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!