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