a reduction in total male suicides was actually one of the biggest benefits of Australia’s tighter gun laws.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/fef61104-dbe5-4f91-bdb2-fc50f7c55177/Suicide-self-harm-monitoring-Data.pdf.aspx?inline=true

Switzerland is an interesting case, often cited in the USA as an example of why high levels of gun ownership do not necessarily lead to high levels of gun deaths. It has mandatory military service for men, and the government provides all men aged 18-34 considered “fit for service” with a rifle or pistol, which they are allowed to buy once they complete military service. Historically this led to very high gun ownership levels. So I don’t think that Australia’s gun ownership and usage patterns will ever be “like Switzerland”.

Both gun ownership and gun-related deaths have fallen sharply in recent years as government policies have changed, so even in Switzerland there is clearly a very strong correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. And despite the steep recent decline, at 2.84 deaths per 100,000 people, its gun-related death rate is about three times higher than Australia’s.

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

I Remember my big brothers having their rifles from Military Service at home afterwards & there were periodic inspections. In all my 19 years in the old country in Europe I’ve never heard of a gun related incident. As I keep saying, it’s a matter of culture & mentality .
If there were to be a survey it’d be found that gun related assaults in Australia are mostly committed by non-Europeans.

Indy

Are you still claiming the 51 murders in Christchurch NZ, was a case of revenge, and not mass murder, carried out by a white Anglo boy.

Your claim that most gun murders in Australia are carried out by non Europeans is nonsense, just your racial bias. As for the old country, WWII 60 million Europeans murdered by other Europeans.

Paul1405,
Who do you think instigated or rather set the example for that NZ atrocity . I don’t know why that bloke did what he did but I’m pretty sure I know where he got the idea from !
The Germans of 80 years ago did what they did because of a very similar reason the Russians are doing what they’re doing now, self preservation of their society. To protect themselves from the likes of you. Taking the old adage of “you got to be cruel to be kind” is extreme but as you keep providing the proof for, basic kindness doesn’t work.

Indy,

Mass murder of others in the name of self preservation and revenge, is that your idea of "harmony"? Mass sackings of public servants, forcing the young into compulsory boot camps, persecution of gays, Aboriginals and lefties etc, are part of your brave new world of "harmony". Come off it, harmony to you is everyone agreeing with you, end of story.

Rhian wrote: "But the data show that suicide rates in Australia dropped dramatically after we tightened gun laws, especially among men, reversing what had been an upwards trend. "

That's demonstrably wrong. Indeed immediately after the buy-back suicide rates INcreased for both men and women and remained higher for several following years, only later to resume a decline that had commenced in the early 1960's.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/deaths-by-suicide-in-australia/suicide-deaths-over-time

Paul1405,
But bombing churches & mosques & flying planes into buildings all in the name God is ok with you.
As I have said many times, when the taunted retaliate they’re branded the aggressors .
Lying about one’s heritage is also highly hypocritical.

Mhaze

You are mistaken - look at the charts again. The suicide rates for both men and women trended downwards for more than a decade after 2007, with the trend for men particularly pronounced.

The web page you reference says for overall suicide rates (not just firearms):

“Rates began to rise in 1985 and fluctuated from 14.3 in 1987 to 11.9 in 1993 with a recent peak of 14.8 in 1997. This was followed by sustained declines over the early 2000s, with a low of 10.2 per 100,000 population in 2006.”

Australia’s gun law reform was initiated in 2006 after the Port Arthur massacre, and completed in late 2007. It is hardly coincidence that both firearm and total suicide rates declined substantially after these reforms,

It is hardly coincidence that both firearm and total suicide rates declined substantially after these reforms,
Rhian,
Of course just as knife related murders & drug overdose car accidents have increased as a result. As I keep saying it’s all about mentality !

Rhian wrote: "Australia’s gun law reform was initiated in 2006 after the Port Arthur massacre, and completed in late 2007"

oops....The Port Arthur Massacre occurred in April, 1996 (repeat 1996).

The gun buy-back scheme started shortly thereafter and was completed in late 1997. You will notice from the data I linked that there was a jump in suicides around that time and for a few years thereafter, although it did eventually return to the downward trend that had been evident since the mid 1960s.

There were other gun buy-back schemes over the years up to 2007, but they were all on a much smaller scale than the 1996-7 scheme, which, as per above, had no effect on the suicide rate.

Mhaze

Yep, my mistake, I should have written 1996 and 1997 not 2006 and 2007.

But the suicide data are for the correct period, and are as I described – significantly higher before than after the gun law reforms of 1996-97, as the quote I supplied from the website makes clear.

In the 10 years before Howard’s reforms were introduced (1986-1995) suicide rates averaged 21.1 per 100,000 for men, 5.5 for women and 13.1 across the population as a whole. In the 10 years after Howard’s reforms (1988-2007) suicide rates averaged 18.3 per 100,000 for men, 4.9 for women and 11.4 across the population as a whole. That might not sound like much of a change, but it represents several hundred lives a year.

The suicide rate reached 14.8 in 1997, its highest level since 1971. It fell to 13.7% in 1998 and trended downwards over the next 10 years. Given the Howard reforms were not completed until late 1997, the effects of the scheme should be expected to show in the data from 1998 onwards.

For those interested, here are the rates for the period in the decade or so before and after the reforms.

1985 12.0
1986 12.9
1987 14.3
1988 13.7
1989 12.8
1990 12.8
1991 13.9
1992 13.2
1993 11.9
1994 12.8
1995 13.2
_________

1996 13.2
1997 14.8
_________

1998 14.4
1999 13.2
2000 12.4
2001 12.7
2002 11.9
2003 11.2
2004 10.5
2005 10.4
2006 10.2
2007 10.6
2008 10.9
2009 10.7
2010 11.2

Actually, what have guns got to do with someone deciding to end it all !
People don’t think “Oh, look’ there’s a gun, I’ll kill myself”.
Suicide is mainly because of emotional stress brought on by love life problems or financial or both or by bureaucratic bullying but not by guns.
To blame guns is as ignorant as those who blame others for their own stupidity !

Indy

Guns don’t cause people to decide to attempt suicide, but access to a gun makes it easier for them to act on that impulse, and more likely that they will succeed in the attempt.

According to one Australian study “the estimated mortality from self-shooting is 90%, from attempted hanging is 83% and from jumping from a height is 60%, whereas fewer than 3% of suicide attempts by self-poisoning or by sharp implement result in death.”

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/192/8/suicide-australia-meta-analysis-rates-and-methods-suicide-between-1988-and-2007

Similar logic applies to your earlier comment. People who coldly plan premeditated murder may simply choose means other than guns to make the attempt, but using a gun is more likely to result in an actual murder, and much more likely to result in mass murders such as occurred at Christchurch and Port Arthur. Also, easy availability of guns is more likely to make a violent situation lethal or even result in accidental deaths.

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-021528

Stringent gun control laws are most necessary, because when mistakes are made the results are catastrophic. The SSAA has always been keen to "arm the populace", and through its political affiliate the Shooters and Hooters Party seeks to water down our reasonable gun laws. Under the guise of "self defence" these ratbags would arm as many in the population as possible, with no regard for the general safety of the majority. Given their way they would enact American style gun laws in this country.

When things go wrong they can result in the most heinous of crimes. Take the case of John Edwards in 2018, while many more responsible outfits refused to train the deranged Edwards in the use of hand guns, the SSAA was quick to do so through their St Mary's Sydney shooting club. Not only did the SSAA train Edwards, they went on to arm him as well. Consequently Edwards was able to use that SSAA supplied gun to murder his two children Jack and Jennifer Edwards, in what police described as “premeditated and planned” murders. To this day there has not been any apology or act of contrition on the part of the SSAA for their involvement in this terrible crime.

I just googled Road fatalities vs gun related deaths in Australia. A lot of gun statistics showed but not a single comparison to road deaths.
Does anyone have those figures ? I agree that guns in the hands of deranged due to stress & indoctrination & a poor general mentality person can be & is a serious situation with tragic possibilities. Most bandwagon Academics & bureaucrats fall over each other in the rush to blame firearm owners when a gun incident occurs. What none of them are brave enough to do is to check their involvement in the cause of someone so stressed to ‘lose’ it ! When a family breaks up due to some insidious policy or legislation dreamed up by these hangers-on such as we perpetually hear about on current affairs programs about Councils, Centrelink, Veteran Affairs, Superannuation collapses, insane permit & registration fees, unaffordable insurance premiums etc etc etc the is their surprise real or feigned at a tragic incident ?
Most sane & decent folk get pushed way more than any bureaudroid. How many times do we hear of people in authority ‘losing’ it after one of their many stuff-ups ruining someone’s life ?
Thought so !

Indy

You can find details on all causes of death here:

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/causes-death/causes-death-australia/latest-release#australia-s-leading-causes-of-death-2021

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, though. Most of us use motor vehicles several times a week, whereas most of use have little or no exposure to firearms from one year to the next. So of course the death rate from transport accidents is higher than from shooting incidents

Rhian wrote: "Yep, my mistake, I should have written 1996 and 1997 not 2006 and 2007."

Yep that would have been accurate as opposed to wrong. Equally you should have quoted data for 1996-7 instead of 2006-7 which would have also been accurate rather than wrong.

Still, we're getting there.

You might also like to look at this...
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/rate_of_gun_suicide

which shows that gun related suicide was falling for years prior to the gun buy-back scheme and, apart from a few bumps and jumps, continued to fall after the buy-back at a similar rate. That is, the buy-backs had no effect on the rate of a trend that was already in place.

This already established trend can also been seen here....

http://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/fd06f3d6-eac7-47d3-a187-4d0e0f188b27/20368-firearm-injuries-deaths.pdf.aspx?inline=true

So the conclusion is that suicides in general and gun related suicides in particular were already falling long before the buy-back and continued at a similar downward trend after. That is, the buy-backs had no effect on the rate of a trend that was already in place.

Most certainly the data shown that your original claim ( "But the data show that suicide rates in Australia dropped dramatically after we tightened gun laws, especially among men, reversing what had been an upwards trend.") isn't supported by the facts. I suspect you got this wrong because of mis-remembering when Howard's buy-back actually occurred.

Indy,

Are you still sympathetic towards the deranged terrorists Brenton Tarrant who murdered 51 innocent men, women and children at two mosques in Christchurch, NZ 15th March 2019. You described Tarrent's barbaric acts as merely "revenge", therefore offering an excuse for mitigation, or possibly exoneration, what's it to be? AND you believe in "harmony" ho, ho, he, he ha, ha. You have got the be kidding!

ALL acts of terrorism should be unequivocally condemned, and not given some kind of back handed approval as YOU did.

Mhaze

My comments that the suicide rates in Australia dropped dramatically after we tightened gun laws, especially among men, reversing what had been an upwards trend, referred to the overall suicide rate, not just firearms-related suicide. This was partly to address Indy’s point – if people simply switched from using firearms to other means of killing themselves, then a drop in gun-related suicide would not be a net improvement.

I agree that gun-related suicide was in decline before Port Arthur. However, the decline over the mid-1990s was particularly abrupt – from 2.19 per 100,000 in 1995, before the reforms began, to 1.27 per 100,000 in 1998, after they were completed. That is a much steeper fall than in any other 3-year period since WW2, and suggests more at work than continuation of an ongoing trend.

You claimed that suicide rates “INncreased” after the gun law reforms that followed the Port Arthur massacre, and remained high for several years. That is incorrect.

The suicide data I quoted were for 1996-97 not 2006-07, my error was in writing up the dates of the results not looking at the wrong data. That should be clear from the annual averages I posted and the quote from the analysis accompanying the data.

The decline in gun-related suicide rates was steeper for men than for women because men are more likely to attempt suicide using guns than women.

Here are the gun-related suicide rates per 10,000 for 1995:
4.27 Men
2.19 Persons

And here are the rates for 1998:
2.44 Men
1.27 Persons

Note I am using AIHW data as it has a longer timescale. These differ marginally from the ones quoted above from gunpolicy.org. I have not included women because these data are not published for all of the relevant years.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/data-downloads

When you have crazy policy like the following, if implemented society will have real problems;

"Establish family and home protection as a genuine reason to own and use a firearm and continue to support measures increasing a person’s right to self-defence." NSW Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party.

Family and home protection, self defence, that means virtually everyone, I assume adults, but the Shooters Party is keen on children owning gun as well, anyone who has a family and/or a home, and requires self defence, should be entitled to the American style; "Right To Bear Arms" Dangerously crazy stuff as well.

BTW; The far right One Nation Party is just as extremist on guns as is the Shooters and Hooters Party! A vote for these parties is a vote for mass killings!

not given some kind of back handed approval as YOU did.
Paul1405,
You are just one sick racist idiot !

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make,
Rhian,
The point I’m making is the point of mentality ! No matter what the weapon it’s the mentality of the user that is the problem. Ever since the Goaf & Co did away with National Service people have lost sense of direction, sense of responsibility & sense of community !
Is it any wonder crime has found a neat nichè here .

Rhian,

"That is a much steeper fall than in any other 3-year period since WW2, and suggests more at work than continuation of an ongoing trend."

Why are you choosing a 3-year period other than to try to make the data fit the pre-conceived conclusion. Which it should be noted was based on a misremembering as to when the buy-backs actually occurred.

Why 3-years? Why not 5-years or 10-years? Because other periods don't show what you hope to show?

eg gun suicides declined by 32.5% in the 5 years prior to the buy-back and by (the statistically equivalent) 28.9% in the 5 years after the buy-back. The buy-back had little to no effect on the rate of gun suicide which had been falling for several decades along with the overall suicide rate.

Most definitely the data don't support the original claim that the suicide rates fell dramatically after the buy-back when they instead actually increased by 8.3% between 1995 and 1998.

Mhaze

You argued that gun-related suicides were in trend decline before the Port Arthur massacre, and I agreed. So the question is whether the decline in the mid-1990s was due to government reforms or continuing the background trend. One research technique in trying to separate the effect of a particular policy or event from an underlying trend to look for a step where there is a sudden change that is more abrupt than the background trend. To do this you need as near as possible to compare data from immediately before and immediately after the event. I chose a 3-year period as that is the shortest period with the available data that compares rates before and after the reforms were implemented. As they were initiated in 1996 and completed in 1997, the best “before and after” picture we have is comparing 1998 with 1995. As the decline in gun-related suicides over that period was sharper than in any other 3-year period from 1945 to 2021, both for males and for the whole population, I conclude that it was not simply due to the background trend.

There was an unusual spike in male suicide by hanging in 1998, which was the reason the overall suicide rate was higher than in 1995, though lower than in 1997. Hanging deaths dropped back sharply in 1999 and 2000, but started trending upwards from the mid-2000s.

Looks to me like gun suicides are dropping when the Economy is good but gun related murders go up !

In many places when individual power is removed it opens the door to abuse of state power. For example the sword hunts of Japan.

According to hebrew futurologist Alvin Tofler power comes down to force, money, knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Toffler

So I suppose you can become a ruler if you have these- the more so in the proportion.

A thirteen year old boy just proved that a stolen car is just as deadly as a gun.

A 13 year old boy some magistrate had previously failed to lock up.

High time magistrates & parole boards became co defenders when they have let likely offenders out on the street.

Hassy,

"High time magistrates & parole boards became co defenders when they have let likely offenders out on the street."

A silly suggestion, then magistrates and parole boards would be made up of people like you, locking them all up, and letting no one out. Juvenile crime needs to be tackled before the event, not after the fact. You want a system that concentrates on punishment, rather than a system that tackles the root causes of bad behaviour.

David Leyonhjelm is a flog.

Our gun laws succeeded spectacularly at the prime reason for their implementation, to stop mass shooting deaths, the type of which continue to plague the US and by all accounts have become an every day occurrence there.

No self respecting Australian, who cared for their fellow citizens of the country over any ideology or gun fetish, would want a return to those days.

The rest like Leyonhjelm can go jump!

Come off the raw prawn Paul.

We have been concentrating on "a system that tackles the root causes of bad behaviour" for the last 30 years, & it has worked beautifully at increasing the total & viciousness of youth crime exponentially. How much longer do we have to suffer the increase before even you idiots realise that these academic sponsored proposals just don't work? Time to give the other system a go.

Perhaps a few chain gangs, working very visibly on the roads, with that as their future if they continue, would show these ratbag kids that it is no longer a holiday in some kindly youth detention center when they continually flout the laws, & others rights.

Hasbeen
As I have already pointed out to you on another thread, rates of youth offending have declined in recent years, according to the ABS. The most recent data are for 2020-21, and the current data series began in 2008-09. Over that period, for people aged 10-17:

The murder rate dropped by 48%, from 3.3 to 1.7 per 100,000 people
The attempted murder rate dropped by 33%, from 1.2 to 0.8 per 100,000 people
The rate of assaults and other acts intended to cause injury fell by 25%, from 525 to 395.4 per 100,000 people
Rates for robberies, sexual assault, abductions, dangerous and negligent acts also declined.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-offenders/2020-21/3.%20Youth%20offenders.xlsx

It is well known that there can be a large gap between perceptions of youth crime and the reality.

https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/children/CM_Fatouros_youth_justice_system_broken.html

Hassy

"Chain Gangs" really, what can I say, what next, public floggings, the stocks, work houses, penal colonies with transportation for life. Of course public executions are a must, do you favour hanging or beheading? Nothing like a bit of the claret flowing to get the crowd worked up! I know you hanker for the "good old days", ah yes, those days when a fella like you, could on a lazy Saturday afternoon, wonder down to the town square, and watch some poor bastard's head being separated from the rest of him, really that's, medieval Europe! You are too much, that's just nutty. I didn't mention disembowelling, something you are willing to consider, as a deterrent for first offenders?

So Paul, you do have some good ideas occasionally

Hassy,

I'm sure you have a smorgasbord of punishments for all those truculent eight year old's. Flog em, flog em mercilessly! Just between you and me, no one else will read this, you like to inflict a little pain don't you, in your mind its character building, isn't that so true?