It is fourteen years since the Port Arthur massacre.

It is past time for evidence-based gun controls. The 1996 National Agreement on Firearms was based on 1980s ideas from academics, activists and senior police of the National Committee on Violence. Rhetoric about 'America' blamed ordinary people for problems that have little to do with Australian reality. The emotional climate of 1996 resulted in laws that show 'moral superiority', but place very unfair burdens on innocent Australians that use firearms in daily life.

Recent research has shown that the high cost and regulatory burdens were not particularly beneficial in terms of lives saved or reduced violence. Social contagion theory best accounts for the massacres not as functions of 'availability' but of imitation, triggered by activism and sensational media reporting. The cessation of massacres is likely because media stopped framing stories that such crimes were 'easy' because of then gun laws.

A new Agreement on firearms should keep the helpful parts while dropping the parts that are based in elite contempt.

What helped:
- The national framework to prevent leakage to the black market;
- Shooter licences with background checks;
- Safe storage standards.

What is excessive and should be removed:
- Long waiting periods drawn out further by bureaucratic delays.
- Way excessive restriction on ordinary sporting guns like semi-auto .22s and repeating shotguns.
- Excessive restrictions on air rifles, air pistols and replicas;
- Viciously excessive requirements on pistol club probation and attendance.
- Denial of the human right of self-defense. The right remains as a vestage but the means are banned.
- Obstructive police policy and abuse of police discretion on firearms.
- Waste of the public's time and money through bad process design and failure to use technology.

Fourteen years is enough. Its time these offensive laws were fixed to balance the protection of the community with the legitimate conduct of these sports and rural working life.

Good call, you are right.

Much of the regulations do not add anything to safety. They merely add layers and layers of paperwork, fees and bureaucracy. There would be nothing today stopping someone from getting all the same firearms
as the Port Arthur killer had - all he would have to do is say he goes pig-hunting.

The other thing that should be scrapped is the intrusive laws on keeping of firearms on private property. The stated objective of the law is to improve public safety. This has no validity in applying to private property.

C'mon guys. The laws were never about the guns. It was always about who owned the guns. It was an outlet for the hatred that rich urban trendies feel towards rural, working class Australians.

I always thought New Zealand had a more reasoned response when we copped it just the same a result of the HORRIFIC tragedy at Aramoana, near Dunedin, my home town.

They used logic and 'sporterised' various weapon types such as the SKS by limiting mag size and placing restrictions on what defined military weapons. At that time I did culling and eradication as a job and the SKS was an important and effective tool for the trade with culling goats. I found seven shots adequate. I agreed 30 shot mags were unnecessary and was happy to abide by the new legislation seeing at it was reasonable, considering what went on here.

I fully support and back reason when it comes to hunting, but I don't when it comes to handguns. Handguns are designed for one thing only, and I think they're unnecessary in the wider community. Personally, if you shoot someone with a handgun you should be done for AT LEAST grievous bodily harm. As far as I know it's illegal to privately arm yourself for the PURPOSE of self defence. Non-sporting handguns can only be used for that reason. Mainly my reasoning for this is safety to your neighbours. I don't want to get shot by my paranoid neighbour climbing over a fence in the half light to get 'my kids' ball back not knowing they are actually home.

The criminals seem to have plenty of guns.Why do they no pay heed to the new laws? I think we need new laws to deal with chain saws,knives,angle grinders,nail guns etc.People should be made to keep them in a safe at night and fill out Govt forms each day documenting their use.

In fact the family car,one of our greatest killers should have much greater restrictions on it'use.We need new charges like ,"Use with intent to drive to one's destination." We need Obama's Preventative Dentention proposed leglislation.You can be charged and detained without trial indefinitely on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist.We could apply this to the use of the motor vehicle."Preventative Mobility."Your car could be impounded on the mere suspicion of it being able to kill someone due to your intent to drive.

The possibilities are boundless!It is a bureaucrat's delight.Kevin Rudd could integrate this with the Education Revolution and insulate us all against the next GFC with batts in our belfry.Programatic Specificisity.Ah,such wonderful words.

God I love this place. More fruitier than a Christmas cake.