“In all, more than 700,000 guns were removed from the community and destroyed. No other nation had ever attempted anything on this scale.”

Yes, we now have the most repressive gun laws in the world, and perfectly innocent people who want to own firearms for legitimate reasons such as target shooting and pest destruction have had things made hard for them while criminals are still able to obtain and use guns at will. Family violence continues with all sorts of “innocent’ household items being used in killings.

Disarming law-abiding Australians was a con job which was meant to hide the fact that governments cannot deal with criminals effectively.

Anyone who feels safer in Australia because the majority of law-abiding citizens now find it harder to own firearms while criminals still have and use them is an idiot.

Martin Bryant was a law abiding citizen until 28 April 1996. But no doubt he could have used another weapon if he didn't have guns. I'm sure he could have killed 35 people in a short time with a cricket bat or a fick knife.

It is interesting that our politicians can on the one hand say that they can read the mood of the people and that mood demands that we want people to surrender their guns. On the other hand our politicians are quick to dismiss the mood of the people when that mood calls on our politicians to install the law of talion to deal with violent crimes. I guess that's why our politicians often succumb to bouts of entheomania.

If the firearms buyback was an inspired move by our politicians why wasn't it complemented by inspired legislation? It's about time that those who use firearms to commit crimes were given a handful of seeds and transported to Christmas Island once they serve their sentence.

*# warning to BD: you may have to actually open a dictionary. Do you have the strength?

Entheomania be damned, sage, as far as I'm concerned their selective vison has far more to do with empleomania.

A blatant fudge of the key question. "Have murderers simply switched methods?" And all we got was, "While the annual average number of all homicides has increased since June 1996, the rate per 100,000 people has fallen marginally, but can be described as steady. This suggests that partially removing a single type of weapon may not reduce a type of crime committed using many possible means."

So lets spell this out, the answer is;
YES, MURDERERS HAVE SIMPLY SWITCHED METHODS!

And after all the "feel good", the root cause of Port Arthur still remains. Our dangerous mentally ill still roam the streets in complete abrogation of the community's duty of care towards them and their victims. They have no supervision and the "system" (if one can call institutional negligence by that term) has not taken any reasonable nor practical steps to ensure that the medication that distinguishes a sick person from a killer is actually being taken.

It is not only entirely foreseeable, but highly probable, that the required medication will, sooner or later, not be taken. But the community avoids legal liability through the fallacious argument that the person seemed safe enough when they were discharged to make room for an even greater demand for a scarce bed.

This is actually criminal negligence by the respective Health Ministers. They have a duty of care under the Criminal Codes, as persons in charge of "a dangerous thing" to take all reasonable and practicable steps to prevent harm to others. And any debate about whether Martin Bryant was a person as distinct from "a dangerous thing" is purely moot.

So what has really been achieved?

Of the 617 average annual gun deaths each year prior to Port Arthur, 10 are no longer killed in mass shootings, 37 are no longer killed by homicide, and 239 are no longer accidentally killed or suicided, but they are killed by other means.

The extra bullets from automatic weapons didn't make any of the victims any deader than they were anyway. So when can we expect a reasonable and logical response to the actual situation?

The claims made by Chapman and Alpers contradict findings already reported by researchers from the Australian Institute of Criminology, University of Maryland and the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Given this disparity it will be very helpful when the research referred to in the opinion piece written by Chapman and Alpers and published in the Sydney Morning Herald will be available to the general public so we can all read and evaluate the methodology they’ve applied in order to achieve a “fell 70 times faster after the new gun laws than before”. I find this an amazing claim because that means if 70 people died in 1997 then only one would have died in 1998. This is not borne out by the data. The decline in gun deaths has been occurring at a steady rate since well before the 1996 legislation was introduced. Unfortunately, total homicide and suicide rates have not experienced such drops and have remained steady, allowing for annual fluctuations. I can only hope the rest of the community is not so ideologically blinded as Mr Alpers with his strong affiliation to anti-gun groups and recognise that ‘non-fatal deaths’ (Mr Alpers comment in ABC National Radio interview 28/04/06) are just as dead and just as important as ‘gun deaths’.

Did anybody else notice the pomp and ceremony of thousands of guns being destroyed, most held together by string and sticky tape? i.e. the government paid money for weapons that possibly werent functional anyway, in order to put on a show.
Theres an element of truth in the statement that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.
When one loony can cause so much grief and effectively change legislation, maybe its time to reassess the mechanisms of dealing with situations such as these.
I lost some friends to a tragedy involving guns, the perpetrator was legally licenced. The family law system has some responsibility, the mental health system does also, mainly the person involved is to blame. The weapon of choice is really beside the point.
I'm not into them myself, Though living in the country sometimes it would be practical, eg not having to bludgeon sick animals to death. The police have guns, but if I called them (assuming the station is open...) it would take some time for them to arrive.
There are some things that dont belong in the 'burbs- guns, large quantities of ammonium nitrate, 4wd's, pitbulls...to name a few.
I hope my loquacity is appropriate for this audience and my statements not dismissed as specious or spurious.

This article infuriates me for a number of reasons.

First of all, it is based upon research that has not even been published, let alone subject to peer review to check the validity of the methods used and inferences made. It is irresponsible of Online Opinion and the SMH to allow such material to be used for persuasive purposes.

Secondly, there are good reasons to believe the research is flawed. The Australian Institute of Criminology data on firearms homicides show absolutely no evidence for 70-fold drop in the rate or any of the other cited effects, and it is almost certain that much is being made of a statistical noise fluctuations. The lack of siginificant effects in reality ndicates that the gun buybacks had no measurable effect on crime. This interpretation is confirmed by reputable, independent sources including Don Weatherburn, the head of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Thirdly, apart from being a blatant attempt to appeal to anti-American xenophobia, John Howard style, the comparison of Australia to the US is misleading. The US homicide rate receives almost all of its contribution from gang-related crime -- a class of murder that is also on the rise in Australia, and which without exception in recent years is committed using weapons that are already illegally held. Discounting homicide for this reason and looking instead at the ranking of violent crime levels in developed nations, the US is in fact quite low, whereas Australia tops the list in several categories, followed closely by other countries with high levels of gun control. As they say, "an armed society is a polite society".

Finally, in response to DavidJS, did you know that Martin Bryant was not licensed to possess the firearms he used in the massacre? Does this change your opinion?

The attempt by Alpers and Chapman to prompt another buyback is shonky at best and dishonest at worst. Half a billion dollars would be much better spent on mental health and crime prevention than on harassing legitimate firearms owners -- it was true in 1996 and it is still true now.

"in particular, impulsive young people - might have more easily found a method of instantly ending their lives."

Indeed. Perhaps we should also ban cars, because now the impulsive youngster bent on offing themself, also takes out an innocent family in another car.

Martin Bryant could have done just as lethal job with a chain-saw. Ban those? He could have probably caused more damage with a cut-throat razor (suprise and undetected element) - ban those? And knives?

The gun buy-back was a total failure. Kids now shoot at police stations where they used to shoot at road warning signs. Armed robberies still happen. Home invasions have increased because the bad guys know that the victims are unarmed.

As a active member of a sporting shooter's group as well as a keen hunter, I did in fact hand in a number of legally owed firearm during the buy back. I would do the same thing today I would also band all and I mean all hand guns including police. I would also make it harder for people to get firearms. I'll pick up on what another poster said as well anyone who uses a firearm (or any other weapon for that matter) in a criminal act should have their sentence doubled.
All firearms are designed to kill and should only be handled by people with high levels of training and supervision.

I was not a gun owner in 1996, I gave them all up about 1988. But the vicious hate campaign against my old friends and sport was so blatant and disgusting that I swore to take it up again, and give my four kids the opportunity to do so too.

Did you know that the reason a person likes guns is that his penis is too small to satisfy his wife? The Weekend Australian says so. Did you know that women who shoot should not be permitted to breed? I know someone who was told that, and sexually harassed until forced from her job - because she was a shooter. Did you know that you are a redneck white male who should be castrated or killed so a woman can raise her children in a global village? I have been told so on an internet forum.

Anti-gun activism is a hate movement, and the rhetoric of the activists is nauseatingly vicious.

Even more nauseating is the way journalists repeat wild claims by activists and fake researchers, who keep their papers and data from release until the press interest is over. When the work is released you can see flaws in it a mile wide. It was true of Mouzos and Reuter, it was true of Sam Lee's dreadful Churchill Fellowship work. Anything by Philip Alpers needs to have its skin scraped with a caustic solution before you touch it. He was the one who trimmed his data until he had a statistic like '51% of gun murders were committed by licenced shooters.' Jenny Mouzos exposed him - in a footnote of an Australian Institute of Criminology Trends and Issues paper.

I think the worst of it is that media treatment actually kills people via the copycat effect, while target shooters are punished for the actions of mentally disturbed and criminals.

Russell asks me "Finally, in response to DavidJS, did you know that Martin Bryant was not licensed to possess the firearms he used in the massacre? Does this change your opinion?"

Not really. I understand he had no criminal conviction prior to the Port Arthur massacre. At any rate, nobody has a criminal record until they commit their first crime (obviously). However, their first criminal act may be with a gun. In other words, guns are not necessarily safe in the hands of law abiding citizens.

The problem with guns is their lethality - they simply have less margin for error when used than other weapons. Not all other weapons - bombs are more lethal. However, is there anyone out there willing to fight for my right to own bombs? I don't have a criminal record so why can't I have some?

People have objected here that their rights to own guns have been infringed since 1996. Well, I'm asserting my freedom FROM guns and thank goodness I don't live in a country like Iraq or South Africa where guns and worse seem to be freely available.

Quite one sided thruth be known the money spent on the buy back would have saved more lives if spent in our hospital system, health, medical research, even the good old stop smoking campaign would have netted more "lives saved"
Does the fear of a gun outweigh the fear of being futher injured by our well underfunded medical system ??

Gun crime was falling well before the 1996 quoting facts from an 18 year period and then from a six year after 1996 and then saying gun deaths "HALVED" gives the impression that at that single point in 1996 was the direct cause of the drop in firearm deaths which of course is completely false. Futher research from readers about facts presented here shows how twisted this article is even when suicide victims have access to a firearm they don't use it why??

If you read it again, you may find they are using gun related crime as against gun related crime, thats where their getting their figures from. If they calculated it over all homicides, its very different.

“In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997-2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331. “

In the 7 years after new gun laws, road deaths averaged more than 2000 a year, more than 300000 injured and more than 50000 seriously injured and permanently maimed. Lets ban cars with wheels, that way we'll reduce the problem.

Gun related deaths were decreasing because we have been evolving as a society and we are more secure in our lives using other methods to resolve problems. Emotion and crime related death and injury, will occur no matter what you do, thats the nature of the beast. We have to ensure we discourage those who wish to harm others, by having real deterrents. If you use a weapon for a crime 20 years minimum no parole. Murder someone during a crime, good bye for ever. You could offer them the choice of euthanasia if they didn't want to spend their lives locked in a cell.

Violent crime is on the increase as are home invasions, you should have the means and right to defend your home and loved ones. Currently you are advised to submit or you may be charged. How really bizarre is that and we think we're not slaves to a system that supports crime in all its aspects and disarms the people in every way, so they have no protection.

Disarming and suppressing the people has been done before, but it led to revolutions when the people got tired of being murdered, ripped of and suppressed by the elite ruling class.

I never thought I say this, but I'm with you on this one Leigh, 100%.

It's all a lot of cobblers.Many just traded in their old guns at inflated prices and bought new and more expensive ones.If you want a gun ,just buy a Chinese import,the criminals don't seem to be short of them.Australia has never been a gun toting culture like the yanks,and the whole exercise after Martin Bryant was a waste of tax payers money.

Anyone with a machine workshop can manufacture any available weapon or bullets,but it is far cheaper to slip them into any one of our containers of which 95% are not searched.

Wow! I never thought I'd say this either, but I too am with Leigh 100%!

Two points: -

1. If people (law-abiding or not) want/need to purchase a rifle, it'll be easier for them to turn to the blackmarket. One of the major problems with this is that, if you are purchasing from the blackmarket, why stop at a semi-automatic when you can aquire an automatic? Most of the people we should be fearing with guns already have the connections they need to purchase one illegally.

2. If Australia is attacked, we have no malitia. Remember, it was only because of the malitia that the US was able to defeat Britain for their independence. What are WE going to do? Sit on our porch with a sling-shot?

Our infantry is too small to defend such a broad land and the US would take a few days to get here by ship. But we can only rely on them if defending us is in their interests. If China tried to overtake Australia, do you honestly think that the US is going to destroy their entire economy and wealthy way-of-life just to defend such a small trade partner (and butt-kissing friend)? I have my doubts.

Now none of this is likely to happen in our life-time but it's still not a comforting thought.

A side-note: An uncle of mine still has his semi-automatic because it was never registered. Whenever I visit his farm I enjoy firing it in defiance of an oppressive government that I hate with such passion.

...and yes, by Western standards, the "Liberal" party IS an oppressive party (before some elitist, smart-alec Young Liberal tries to correct me).

Not one person in this argument has addressed the simple question, "What purpose has the presence firearms in our society served the good of mankind"

Individuals have used guns to protect their loved ones from immenant danger, families have used guns to preserve their livelyhoods from introduced pest species, nations have used guns to preserve freedom for all of their citizens.

I travel many hundreds of kilometers in my work and use a gun to prevent pain & suffering of numerous animals with broken legs or broken backs after being struck by vehicles and in many cases, would die a slow and lingering death over many days. Beating with a stick is NOT an option, but I spend many hundreds of dollars in license fees & charges to do what is right.

To the antigunners I ask you to honestly anwer this question, faced with having been punched in the face, your arm broken by a baseball bat, your throat about to be cut from ear to ear; are you going to tell the nearest policeman to put his gun away because you REALLY don't believe in "gun voilence"?.

If any government can't protect you, your family, your friends and loved ones 24/7 they have absolutely no right to deny you the means to protect yourself.

Well it is one of the major reasons that the South West of Sydney is a no go area,the criminals are better armed than the Police.The Police just watch as the criminals go about their business.

Luckily the law abiding citizens are disarmed since now our State Labor Cowards can hide behind their mask of anglo racism as ordinary citizens get raped,stabbed,bashed and shot.

I find the notion of needing a gun to protect yourself from a armed thugs an interesting one. The only time I have ever been threatened with a gun was many years ago on the NSW North Coast. I was with my father and we were setting crab pots near a public road late one night, within sight of a dairy farm owned by dad's uncle. We were warned off by a belligerent neighbour, three sheets to the wind, with a rifle, who told us to "clear off", despite being told who we were. This gentleman claimed that "undesirable elements" were creating trouble in the area and he had appointed himself to sort things out.

My point is that one person's "law abiding citizen" "protecting their loved ones from imminent danger" is another's gun-wielding psycho. I live and work near the notorious "no-go areas" of Sydney (according to Arjay). No-one's ever pulled a gun on me there.

Hi there,
One could argue strongly for or against the issue according to how its presented by the media. If we saw an incident where some wingnut is peeling a few rounds off also known as keeping authorities at bay during a tense standoff, some would think give me a shotgun and I'll fix it.
(Theres probably a more effective type and calibre but you get the picture)
Bit of a tweak and theres an arguement for any Thom, Dick or Harry to have a shotty in the boot just in case. Clearly not the way to go for a progressive society. On the other hand , it could be argued that limiting access to firearms would reduce the likelyhood of such occurrence in the first place.
Myself, I see both as a little simplistic and although ideologically sound on both sides, completely unworkable. I wouldnt claim to have the answers to the problem, but know trying to gain votes by harassing responsible gun owners is cynical and insincere- and people like Bob Katter recommending that everyone takes one on camping holidays to the cape- are distorting the logic and facts of this issue.

Sage... the score is as follows:

Sage ....1 (Empleomania...'A passion for divine inspiration')

Percicles....0 (cannot find 'Empleomania' in the diccy)

But Sage, I don't know that empleomania is appropriate.. its more like they 'claim to have' than a 'passion for'. Perhaps a better term would have been 'Messianic complex' :) hmm..'Messiomania' ?

Ok... legg tugging aside.. here are a few anecdotes.

1/ There are more Licenced armed civilians in Victoria alone, than our standing army. (sporting shooters)

2/ I and my friends were almost turned into pegboard by some morons at Cockatoo in the 60s. We were young Air Force apprentices on a camp and were wandering along a creek bed at night, when suddenly it was like a War Zone (we all had .22 rifles by the way). Some bright sparks had driven along the road up the top of the hill and began blasting indiscriminantly away at 'whatever' they thought was down below.

So, I'm all for limited gun control, 'no morons allowed'. But I never had a sense of paranoia over the availability of guns in those days.
We almost became our own victims a few times.. our Kangaroo shooter fellow Apprentice almost drilled an extra body orifice in me when cleaning his gun in the back of the Ute we were in one time..and I almost shot myself in the foot (back off you predators :) when going through a fence once, but other than general safety procedures.. things were quiet on the Western front.

There is 911 like speculation about Port Arthur, that it was not actually Bryant to killed, but some obscure SAS who were then 'terminated' in the Black Hawke crashes, Bryant was just the patsy, and that is was all just a huge 'They' thing to disarm the populace...... my my...

They had swords in Jesus day, we have guns in ours.. same rule applies ..."Do unto others..."

Quoting the "....all seeing ......." (shorten your aka, it would be easier!)

Good comments. Sensible, balanced firearm regulation is a good idea, the rest is just BS.

Don't you use Google down your way Boaz?

http://www.answers.com/topic/empleomania

have a great day

The only people I know who own guns are either:

- cattle farmers
- recreational and professional hunters (some responsible, some completely reckless)
- law enforcement officers

As yet I haven't met any individuals who claim they need to own a gun for any other reason. Specifically, I've been lucky enough not to encounter any potential murderers, but...

If I did have someone attempt to kill me I'd prefer they tried it with a knife, an axe, a crow bar, or even a 'cricket bat'. At least I'd stand a chance.

In my opinion, Howard's gun laws are one of only two good things he's done as PM. So I'll give credit where credit's due.

Oh yes, I forgot to add sports shooters to that list.

The Courier Mail 05/05/06 has an interesting report on the perils of Bathrooms. In "Keeping clean proves to be hazardous for your health" by Renee Viellaris, The Queensland Injury Surveillance Unit advises that each year 10 people die from the 3700 bathroom injuries in that state. Some 41% of these injuries were to children under 5 years.

As Qld is 18% of the Australian population, we can reasonably extrapolate this to a total of 55 bathroom deaths Australia wide. And from this we can reasonably conclude that, even without Howard's gun controls, Australians were 5.5 times more likely to die from a bathroom injury than by a mass shooting. Indeed, as the current annual average number of gun homicides is only 56, we have no choice but to consider the current risk of bathroom mortality as equal to that of gun homicide.

It should also be noted that the national data on mass killings is significantly distorted by Port Arthur. Some 35 of the 100 mass shooting deaths in that decade were victims of Bryant. It took that many deaths to get him a permanent institutional bed. And without this distortion, the annual average was only 6.5 (one event) each year.

So what do Alpers and Chapman propose to do about bathrooms?

Yes, firearms have some strange and unusual effects on some people. Shortly after the gun buy-back post Bryant, a middle aged man was referred to me suffering from what at first appeared to be a "social phobia" disorder. Never a drinker or smoker his entire life, he was lately spending the day locked securly in his small flat slowly drinking himself to death. Neighbors observed that he would race from the flat to his car often knocking his head or arms in the process of trying to get in quickly. He would go to the local food store, rush to find a list of necessary items then return to lock himslf inside. Much of his diet was beer, pasta sachets and bread. A friend concerned by his spiralling health alerted the health team. Eventually, it was discovered the man (who was a true gentleman) was suffering depression and a form of agoraphobia which came about after he was forced to hand in his semi auto .22 during Howard's blitz on law abiding gun owners. He was extremly scared that he no longer had any "protection" from intruders. No signs of dementia was evident. He couldn't sleep, refused to answer the door to strangers and badly needed psychiatric help, which he duly received. After many months, he was deemed able to return home. Some months later, he tied a piece of cord around his neck, the other end to a door knob and let gravity do the rest. He never left a note, but I believe the loss of his firearm to be a major cause of his torment.

Given that this discussion has veered off into the ludicrous I may as well bite. When are the pro-gun lobby going to defend my right to hold nuclear weapons? John Hostetler, former Indiana Congressman, said that the 2nd Amendment of the US Bill of Rights did in fact justify private ownership of nuclear bombs. And don't forget, people have nothing to fear from law abiding citizens holding a nuclear arsenal.

"Had the gun law reforms not occurred, more Australians contemplating suicide - in particular, impulsive young people - might have more easily found a method of instantly ending their lives.

Reliable national data on suicide attempts is not available to examine whether suicide completion rates changed after Port Arthur."

And why do you feel it's society's duty to protect these self-destructive people from themselves? What gives you the right to interfere or advocate interference in someone else's life?

Gun laws are a dilemma for any government. Striking a balance between those whose use of a firearm is perfectly legitimate and restricting criminals is probably impossible.

I am British living in the UK and we have had our own problems such as Hungerford and Dunblane for which impact of the reactive legislation is difficult to measure in the sense of preventing further criminal acts. The legislation has certainly hit shooting clubs resulting in the British Olympic team training in other European countries with more relaxed gun laws. These countries have not experienced the same problems as the UK. If they do, it will be interesting to see how they react.

Despite the legislation gun crime in the UK continues and, although I do not have statistics, it is seldom that one of the national newspapers doesn’t carry a story about a gun crime.

I have never understood the purpose of a hand held pistol. The only reason I see for them is to shoot someone – they have no other purpose! The same goes for automatic weapons. Unless there is a legitimate use for guns they should be completely banned and steps taken to rid them of the criminal world. How this is carried out is the big question but a guns amnesty it a start. It will need someone with imagination to completely get rid of them.

DavidJS is the only one on this trail to venture into the ludicrous but no one will follow. This sort of extrapolation to the absurd extreme of privately owned nuclear weapons is really sloppy intellect.

And Wolfe, what a fatuous argument. When you have, in fact, rid the criminal world of their guns, then please, do come back for a chat about the need for guns. When you have had to confront 3 car loads of drunken hoons crossing your land to party in your irrigation dam, when the average police response time is two hours or more, you will realise that guns provide a number of very important non-lethal services.

1 They deter the unreasonable actions of those who would otherwise have zero respect for either your person or your property.
2 They balance the equation when a large number of people would otherwise be inclined to intimidate a few.
3 They provide a very reassuring last resort which allows the gun owner to assert their lawful rights without undue duress.
4 They widen the envelope within which the consequences of unreasonable or unlawful acts will be felt by the perpetrator.
5 They extend the reach of lawful enforcement by police in circumstances where the communities expectations of timely response are not, or cannot be delivered to the whole community.

And this last point is very significant. It is all very well for urbanites, who are never more than 10 minutes away from a police station, to say that there is no need for guns but it is nothing less than ignorance or hypocrisy if those same people are unwilling to fund the same level of police access to the rural community.

How unusual, a metropolitan double standard with lashings of self righteousness.

Love your image of the tightly-policed metropolis, Perseus:

>>It is all very well for urbanites, who are never more than 10 minutes away from a police station<<

Perse, that figure is supportable if you happen to be travelling towards the police station (and by definition away from whatever incident may have initiated the trip), but not when the required movement is FROM the police station, TO the incident.

As an inner-city dweller of twenty years, I can attest to the fact that you can wait indefinitely for such trivial occurrences as burglaries. A call at three in the morning might, on a good day, elicit a response the following morning, and that will most likely be a phone call to enquire whether anyone was injured... If you say no, I just wanted someone around to check for fingerprints, that sort of thing, there will be a suppressed chuckle at the other and of the phone, and a couple of bored constables will turn up a couple of hours later to "take some details".

The police are far too busy manning speed traps and booze buses, and filling in paperwork, to actually spare any time to catch - or even deter - criminals.

A measured response to such a juicy bait, Pericles. As I decade long past resident of Surry Hills I must agree with you. It is a fact that the entire community's expectations of timely police response are not being met.

Guns can deliver the same non-lethal services in the city as they do in the bush. Even when fired, they have a whole range of measured responses from a shot in the air before the "shoot to kill" that takes up so much of the head space of the ill-informed.

Blame it on TV, but the fact is a shoot to kill is, in most cases, the dumbest option. In real life people don't fall backwards when hit by a bullet. They keep going for more than enough time for a good swing with a machete. A shot to the groin, a hip or a knee, on the other hand will bring them down quick with a much lower risk of mortality and an equally low risk of prosecution for the shooter.

But getting back to this article, the really dishonest part of the analysis lies in the implication that Bryant's 35 victims were a once in a decade event. Only in perhaps Israel or Iraq would a single incident reach 35 deaths but these would be by bombing, not shooting. Bryant would be a decadal anomaly even in the USA but that has not stopped the Authors limiting their comparisons to the decade prior to 1996.

Bryant is more like a one in fifty year event or more and adjusting for this would drop the mass shooting average by 30% to about 7 a year, not 10. And when the pre-1996 period is extended beyond a single decade, this drops even lower to the point where some years register a nil record.

But this all obscures the fact that the real rise in all homicide coincides with the expansion of the drug culture in the late 60's and 70's. Gun laws merely treat symptoms while the cause remains untreated.

For people who want to own guns the issue is training its use and the security of the weapon. For example, with a revolver, the slot where the hammer rests should be empty. Clips and firing pins should be removed and the main weapon locked away. p.s. I don't own a gun.

Police unless on special calls should not be armed and should hand in their guns at day's end, unless there is a special need to carry the weapon. Herein, there have been too many sucides and accidents with police guns over the years.

Guns need to be secured, not eliminated. I resspect the right of people to own a gun to target shoot. Even, if I don't want a gun. Target shooting is a skill, like pool or hockey.

Lastly, 80,000 people die each year in Australia from smoking related illnesses. **perspective check**

The Law clearly allows the use of force to protect oneself from unlawful attack and if that attack is believed to be life threatening then one is allowed to use even deadly force.

For example if one is threatened with a firearm, by an intruder, then one is allowed to use a firearm to stop the attacker.

The problem is that the same Law does not allow one to have a firearm for the purpose of self defense, so in using a firearm to save one's life the law is broken or one must provide a reason why there was ammunition available and why the firearm was not in the gun safe at the time.

Seems a bit strange to me.