Gees Brian I don’t even know where to start on this one. Suggestions in your article women carry weapons when jogging, make for the most amazingly stupid nonsense I have heard in decades.

Are you really suggesting that women joggers should tote a pistol on their hips as protection? Where do you jog Brian, Redfern?
I just ran your idea past my boss (Female) who, as an avid jogger, pounds the pavements in the name of fitness. She suggested a stick would be safer; or , as in her case, she runs with her husband whose shoulders a three pick-handles wide. She’s fine with that. But a pistol, she said to tell you “never”.

I wholeheartedly agree with diver dan.

It's a shame, Holden has done some very good articles in the past, but this isn't one of them.

Firstly, the 'gun' idea is ludicrous. Holden speaks of mace and pepper spray as if they're the only alternatives. I'd have thought a taser is powerful enough to do some serious incapacitation.

Though I still don't think it's necessary. By and large, I don't see fearful women everywhere. Frankly, I think this is an incredible exaggeration. If women are indeed fearful, the solution isn't to make guns readily available.

Holden speaks of the many guns still in Australian hands which aren't killing and maiming. I'd ask what proportion of these are handguns, and how many are in urban areas. It's far more difficult to commit a crime with a rifle.

The crux of Holden's argument is this: "There are millions of guns in Australia, and yet few are killed by them. We have a very different culture to the US. No valid extrapolation can be made from the situation there to the likely situation here."

At least, Holden accepts that firearm deaths in the US are very high. That's a start.

Firstly, I don't think we do have a very different culture. Aside from Britain, I can't think of any other country which we have a more similar culture to.

Secondly, I would have thought that given the stakes and deaths, the onus was on them to have more persuasive evidence than 'we're a bit different.'

Yes, occasionally Brian contributes a sensible article, but this isn't one of them.

Open slather on handguns because some women are fearful when jogging - I don't think I've read anything sillier for quite some time. And as a regular reader of OLO articles and comments, that's saying something!

Let me first state that I have no objection to anyone owning a firearm.

However. Let's look at what firearms are actually for. Remembering that a firearm is a weapon designed to kill. It is not a toy. I have identified three areas that may require a fiream.

Gathering food.
The vast majority of people live crammed into cities. Therefore they do not hunt to live or to protect themselves from wild beasts.
Those that live in country towns also come into the above catagory.
Property owners in isolated areas may need to shoot a bullock occasionally for meat.

Protection.
We do not live in a lawless society.
The vast majority of people live crammed into cities. Therefore they do not hunt to live or to protect themselves from lawless gangs.
Those that live in country towns also come into the above catagory.
Property owners in isolated areas may need to protect their livestock from feral animals. Therefore may need a firearm.

Sport.
The vast majority of people live crammed into cities. The use of firearms is restricted to specially constructed sport shooting venues.
Those that live in country towns also come into the above catagory.
Property owners in isolated areas have room to practice marksmanship.

Continued over...

Continued from previous

The security of firearms is an issue. I'll now reverse the order.

Property owners in isolated areas need to be able to locate their firearm when it is needed. Therefore a lockable Gunrack would be acceptable. The weapons need to be registered with the police.
Those that live in country towns don't need to access their firearm often but may need it occassionally. Therfore a lockable Gunsafe would be acceptable. The weapons need to be registered with the police. If the weapon is removed from the premises then the police must be informed as to the whereabouts of the weapon, what it is being used for and when it will be returned.
The vast majority of people live crammed into cities. The tight bunching of people in cities restricts the personal ownership of firearms. Therefore any weapons owned by people in cities must be kept in an armory not in the home. Weapons removed from the armory must be signed in & out and their destination & intended use recorded.

Any person that wants to own a firearm must undergo a psychological examination. A weapons handling course and a weapons safety course, and produce verification of having passed hoes courses, before being issued with a licence to own a weapon.

A person who wishes only to hire a weapon at a sport shooting venue must have undergone, and produce verification of having passed, a weapons handling course and a weapons safety course.

"Men like the feel of guns."

Is this true is it.

I'm a man, but I don't like the feel of a gun.

I'm a man, and I don't own a gun.

I'm a man, and I don't even like watching detective movies on TV.

Dear Brian, go back to femtown.

All the knee-jerk reaction which led to the most oppressive gun laws in the world did was to make gun ownership difficult for law-abiding citizens. Criminals still have access to as many guns as they want.

I used to shoot; in later years, at targets in competition only. A few years before the tyrannical gun laws were enacted, I handed in my last firearm to police as I was not using it. I was advised by a police officer to ‘hang on to my licence’ as they were going to be very hard to get in future. I didn’t worry about it at the time, unaware of just how difficult it would be to obtain a licence after the bullet-proof vested John Howard went crazy with the most alarming gesture politics to ever occur in Australia: making it difficult for innocent citizens to keep firearms because he was too impotent to do anything about the real problem of gun crime.

As Brian Holden says: “Criminal types are immune to any gun control laws”. The totalitarian crack down on law abiding citizens has done nothing to prevent armed hold ups or killing with guns.

Now, I will never own another firearm, simply because I will not be subjected to the ridiculous strictures and indignities insisted on by stupid authorities when I could, if I wanted to, buy anything from a .22 rifles, through hand-guns to sub-machine guns any time I pleased on the criminal black market.

While I am not a gung ho, right to bear arms USA style fanatic, I firmly believe that when governments ban, or make it very difficult for people to own firearms, society is in trouble with its politicians. It is seen by many perfectly sane people as the first step towards oppression. Secondly, with the pathetically small military in Australia, it is not good policy to have a population totally unfamiliar with firearms. Those of us who are experienced are on the way out. Younger people have been brought up to believe guns are bad, and want nothing to do with them.

Continued...

continued...

However, I do not agree with Brian Holden’s ‘hand guns for women jogging’ idea. With the suspicion and hatred of men engendered in some women, there would be dead men all over the parks every morning. No ordinary citizen needs a handgun. The single shot, and then useless, gun for women is a joke. Hand guns are a lot harder to use than they appear to be on TV. I shot with precision target pistols for many years, and was one or the majority of people who were not very good with them. Lots of noise and many bullets do the trick.

My beef with Australian gun laws is that they were never necessary in the first place. They have done nothing to prevent gun crime, and they have robbed many people of the harmless and satisfying pursuit of target shooting.

And, while I’m a fan of Brian Holden’s, I don’t think he has helped the cause of gun owners or would-be gun owners by suggesting that anyone carry dangerous, hard to use handguns for self- protection .

This is pretty kooky and the pop psychology doesn't help. Others have already made the relevant comments concerning problems with this article.

This is one thing however that I will raise, tangentially, in its defense - the notion of a regulated citizen's militia as a replacement to both standing armies and state-sponsored police, emergency services etc.

Brian.....the purpose of a gun is to KILL!
I'm an ex RAAF Reserve weapons instructor, comfortable with machine guns, rifles and pistols. As a test of personal proficiency I took part in target shooting competition regularly, but never forgot that I was operating a highly efficient killing device, albeit for a "sporting" purpose.
As another post said, guns are not toys. They are lethal. At close range, it is unlikely that a properly aimed pistol will fail to kill.
So what are you suggesting, Brian, kill on suspicion of an impending attack?
What a lovely, lawless society that would be!

TRTL, our society and history is very different to the US. Brian pointed out several of those historical differences. As for Britain, our gun law history is closer to theirs. Does anyone know why and when handgun controls were introduced in this country? It was in the early 1920s after the revolution in Russia. It was thought that all the "working men" who had hitherto owned handguns without restriction, might "turn against" the authorities.

Britain has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world (far more restrictive than Australia's) yet is undergoing a wave of gun crimes unprecedented in its history. The reasons for this are complex, but might perhaps be boiled down to one factor- unbridled immigration. So the fabric of British society has chnaged, and not for the better.

As for women carrying handguns for defence, I concur to a degree, even though I actually lost my firearms and licence to a violent maniac AVO-serving partner (like Mr Right, I could have gotten my licence back, after the dust settled, but neglected to, now it's too much trouble). Will it happen? Highly unlikely. A constant diet of unrealistic "detective" shows on TV have warped the populace's understanding of firearms. The authorities would never allow it, for one reason at least- it would be an admission that they have failed the women in our society.

To add to what other posters in the "Nay" camp have said: I have lived in countries where citizens carried guns and one of the most incredible feelings of safety one feels in Australia is largely due to the fact that in Australia they do not.

As the author pointed out, but skipped over: in Australia, which has an abominably high suicide rate, the major use of guns by young men is to aid suicide. Yeah, yeah, a determined suicide will find other ways, but if the means are not so easily and irrevocably to hand many of these death could be prevented. And I speak from experience here too: as mentioned elsewhere, three times I have tried to suicide and laid plans which I thought were final - and three times, by pure accident, I was either prevented or discovered. I am proficient in the use of hand guns, rifles and shotguns - had a gun been to hand two fantastic young men a)would never have been born or b) would have had their lives devastated.

As for the women-alone factor. Bollocks. For so many reasons - some of which have adequately been dealt with here. As has the one-bullet scenario which is further bollocks as another poster pointed out.

If indeed there was a big enough risk to warrant women going armed then something would be terribly wrong in our society which inciting more violence would not fix .And yeah - taser, gas pellets or even "knock-out" darts such as are used for vetinary purposes are all measures to be considered long before killing becomes an option.

I am expressing myself in a very direct and challenging way because I know only too well what living in a society where violence rules is like. As another poster said - the only purpose of guns is to kill. Even the suggestion of turning Australian citizens into killers (when they are out jogging? Shite!)makes my blood run cold

Yep ... make an activity safe by introducing firearms ... makes sense. doh.

This guy is a freak. He says anti-gun rhetoric is emotional, while using an emotive argument about fear and lone strangers in the dark.

Anti-gun rhetoric is usually about keeping guns out of the hands of immature morons who threaten people with their lack of expertise and ability to use discretion. That is certainly going to be the case in spades for women who feel afraid of strangers in the dark.....

The Americans are generally extremely mature about their guns as they have a history of being close to them. Not many Australians have that level of respect and maturity handling or using them. Handing them out like toys for scared people to use to 'protect' themselves (while really threatening passers by with instant death) in this way is reckless. Only a specific subset of the population would have that maturity and this writer certainly is NOT one of them.

Simply put, absolute tripe.

The author gives a hundred reasons why guns aren't a good idea then shoots himself in the foot by suggesting they might be. Work that one out.

Romany, I'm very glad you didn't go through with your suicide attempts.

I'm a fairly well-built sort of guy and I don't feel especially safe in certain parts of our bigger cities. I don't feel safe around large numbers of alcohol and football-fuelled young men, either. God knows how women feel. That said, I don't think women carrying sidearms is the way to go. Cracking down on the criminals might be, but that's for another topic.

Brian's article is a provocation, not really offering any solutions or identifying real problems. He certainly brought out the usual knee-jerks in the forum comments though!

His observation that women don't do stuff alone on rural or remote roads is true - but its due to different proportions of the sexes in those kinds of life role. More than half the joggers in parks are female, at least where I live, so I don't think he could be talking about that.

But pompousness about guns is what passes for debate for some commenters, it would seem

more...
Romany, if the main use of guns by young men was suicide, they would need only about 150-200 bullets a year. Somehow the good guys burn millions of rounds every year in Australia.

HRS, the generalisation that men like guns does not apply to you. Do you think it possible that given the opportunity to let a few shots off at a safe target, or appreciate some high-quality craftsmanship, the generalisation would apply to a majority of males? It certainly applies to many females too.

Jayb, you seem to be using the rhetoric of urbanisation to deny people freedom to even consider they could have reasons to enjoy shooting. Would you use the same logic to deny them the freedom to go trailbiking, skiing or horseriding? You seem to presume that people should be forced to prove they are not insane. In reality, free citizens can be presumed mentally competent unless there is evidence to the contrary. The present licensing system does a good job of screening.

As for Ponder who said "Brian.....the purpose of a gun is to KILL!"

This is a facile idea. Guns have many purposes other than killing people, and in fact this purpose is only important in a symbolic way. (I presume your scare-cap shouting KILLL!1! implies you mean people, because we kill animals as part of normal life and don't need scare caps for sausages or cockroaches).

There are maybe 3.5 million guns in Australia legally held by civilians. Not a single one in civilian hands is there for the purpose of killing people. NOT ONE. Read the firearms acts of each state and territory and show me where I am wrong.

Either the police are colluding in an astonishing fraud, or there are much more important reasons we own guns.

With drug's like ice becoming more prevalent and the increase in violent attack's recently passing self defence law's should be a high priority in this country. Allowing law abiding citizen's to carry handgun's for self defence use is the best way as long as it is regulated strictly and each incident involving a handgun being discharged investigated thouroughly, due to the fact that it send's a much stronger message to the bad guy's. It will make them stop and think 'i could get shot dead if i do this' compared with 'i could get tasered or pepper sprayed if i do this'. And plus it is possible to build up an immunity to pepper spray just ask any US Marine it is part of their training.So a violent criminal could just aquire their own pepper spray and use it on themself enough time's that it didnt have much effect on them anymore. They could likely do the same with a tazer till it got to the point where they could still function close to 90% after being tasered.

Never mind about women's protection Brian - let's give guns to babies! They need protection too!

But seriously, there may indeed be "good arguments for allowing the carrying of firearms for self defence in Australia", but none of them appear in this article.

It's a curious thing that while much comment on the US Second Amendment focuses on the phrase about "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", comparatively little attention is paid to the purpose of this Amendment...it's for maintaining "[a] well regulated militia".

Get it? Well *regulated*? Not a free-for-all. Not for over-the-counter semi-automatic purchase. Not for gunslinging joggers.

Moreover, the purpose of such a militia was to protect the people from tyrannical *governments* - both domestic and foreign. The militia was *not* intended for individuals' personal protection or to act as a vigilante force. The founding Fathers wouldn't have bothered setting up the Judicial Branch of government if they intended the "well-regulated militia" to be its own self-defence force.

And whoever wants a gun to protect themselves from ice addicts, your feeling of security will last about as long as it takes for that ice addict to get their hands on a gun...then you'd *really* have something to be frightened of.

A young man lost his life to a enraged woman with drugs and alcohol in her system, this month when she ran him over, for committing the terrible crime of throwing a chip at her car and maybe giving her some lip.
If she had a gun, how many of that group of young people would have lost their lives. On paper before this incident she may have been angel and allowed access to guns in America for 'protection'.

The bloke who shot a teenager on his property when the kid was running away permanently injuring him is probably also claiming he was protecting himself and property.

More guns in our society - no thanks

Society is focussed on dangerous people mainly because of the pervasive media etc who like to dramatise and make us think there's a bogeyman around every corner. Look at all the cop shows, forensic stuff, it’s everywhere! The newswires are plundered for the most shocking and awful from around the globe and then it’s delivered in it’s simulated blood and gore (except for the news that’s usually real enough) to your lounge room every night in an instant. We hear complaints that we are becoming less shocked and more immune to this stuff. I say it makes us more afraid, we are numb and we don’t fully realise.

So what happens when we arm people? The temptation of deadly force first (get 'em before they get you) is the result of people’s fear first and foremost. Guns don't kill people, people who are fundamentally afraid of other people do. This of course does not include the criminal element, who in reality we are really unlikely to come across on a regular basis. All of these mad “roid ragers” and psychotic ice bingers are in all reality very unlikely to get you on the way to the shops on a Saturday morning. Yes it is a reality for a very few, but not for the majority of society. They are not waiting on every street corner for you and your kids, but when that’s what you see every day in the media then that’s what you will think. There are billions of people on the earth, some ordinary, some really good whom we don’t hear about and the statistically very, very few who are sad mad and bad that we do. So we give people handguns, because they are afraid of other people, so everyone who is around you (which includes me) then becomes a potential target whether you consciously hold them in that regard or not.

Arming people is not the answer.

I don't think that I'm sold on the idea of guns.

But still - it was an interesting piece anyway.

No women seem to have contributed to this thread as the author’s statement that women have a right to feel as safe as men in remote places has not made the slightest impression on the any of the contributors.

No person who likes to spontaneously walk along a long beach or an interesting-looking bush track has contributed to this thread as the fact that men outnumber women 50 to 1 in this enjoyable activity has failed to make the slightest impression.

Readers somehow saw:

• woman joggers pounding the pavements.
• women jogging in parks leaving dead men lying everywhere in the morning,
• an open slather on gun ownership and
• shooting any man who looks suspicious.

On that last point: A woman is walking along a fire trail and she has seen no one for 2 hours. She sees a large man coming in the opposite direction. She hopes he will simply say hello and keep walking at his normal pace. He does not and moves over to her. She exclaims – “Please don’t come closer as I will shoot.” He stops and keeps moving past her. With her heart in her mouth she hurriedly walks to the end of the fire trail and safety.

Does that sound like a “shooting any man who looks suspicious” scenario?

No contributor has noticed that the $500 million spent on the buyback and which did not prevent one murder could have prevented many of the 14,000 preventable deaths if instead passed onto the public health system.

Of course, one reads what one wants to see.

Healthwatcher,
I wouldn’t advise anyone to walk along a bush track by themselves, man or woman.

And I certainly wouldn’t advise anyone to jog along a bush track, as they could easily be bitten by a snake, or trip over and hurt themselves.

But I can imagine the scenario.

Feminist Judge:- Why did you shoot him.
Her: - He was male and looked suspicious.
Feminist Judge: - OK, you can go. Next.

Feminist Judge: - Why did you shoot her.
Him: - She was female and looked suspicious.
Feminist Judge: - OK, 20 years jail. Next.

Health Watcher, I'm a woman and I have spent 1000's of hours out on those bushtracks by myself in the last 20 years and heaven forbid, on the last major walk even ended up sharing a hut with some strange blokes who unexpectably (and being a bit naughtily), turned up after dark in a Mountain hut when I had the hut booking.

Now I could have taken my gun and threatened the lads and told them to go away, after all I was miles from help and out of radio contact and these blokes could have planned dastardy deeds - though I wouldn't have thought men with dastardy deeds on thier minds would be hanging around in the bush in hope. What in fact happened was the sane thing where I somewhat resignedly (it was nice to have the space to myself) shoved my stuff over, met a couple of nice blokes and learnt a bit about rock climbing and they didn't snore.

Out on the tracks when I meet men, (freqently) they are always pleasant though sometimes a bit patronising and cluck about me being there but always mean well. One day I may meet a bad egg but the 'may' is so infinitely small that I don't plan on giving it up. Nor do I plan on threatening some poor bloke who has been entranced by a bug he has found on the track and approaches me to show it to me. Plus if I did meet a bad egg and I had a gun, it's absolutely guarenteed by the time I realised I was in trouble, he would have me and the gun and things would be worse.

So thanks, but I certainly don't think my being armed would improve my sense of safety out there, though after a incident with a brown snake I carry an eperg.

JL Deland

It’s a good thing that you have added a properly considered opinion into a series of knee-jerk responses.

The deeper one gets into the bush, the more one is likely to meet like-minded people enjoying the same pursuit. Your experience in the hut could hardly been any different. But, on tracks in the national parks bordering Sydney, it can be different. Then the man you meet on such a track may be only one hour removed from drinking the last can is his 6-pack.

There was a case I will never forget. A woman decided to jog alone at night along a long beach. It probably was a balmy night with the water gently lapping. Setting off on a jog may have been too irresistible to worry about any danger. She had been jogging for about half an hour or so and had not noticed the headlights of a 4-wheel drive coming up behind her. She could have avoided her rape and murder if she had had a gun.

Just for your interest: The police could not pin her death on the prime suspect. He was invited to state his case on the Jana Wendt show. He believed that he could now remove all suspicion by exposing himself to a public analysis. Fortunately he took the bait and the far more intelligent Jana tripped him up.

I can only add to the majority of posters here.

It would be more unsafe if women or men were to all carry a handgun while jogging or to live in a society where gun ownership was the norm such as in the States. Time and time again statistics show that the rates of crime are high where gun ownership is high. From experience I can only desribe the gun lobby and gun culture in America as similar to religious mania.

As a woman, the reality is that it is unsafe to walk alone in a secluded area and to abstain. It might be unfair but sometimes life is unfair and you take your enjoyment where you find it or organise your activities to reduce the risk.

This is surely the most insane idea. If women were to massively arm themselves with hand guns against possible attack it will not end up with lots of dead men, as the professional male victims like to fantasize, but with lots of dead women.

Women will be killed or seriously maimed BEFORE they even knew there was a threat.

It is a romantic notion that arming yourself is any protection against a bad person. Said bad person who intents to commit a crime expecting a probable threat of being shot is not deterred, he arms himself with bigger better stuff and shoots first. Criminals are not deterred by jail, why would a gun in an amateur's hand be more of a threat? Criminals too can take preventative action.

As JD I love going about in nature, especially alone. The men who are intend on randomly attacking a strange woman exist, but fortunately are few and far between. Like JD, the men I've come across are interested and interesting.

It is as Nita points out. We are so inundated with stories of violent crime that we are beginning to believe that this is the norm. Not an aberration.

Women walking alone need to be aware of the surroundings and the places where they do this.

We need fewer guns, not more. As Romany points out, guns wreak a terrible toll on depressed men with access to a gun, a gun is often implicated in male suicide.

Suicide rates have little to do with availability of guns. As can be seen in the following table:

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

many countries with a high suicide rate have restricted, or very restricted, access to firearms, for example Japan. It's notable that, with the exception of China, male suicide rates outweight the female by, in some countries, considerable margins.

Suggesting that "restrictive gun laws" reduces suicide is simplistic in the extreme.

Right on Yvonne!

Health Watcher, Walking and jogging is supposed to be fun. If some women feel so threatened that they feel the need to carry a gun, I'd sugggest a different activity for them. Running at night is probably inadvisable as you can't see where you are putting your feettreading on a broken bottle or a snake which are a more likely occurence than encountering a volient male. Of course women do make risk assessments. I wouldn't walk through our civic centre at midnight on my own, and I keep a bit of a lookout for drunk yobs, but arming myself in advance is extreme.

Pelican sadly if we took this statement to it's logical conclusion, then women's worlds would become sadly impoverished.

"As a woman, the reality is that it is unsafe to walk alone in a secluded area and to abstain. It might be unfair but sometimes life is unfair and you take your enjoyment where you find it or organise your activities to reduce the risk".

In this world, I shouldn't garden out the front for instance in case I'm spotted by a nutter in my empty street, drive a bus or a taxi or travel in one in case it emptied except for one other person, participate in bush walking that has given me a great deal of pleasure for most of my life, and those rural women who spend much of the day by themselves should move into town immediately in case a nutter drives in. My risk of meeting a violent man bush walking, may even be the same as being the victim of violence from a bungled break-in, but nobody suggests I live in a cell with bars to keep bad people out.

To be continued...

The fear of the stranger is vastly exaggerated. Attacked women almost always have some connection with the abuser. So if we arm women, they would be firing at father's, brothers, lovers, work mates etc. They might end on murder charges trying to prove that it was self defence. Their men would likely have access to the woman's gun too and use it against her and on people coming to her aid. It also raises the stakes if he has taken the gun. The stranger would be harder to talk down, because that he was in deep trouble apart from the initial gun snatching assualt. In the domestic situation, the bloke would know that she is more likely to leave or call the cops this time, when maybe she hadn't before, because it would be a huge wake-up call to her that the man is dangerous. The outcomes to the women may be worse as a result.

If I gave up walking on my own, then I'd probably be more likely to develop diabetes, heart disease, depression, bone loss and I'm sure lots of other nasties and die earlier of them, a sure risk, instead of an unlikely 'maybe'. I've also never had a Park Ranger say, 'gosh you shouldn't be here on your own, the woods are full of rapists', rather they seem very pleased I'm using the trails and many of them are women who are also out there by themselves a bit.

I have a very sane friend. But the fear of his family being the victims of a terrorists means he won't take them to theme parks. Another friend feels it is alright for the anti-terrorist police to question members of groups such as Amnesty when they plan their community events, which I think is flagrant nonsense. There are terrorists out there, but here the fear of them is out of proportion to the risk - like feeling the need to carry a gun jogging. We risk losing more freedoms and making the world a more dangerous place for ourselves through unnecessary fear than from actual risks.

Sorry JL, I misspelled that before.

It is exactly as you say and Nita. We are being made to be so afraid that we are becoming quite comfortable with all sorts of infringements on our freedoms. Whether enacted by law or self-imposed.

After a few years of working in a busy big city hospital Intensive Care Unit I suddenly found myself actually expecting something horrendous to happen to those near and dear to me. Serious injury and death always came suddenly and unexpectantly. It surely was only a matter of time before it would happen in my world. The waiting almost became unbearable. That's when I realized it was time for me to expand my horizons and work in another field.

We are inundated with the most awful violence, in entertainment and selective news. I recently watched Clockwork Orange again. My children are young adults and teenagers. What shocked me was how tame I found this movie this time around. A movie that I remembered as having had quite an impact on me way back when.

Women have little to fear from strangers. As JL said: violence most often comes from known persons. That is for both women and children. Is this true for men as well? Probably.

The last thing Australia needs is to foster an American style guns-for-self-protection culture. Guns for target shooting or hunting yes, not for shooting potential human attackers.

JL Deland

My statement was not meant to imply that womens' lives need to be impoverished or overly restricted due to imagined or perceived fears. I was talking in the context of this article that if there is a real threat to women in a particular area then arming them is not the answer. As Yvonne said this activity would, based on experience, result in more women than perpetrators being killed.

My statement in regard to organising activities to reduce risk is exactly what others have said about being aware of your surroundings. Taking stupid risks is what I was alluding to and should have said as much.

A very long time ago, I was stalked and chased in a suburban railway station very late at night because I chose to take a risk and catch a train around midnight. Not a good idea as it turned out. A stupid thing to do, but I was young and 'invincible' but luckily I was very fit and outran the moron. I will never forget the look in his face though and his determination.

I became more careful as a result but not restrictive in any way. Men can also be victims of muggings and might choose not to walk down a particular alley way late at night for the same reasons. This does not mean we live in constant fear or panic. :)

Now that some women are contributing, there is some valid input. So ladies, I concede - no more guns than we have now.

However, please note my motivation for writing this article.

1. When I pass a lone young woman in the bush I fear for her safety. I always will.
2. I am a technical person and have had experience with guns. I admire them as technical achievements. A repeating rifle with 1875 stamped on the barrel is as effective as one made this year. With few exceptions once a person (male or female) becomes familiar with guns, they do like the feeling of safety (maybe power) that they imbue.
3. Ever since Howard blew the gun menace out of all proportion, I have been angry about the dishonesty of it all.

Brian's underlying point, though is correct. THere are instances where an Australian should be allowed to have a firearm for protection, because there is a real threat and the firearm may save their life.

You will note that the comments against in this forum all ASSUME the the intention is for lots of people to be armed, almost at random; and subsequently, that those randams then start randomly threatening and shooting people with those guns. We know they will do this, because ordinary people act like this with access to kitchen knives, right? The assumptions are prejudice, not reality.

The fact is there are a small number of Australians murdered every year whose ex-spouses were known to be dangerous, or who carry large amounts of cash, or who have offended organised criminals like bikies. THese people are even agreed by the police to be in danger of their lives, but they must die like sheep for the prejudices of the many.

Good points, Chris and Brian. I too enjoyed the technical aspects of guns and shooting generally (especially reloading).

Funny how so many people look on guns with abhorence yet their eyes skim over something daily without disgust...it's usually parked in their driveway.

Viking, you've just jumped to that silly conclusion gun 'lovers' make all the time. That there can only be those who love guns, who like that cliche: 'it's not guns that kill, but the person using it', and those who abhor them.

Instead, look at this way. There are those who put guns in the same category as kitchen knifes and those who put guns more in the category of cars.

Kitchen knifes can be dangerous, but only when not used for their primary purpose or used by very young children and are necessary daily to cut up and eat food. There is very little skill involved in learning how to use them.

Cars are dangerous, but afford a high degree of convenience. Driving a car requires a degree of skill to use for their primary purpose. It takes proof of a prerequisite number of hours of training, passing a written test and a practical test. Maintenance of license is mandatory, and is easily lost with inappropriate use.

Guns, though of no practical purpose at all in the lives of city/town dwellers, come in the latter category.

Some people loooove cars, some don't, but there is no argument to the licensing requirements and restrictions of when driving is not permissible from the lovers, those lukewarm or those who hate them.

Why on Earth should guns not at least fall in the same category as car driving? Filling out some paperwork, answering some questions too much effort for the privilege of owning a gun? And this from people who claim to appreciate, even love, guns.

Brian, why don't gun owners see that to own such a lethal and powerful item as a gun as a privilege that needs to be earned. Like a driver's license.

yvonne, am I reading you correctly that you ASSUME we shooters are pushing for no gun licencing at all? That isn't actually so. I have been involved for almost 35 years and am perfectly used to licencing. What I can't get used to is being subject to laws founded in widespread moral prejudice instead of knowledge of the matters being regulated.

We would like to have laws designed as non-judgementally as vehicle laws; for instance, we would not need any government busybodies messing with us as long as we confined our usage of firearms to private property. We would also be able to trade between licenced owners without begging bureaucrats for permission and waiting for four to six weeks to get it, instead making a legitimate trade when we want and having 14 days to register the changes.

Although I believe self-defense should be a legitimate reason for licenses, I do not want to see such licenses easy to get - just that a threatened wife or a jeweller have as much right to protection as an ex-police commissioner, politician or multi-millionaire.

Chris Per the problem is that when we give a gun to a person, they may be a nutter but they may have flown under the radar and won't appear that way until they break-out and then the damage is done.

My former neighbour applied for the re-instatement of his gun licence a while back. At one stage in his life, he was a clean skin. But after he threatened people on the street with a gun, put another neighbour through a window and beat his face in for talking to his wife (a sad little individual with a history of abusive partners) had a restaining order put on him by the previous owner, (an old woman) and then stalked my husband we moved in record time ( a safer option than arming ourselves), I'm hoping that he didn't get his licence back - so will the cops who who would be first in the firing line if called out to this guy. Even writing this gives me some anxiety in the unlikely event he sees it - he's certainly up to doing something nasty in revenge.

In his own mind though he is a hero. He told us that he had to go to court after he saved the girl next door (no girl) who had a heart transplant (nope) from a stalker (nope) to explain his brush with the law and honestly believed it. He's still out there.

Luckily he didn't kill someone when he had the gun, but he may have. The people who think they need protection, but really who society needs protection from, may be just as nuts as him. Guns belong in rural situations where they are used for work (though maybe not by my former boss who thought the black snake was a irrigatiion hose - it wouldn't plug in, and then shot the irrigation hose thinking it was a snake) but not in everyday society.

Another gun story. I grew up in the country in more relaxed days and nobody thought very much of the fact there was a rifle in the unlocked down stairs room. It was used to pot the occasional bunny on holiday. After someone came in and stole some tools, my father got a bit more security concious, decided he didn't need it and gave the gun to a younger doctor who at that time was a impressive young man though regarded by the other doctors as a bit 'green'.

Sadly the bloke developed pychosis, became a problem to himself and others, could only practice under supervision, and eventually had to have the gun taken away from him after he started keeping it under his desk at work. I wonder how many of his patients knew the bloke they were consulting had a loaded gun closeby. He ended up suiciding. So even if someone is okay when the licence is issued, their circumstances may change.

It could be argued that I could be entitled to a gun to keep my former neighbour at bay. The only way I could have kept my family safe is to have gone next door and shot him point blank. Very, very messy and my fear of him, though real may have been over- stated. Id recommend people in that situation move and not destroy their lives by trying to beat the nutter at his/her own game.

The idea that "anybody criminal" can get a gun is baloney. Guns have become hard to get because of Howards gun laws. All small time criminals I had the misfortune to cross paths with simply don't have the nous to obtain one. I have crossed paths with a few in my time - I owned a few convenience stores in my time that were being robbed weekly for a while there. The worst that happened was staff being threatened with knives from across the counter. Still, it was enough for us to loose a few of them - some of the girls could no longer face the public. I imagine we of lost a few more if they had been in real mortal danger - as in looking down the barrel of a gun.

Holden's idea that these girls would pull out a gun of their own and shoot somebody is absurd. I am not sure what type of woman he associates with, but those I know would no more do that than leap the moon.

That aside, Holden's indignation about firearms control is misplaced. Guns have not been banned. If you want to play with firearms you can still get them, and in fact I have mad keen sporting shooters for friends who live in suburbia and own several guns. Unlike Holden they don't chafe at the gun laws. They sometimes grumble at expense at having to put in a gun safes and what not, but in the next breath they talk about the peace of mind they get from knowing their guns are safe. They don't like having to attend their local shooting range, but then discuss how good it is that the club ensures even the cowboys get some training.

So where is the problem? Responsible gun ownership is allowed. What Holden wants is a society that encourages casual gun ownership, where every Tom, Dick and Shirley gets to carry a lethal weapon. If that's your idea of utopia Brian, you can keep it.

You are mistaken in some ways rstuart, but dead right in others.

I am far more an enthusiast about researching the impact of gun loaws and the motivations of the activists pushing them, than an enthusiastic shooter. I own guns as collectors items, more than the occasional rabbit hunting I undertake.

There have been some good outcomes of the NAF and improved security of guns is one. The continuation of pre-existing downward trends in firearms violence is another.

But the most important aspect of the gun laws is that they are rooted in contempt of gun owners and their (implied) values. This is not based on reality, but projection - the opponent's mental image of irresponsibility, or atavistic violence, or imagined cruelty to animals - all good things to be against. The normal decent person is strongly against them. The only problem is, by demonstrating normal decency through opposition to gun owners ('the gun lobby'), people fail to see they are not attacking reality but a strawman idea.

The laws are not 'reasonable', but the outcome of a moral status auction. When you are subject to the detail, you discover that 'tighter' or 'looser' are not actually moral propositions, as people seem to think. THey reflect a host of sometimes conflicting concepts and actions, more or less poorly conceived and inefficiently implemented

Google search a Dr Rebecca Peters and you find some very interesting information on the disarming of Australia. The subject of firearms ownership in this country takes on a very Peters biased leaning - post Hoddle Street and Strathfeild incidents.

Why then was the majority of her work 'subsidised' by overseas think tanks? Some will now finger point and allege - "Conspiracy theorist!"

Implements, tools, weapons, motor vehicles, these all kill people equally as dead. Then it is the intent of the person in charge and control of those items which is the argument really, is it not?

Legislation is not the answer, but only ever a placebo to quell situations long enough for politicians to gain votes back. Education and proper training is a far better solution. No one can legislate against the suicide bomber from carrying out their act. Prohibition in all its various guises has never worked either.

Unfortunately the American idea on private firearms ownership has erroneously prevailed in the past 30 yrs. To now suggest a Switzerland like approach i.e. National Guard, manned and womanned by able bodied folk with service rifles, anti tank weapons or heavy calibre weapons in the back shed (of course secured in Police Commissioners Approved safes etc) we have missed the boat. It would take at least another generation for the current retrograde laws to be repealed or significantly amended.

Put simply, the government(s) of the day distrust the citizens from having access to firearms other than those police or military have control over.

The American 'ideal' of a well trained, armed and disciplined militia in its original context still has merits applicable to todays society, which could in time permit private ownership of firearms without the current restrictions.

We are a long way off from that day though whilst popular press, media and such perpetuate the myth of macho gun connection.

I concur with ChrisPer. I was really upset about the implementation of the gun laws because they were imposed purely for short term political gain, nothing else. The only acheivement being that the workplace is now safer for criminals.

Brians idea that women in certain situations should carry a handgun is absurd. Having a deal of experience with firearms, my advice to females, or males, in the most unlikely event that you need a firearm to prevent imminant physical harm is, use the biggest calibre and highest velocity firearm available, and point it at the biggest part. The reason for this is that you really need to stop the threat with the first shot. Any wounded animal including humans, full of adrenaline, can take a hell of a lot of putting down. Wound only with first shot and you may well be in very big trouble.

To acheive this with a handgun and without going into calibres,ammo, etc. you are talking about heavy handguns. This is arround the 'Dirty Harry' type weapons. I can't immagine a woman carrying such a weapon arround, let alone going jogging with it bounceing in a pocket or holster.

I don't know where Brian goes jogging, but I have always found the bush to be very safe appart from the risk of treading on a snake or tripping over.

'We need fewer guns, not more. As Romany points out, guns wreak a terrible toll on depressed men with access to a gun, a gun is often implicated in male suicide.'

Surely you're not rejecting a measure to protect women just because it will adversly affect men;-) Are you crazy! Women are to be protected, men are all potentially violent abusers!

Women should be protected in every aspect of life at ANY expense to men!

Banjo

You are right. The light gun a jogging woman can carry if fired wont stop an attacker. However the sight of it might.

You say that the bush is safe. It probably is - but it doesn’t feel safe to many - and that is why lone men outnumber lone women 50 to one.

Usual Suspect

Since writing the article, I have decided that don't want any more guns than what we have now. However, I don't think the community should be as anti-gun as what it has been worked up by the anti-gun people to be. I do know that those in the Congo who are getting tortured an murdered are the ones without the guns.

ChrisPer: "the gun laws ... are rooted in contempt of gun owners and their (implied) values"

I can't speak for whoever made up the gun laws, but to me that statement is 1/2 right. I don't view sporting shooters with contempt, and I think it unlikely the majority of Australia does either. At least I am sure most Australians were proud of our Olympic shooters as I was when they won gold. They would be proud of them regardless of whether they were holding a gun or a javelin - the equipment doesn't matter to most of us.

Some do have contempt for hunters, although its not a sentiment I share. Contempt is a very strong word to use here, I think distaste would be better. In any case it has little to do with guns. The distaste is generated by the idea of killing cute furry animals for fun, and is directed at all hunters including those that use bows.

And finally I don't think too many people would have an issue with people who admire guns for their aesthetic qualities - any more than they would question the values of someone who collects swords or vintage cars.

Where I do have an issue, a big issue, is with the idea of carrying around a gun for the purpose of shooting people, or threatening to do so. This is what Brian Holden was advocating, isn't it? He said girls should carry gun for the sole purpose of shooting or threatening a potential attacker. In fact I gather the idea is we should all carry guns, so when we think someone is getting out of hand we can just threaten to kill them. Apparently this would solve many problems and make the world a safer place for all of us.

When I said you were 1/2 right, this is the 1/2 I was referring to. And yes, you nailed it - I view the idea with contempt. But is this the "(implied) values" you say all Australian's believe gun owners share? If so, then I think you are wrong.

Brian,
"The light gun a jogging woman can carry"

So a woman can carry a gun, but a man can't.

Seems rather sexist.

There are people with a XXY chromosome. Should they be allowed to carry a gun or not?

rstuart, I am pleased that you don't share contempt for shooters as such. It is pleasing you mentioned the Olympic medals, because that turned around the general public opinion. From 1996 to 1999 this was not so, at least in the media. Articles about empowerment of women as shooters had to be prefaced by the journalist "I hate guns as much as anyone, but..." (Emma Tom, the Australian), and people accepted as normal statements like: "the reason they like guns is because their dicks are too small to satisfy their wives" (The Australian, Adams). No journalist would question the facts of an activist who said: "“Our logic is that shooters are the most ill-disciplined group… That’s what attracts them to guns. It’s a state of mind… They are usually poorly educated, they have never had success at school and were never very good at sport… Guns to them represent something they have never been able to achieve.” (J Crook in radio interview). These lines represented apparently normal opinons supported by most journalists because they would never challenge their authors. Even official Government employees and researchers operated at that level: "Some have become enlightened and left the sport"(Mukherjee and Grabosky 1995)

The gun laws actually were founded in contempt for shooters!

The gun laws were founded to make it harder for those people who get the idea to use guns on other people. The effort involved is the deterrent.

rstuart is right when he suggests that the majority do not feel contempt for sporting shooters. Even if not a fan of the sport themselves. There will be those who just don't get why it has any appeal, like me and football, but contempt is really too strong a word.

A situation like Switzerland, where the population makes up the militia, is a moot point for Australia. We have professional armed forces. The other option is to join the Army Reserve. Like my eldest did. You get to handle guns and get paid for it too.

ChrisPer, yes OK. Guns are a favourite target of the talking heads. When your job its to grab attention and create a ruckus, guns and gun owners are easy target. But who actually takes what they say seriously?

You apparently do. That is a mistake. When you say no journalist contradicted the statement: "shooters ... are usually poorly educated, they have never had success at school", you may be correct. Be jeezzz, you don't actually expect them to, do you? What journalist in his right mind is going to be bothered with such drivel. Let the statement stand on its merits. No one is going to believe what it says about shooters, and it tells us volumes about the person quoted.

By all means collect such quotes. Hold them up for public ridicule at appropriate times, but don't take them as any indication of what the public or politicians actually think.

As you said, the current gun laws do seem to be achieving what they set out to do. Keen shooters can still own guns, yet gun related injuries and deaths are trending down. This is something to be celebrated - our pollies actually got something right. The sausage they delivered is actually edible for a change. I would not be complaining too much about how it was made.

rstuart

"....the pollies got something right for a change."

Not really. For the cost of the $500 million buyback, the annual death rate from gunshot is claimed to have dropped by about 100 - but another claim says that the murder rate has not.

Now, what could our disasterous mental health service do with an extra $500 million?

rstuart. There has been no change. Stick to your original perception that the pollies can never get it right.

Brian Holden, the statistics you quote do seem to say the $500 million didn't change the "big picture", with respect to total deaths anyway. But you can look at it in other ways.

For example, 100 deaths a year is around 1000 since the laws were past. Looking at the stats, the number of gun woundings is about equal to the number of deaths, so that is 2000 deaths and woundings since the laws were past. That means it cost us around $250,000 per prevented death or wounding, and the gift keeps giving. Before the laws were passed we had one mass shooting roughly every 1.5 years. Since the laws were passed we have had none. (That one statistic blows away the "is easy to get guns anyway" argument, doesn't it?)

When you come down to it, we allowed too many guns into circulation. One consequence was mass shootings. Fixing messes like that costs money. They spent the money, and now we have no mass shootings. In 1996 if you had of asked me: "We currently have 1 mass shooting every 1.5 years. If you give me $500 million, I will fix it", I would of looked at you incredulously, said "you want me to give you $500 million for a solution that probably won't work?". But it did work, and I am now happy they pushed it through. I am not a Howard fan, but credit where credit is due - his pig headiness worked that time.

rstuart

I watched the news today. Washington is throwing out all controls on handguns. I have to admit - that sounds scary. These are large caliber, multiple shot and reloadable

The gun I proposed in the article would have to be registered and the recipient would have to have a good reason to get it. And a single shot, small caliber throw-away weapon which needs a separate key to unlock its mechanism is not much of a menace to society. The idea was that if it is pointed a menacing man, he would have to ask himself if the woman was worth haviong a .22 hole in him which he would have to explain to doctor who would then notify the police.

The thing about a gun is that somebody has to intend to fire it. No change in gun laws will add or substract a single person from the number who like the idea of shooting somone.

I need to check, but the fall in gunshot deaths since the gun laws may have already started before the gun laws were introduced and the fall may be in the suicide rate due to the greatly improved early diagnosing of cancer since 1996 [as many sucicides are due to a diagnosis of terminal cancer].

With 3 million gun still in our society and only 640,000 returned, it does not make sense that there should have been any measurable fall in gunshot deaths. My guess is that the fall in deaths since 1996 has little to do with the new laws.

Brian you are way behind. The claimed savings in lives were suicides, and they were initially MORE than substituted with hangings. Very thin evidence that any significant number of lives were saved at all, and some may have been lost as a result in unexpected ways.

So the 500 million to save 100 lives, or whatever, is more like we pay 100 people to kill themselves with a rope instead, so Australians could have moral self-ragard for 'doing swomething' to avoid being 'like America', in any case a ridiculous cliche.

In the process, harassing and over-regulating about a million other people, with many symbolic expressions of distrust and contempt, is just a bonus because after all, its the Gun Lobby's fault that these massacres happen, right? Or is it? http://www.class.org.au/ideas-kill.htm

The falls indeed started many years before the buyback. No evidence of a rate change, except in papers by anti-gun campaigners including Simon Chapman and Philip Alpers.

Suicide substitution confirmed in a paper by de Leo et al 2003 - which was missed by Leigh and Neill who claimed they had demonstrated saved lives from the buyback.

Brian: "the recipient would have to have a good reason to get it."

No they don't. According to your article, an acceptable reason is "I might, at some stage in the future feel threatened, and I wish to protect myself." Everyone qualifies.

Brian: "The idea was that if it is pointed a menacing man, he would have to ask himself if the woman was worth haviong a .22 hole in him which he would have to explain to doctor who would then notify the police."

But since he would have no trouble getting a gun himself, he could approach her with a gun drawn, and if she threaten to shoot him he could shoot her first. Problem solved! Don't you just love these hypotheticals, eh? Personally, I would prefer if we came up with a solution that reduced the number of people who got shot.

Brian: "the fall in gunshot deaths since the gun laws may have already started before the gun laws were introduced".

I don't know either. It seems unlikely, given the you said earlier the total number of murders hasn't changed. Others think it was the reduction in guns:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17170183

Repeating what I said earlier: guns haven't been banned. I have a 2 friends who live in suburbia who have 50 guns between them, stored in a home made gun safe. Anyone who uses a gun regularly for recreational or work reasons can get any number of the things. What is your problem? Is it that $500 million is too much eliminating mass shootings? Is it you would prefer to live in a gun culture like the US or Iraq has? I still don't get it.

Brian, do you really think that if women started arming themselves against a would-be assailant there would be fewer women harmed or killed?

Pointing a gun without the intention or the willingness to fire it at a threatening person only means that said gun will be taken off the women and used against her.

If not that, why would a man intent on harming a women and knowing women are very possibly armed not take that in account, get an extra buzz at disarming someone who thought they were powerful and shoot her first?

I have no problems at all with guns owned by sporting shooters or for work reasons, but I have enormous problems with people thinking that guns have a place in self protection in a country like Australia.

Next we'll have American style stories were the hapless pizza delivery boy who knocks on the wrong door late at night gets a bullet through the head because the householder felt that he had to 'protect' himself from an invader on 'his property'.

Guns are for sport or work, not for pointing at other humans. It is the constant mantra of the 'right to protect oneself' by killing them with a gun from some within the gun lobby that gives many the heebie jeebies.

While Brian has not made his case at all well, I think this 'bad guys will just take the gun off a woman' cliche is rather contemptuous of women. People who carry guns must be properly trained to never produce a gun without good reason, and anyone who lets a bad guy take their gun is potentially abetting a murder - possibly their own. No-one tells a girl taking karate lessons that she should just give up karate and never resist a violent rapist.

Produce your statistics to prove this happens routinely in real self-defense situations, yvonne. Or are you just stereotyping women to support your prejudice?

As for rstuart, the $500M was to 'make Australia a safer society', and the authors specifically said that it would NOT stop mass killings. What stopped mass killings cannot be the gun laws per se.

It is more likely that the media and activists stopped telling everyone we would have a massacre in Tasmania because it was easy to get guns (and this is how to do it), and instead sent the message that gun laws were effective, because they stomped on decent gun owners so hard.

If you rely on Simon Chapman to pretend the confiscation of 600,000 low-risk rabbit guns stopped massacres, the least you could do is point out his personal reasons for needing it to be true. Our media are quick to tag pro-firearms researchers with implications of bias, but never say 'but these researchers are actually activists responsible for a 20-year campaign against gun ownership, part of it funded by government research funds.'

CrisPer, licensing is not only to stop easy access and 'prevent mass murders'. Licensing requirements, be it for driving motor vehicles, motorbikes, semi-trailers, owning guns or having a liquor license, also upholds the idea and sends a clear message within our society that in order to be able to do any of the above things you have to be worthy. There is a certain level of responsibility required. There is an idea of privilege, not an automatic right.

As for your statistics request. Why is it so unbelievable to expect a criminal to be even better armed if there is a good chance the victim will be armed? Your karate analogy makes no sense whatsoever, karate and guns are no comparison.

I don't know if you have ever lived in the USA. I have. The thought that the American ideal of 'the right to bear arms' for self protection might ever take hold in Australia is petrifying.

Guns are dangerous. Especially in the hands of untrained and/or irresponsible persons. They certainly have a place in sport, hunting or work, but not for 'self-protection'. The pro gun people love the adage 'It is not guns that kill, it is the person pulling the trigger'. Well precisely. You should endorse and support the notion of licensing. It is a privilege to pull that trigger, not everyone can be trusted with that power.

In case you missed it, we have a police force and we have professional soldiers. If you are worried about being helpless in the unlikely event of an invasion, please join the army reserve. You'll get called up and get a big machine gun to spray the bad guys with.

Strict license requirements to own a gun is the least any community should expect.

I prefer to think of guns as a right, not a privelege. The moment you start calling things priveleges is the moment you are in danger of becoming an elitist or someone who doesn't support democracy. The problem is they are so damned dangerous in the hands of idiots and aggressive, immature people.

yvonne,
Did I say I wanted to stop licencing? I don't. I think the parts of the national firearms agreement that actually help are the low-cost parts, that is a proper background check and firearms license, and the safe storage requirements. Genuine reason and genuine need are 'reasonable regulation', in my opinion. They help filter the showoffs that would (possibly) be more likely to misuse.

But I see no reason why, when I already hold a license and own a number of historic arms, I should have to wait 6 weeks for an application for an 1880 antique rifle, on a collectors license (that means I can't use it at all anyway). And the rabbit rifles I used to own, now gone, that are effectively banned, were wastefully destroyed, to generate smug for the uninvolved and ignorant.

Do I sound patronising? Your post certainly does. I have served in the Reserves (just after Vietnam ended), and I became aware that guns were dangerous if not handled with constant attention to safety as a teenage target shooter before then. So, thanks for the infomation! It shows that some people think their imagination is a reality to enforce against other people's freedom.

ChrisPer. The gun laws were introduced, and then gun related behaviour changed. The obvious explanation is the introduction of laws caused the changes. The theories posited in the link you gave seem very far fetched in comparison.

Some of the changes were expected, like the reduction in gun related deaths and injuries. Some were unexpected, like the compensating rise in suicides by other methods, and the elimination of mass shootings. You seem to be keen on cherry picking the good and bad, and assigning their cause to whatever side suits the point you are trying to make.

Although Brian hasn't posted links, I trust him to get it right when he says the number of murders hasn't changed since the introduction of gun laws. It hasn't effected suicides either, at least in here Queensland (but why restrict the study to just Queensland?). This is all very disappointing. On the positive side, I expect the number of accidental gun related deaths and injuries has dropped. After all, while someone may look for an alternate way of committing suicide, its unlikely they are going to seek out an alternate way of having an accident.

You seem to have a problem with the $500 million being miss-spent. Maybe it could of had more effect elsewhere - its hard to say. But it did have an the intended effect. Our government recently spent around $200 million on purchasing Australia wide licenses for internet porn filters. They were made available for free to you, I, and everyone else. But guess what - no one was interested, stuff all people downloaded them. If you want to hassle our pollies about wasting money you need look no further. This $500 gun buy-back was positively good value in comparison.

rstuart, the 'far-fetched' idea that Australia's massacres were copycat massacres comes from academic papers including Philip Alpers the anti-gun researcher, leading Australian suicide researchers and the leading forensic psychologist in Australia, Prof Paul Mullen. The idea that news and current affairs reporting is influential in providing a guide to action for some twisted individuals is old news, and for some reason or other news and current affairs people find it far-fetched.

I agree that the buyback money seems to be too small to bother with by today's standards, but its significance is that it was spent to express moral outrage, at the expense of the self-respect of people like me. It was spent to destroy what we value as good.

Ordinary people think the guns destroyed were some kind of especially dangerous military-style rifles but 93% of them (Vic figures) were ordinary sporting guns of no particularly threatening nature, that had been in use since the 1890s - sporting pump and semi-auto rimfires and shotguns.

Anyway, in case I don't get back to reply again, its been great to discuss with the two of you. I look forward to next time.

ChrisPer, there seems to be an anomaly if an established collector of antique firearms has to go through the same rigmarole as a sporting shooter on the purchase of subsequent firearms.

Seems there should be different licensing requirements with different criteria for the different reasons why people might want guns. Can't really see why that shouldn't be so. Certainly sounds like an area where you and like minded individuals should lobby for changes.

Steel, owning a gun is no more a democratic right than driving a car is, even though it could be argued that a car is a necessity.

Thanks yvonne!