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.

I think StG has it about right.

As a former sporting shooter who has owned several different rifles, I find the whole topic a bit of a storm in a teacup. While I sympathise with those who have to go through the hoops, shooting is not a necessary part of most Australian lives and the ubiquitous presence of firearms is not a necessary part of the Australian urban environment.

Having said that, I know that many of the people I used to shoot with have "black" firearms that they bought during the Howard "buyback" or which they failed to hand in. I also know that if I wanted such an unregistered weapon, I could purchase one in about a day, possibly for less than a registered one would cost me. Still, it's not as easy as going in to Kmart and picking one off the shelf, as I did with 2 of my rifles.

I have a small business milling timber and making joinery. There are all sorts of regulations pertaining to my business that seem mostly designed to stop idiots becoming ex-idiots, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to apply similar regulation to other dangerous tools of business. They may not be strictly necessary in an ideal world, but they do help protect idiots and others from the consequences of idiocy.

I should also mention the suicide factor. I lived in small communities for a long time and I watched many young men being carried in a box into churches. You could always tell when it was a suicide, because noone wanyed to talk about it. Nearly all used a firearm of some kind, usually a shotgun.

Suicide rates for men have been falling steadily since the Howard buyback http://www.livingisforeveryone.com.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/LIFE-Fact%20sheet%203.pdf.

I'm sure the reduced availability of firearms is a strong factor.

I don't own a gun nor do I like them but John Howard's leglislation went way over the top.It was just another intrustion into our lives.

Get this clear.Govt will never protect you.They steal and waste your money with impunity under the guise of social responsibility,yet never have we had so unequal income distribution both here and the USA.DOCS in NSW have helped create all the social problems which they are now incacapable of handling.

We have no infrastructure,in debt up to our eyebrows with a shortage of housing since Govt taxes/charges make up 38% of a house/land package.They have made it too expensive to conduct business and restricted our civil liberties.

We were never in danger of becoming a US gun toting mentality.You don't get responsible people by treating them like children.

Just to say from the outset that I don't mind government taking taxes from me and spending same but like everyone else, I want to see some proof of positive outcomes and that value for money was obtained.

Regarding the Howard gun buy-back, there is abundant scientific, peer reviewed evidence that the half a billion dollars spent buying back guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no appreciable effect on the homicide rate. The 'initiative' was a waste of money.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback had made no difference in the rate of decline."

The prestigious Time magazine had a lengthy article saying there was no evidence of any benefit from John Howard's gun buy-back.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

Suicide
The numbers prove that the Howard inspired gun laws achieved nothing. Firearms are just one among numerous available deadly methods. Firearms were always unpopular for suicide, whereas hanging is common. Cars seem popular for men too and it is likely that deaths through that means are under-reported. However banning or restricting any instrument such as guns can only reduce the number recorded against that instrument, it doesn't address suicide cause or prevention, the overall numbers remain the same.

Reference: Recent Australian Suicide Trends for Males and Females at the National Level: Has the Rate of Decline Differed?
McPhedran, S., & Baker, J. (2008). Health Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.01.009

If the gun laws are supposed to have reduced suicide, how then can it be explained why the large rump of male suicide by other means has fallen appreciably, whereas the fall in male suicide with a firearm as the tool has had only a miniscule change?

The answer of course lies in the national campaign aimed at reducing male suicide and that is where the credit should be given, not to a cynical political 'gun control' stunt by a (ex) Prime Minister, who relied on emotional scare campaigns in lieu of science.

if the suicide rate actually reduced since the forced confiscation (the government calls it the 'buy-back - even though they never sold us the guns), it must be coincidental.
The confiscation-with-compensation scheme took my 40 calibre semi-auto pistol because the calibre (0.40 inch diameter ammo) was deemed deadly and the magazines held 16 rounds each.
I used the cheque they gave me to buy a 38 calibre semi-auto (0.38 inch diameter ammo) as the government decided that it was still safe to let me own. Also, the 10 round magazines were not as dangerous as 16. Just go to an IPSC match and see how quick a mag change is.
In fact, if I was a member of a metallic silhouette club, I could still legally own a 45 calibre pistol.
Looks as if they pulled the figures they used for the 'buy-back' out of where the sun don't shine.
As for the Port Arthur incident, read 'Deadly Deception at Port Arthur' by Joe Viallis then see what you think.

"As for the Port Arthur incident, read 'Deadly Deception at Port Arthur' by Joe Viallis then see what you think."

Don't. The reader will be stupider after reading it. He is now long dead, probably as a result of his brain being eaten by zombies.

You can get a bit of a summary of the to-and-fro about buyback benefits at the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia . Broadly, Melbourne Institute researchers Lee and Suardi had the last word on the quibbling between Baker & McPhedran (no benefit) and Chapman et al. (zomg way good). The benefits were minimal.

As far as I am concerned you can never have enough gun rules.
I don't believe we should have gun sports at all.

How many times have we heard about criminals obtaining their guns from 'gun cabinets' in people's homes? How many times have we heard of people who own guns using it as a murder weapon or as a suicide weapon?

The only need for guns is on farms and on the battle fields.
We don't want our society to end up like America where many people own guns 'for protection'.

Guns can be used for mass murders much more easily than other weapons.
Ban all non-essential guns.

suzaneonline,guns in the hands of ordinary citizens are the least of your worries.The oligarchs will kill far more people through their war mongering and economic austerity.Already 1.4 million in Iraq dead plus 60,000 US Troops.

You cannot see the trees for the forest.

Heh, heh, ban everything eh suzeonline? Think of the children, if only one child is saved it is worth it.

Problem is though, after all of the years and the billions wasted on John Howard's gun buy-back and gun laws, no-one has been able to demonstrate any worthwhile outcomes.

Again, I do not object to the government spending my hard-earned tax dollars for good measurable results, but I do question the ongoing wastage of resources on a bloated, unnecessarily complex, redundant and ineffectual abortion of a 'system' that was never better than a grab-bag of rules and controls dreamed up on the spot by people who knew nothing about risk management. In excess of twenty new taxes and fees were brought in over night in every State and Territory. A typical Howard 'initiative' one might say - all wind and taxes and plenty of 'never you mind'.

What people tend to forget and probably because were ignorant of regulations then and now is that there was already an effective licensing system in place before Howard. It wasn't helped by the Howard inspired changes that just created a mountain of redundant bureaucratic paperwork on top of it. That is why the States had to be bullied and blackmailed into bringing in Howard's gun laws.

The changes resulted in the various weapons branches and local police stations being inundated with the busywork of monitoring every law abiding licensed firearms owner on computer (all listed as possible criminals) and through random flying visits to law abiding citizens homes to carry out inspections.

The criminals must have been popping champus corks when they found that hundreds of trained police in every state would henceforth be desk bound polishing a chair while looking over the shoulders of licensed firearms owners (whom they had previously certified were fine upstanding citizens without criminal record or intent, otherwise they would not have renewed their licences!).

contd..

For the police in the weapons branches and the white elephant gun registries, 'Howard's Way' spelt drudgery and doom - they joined the police force to collar criminals not monitor old fellows who shoot clay pigeons on Saturday.

Yet John Howard had imagined that crooks would be interested in applying for licences and in registering their weapons. That way, JH could refuse their bits of paper and grab their guns, or at least that was his (or Janette's?) reasoning. To date there is no evidence of any criminals recklessly seeking to register their tools of trade. No surprise there chaps, maybe Janette hadn't thought of that.

From dusk to dawn in my large city suburb there is only one police car with a trained police officer and a recruit. They have no back-up because there is no money to man the station at night.
The record is twenty minutes for them to attend a serious incident. Think about that and arrange to be molested or beaten to a pulp on a quiet night.

As I said at the start, I don't object to government spending my taxes for a good purpose but I would like to see some evidence of results and value for money. It is simply not good enough that government can waste billions on self-serving propaganda exercises like the gun buy-back and redundant gun laws, yet not be able to even provide adequate police for routine patrols by State police. However government says it cannot afford to reduce hospital waiting queues or provide support for mental health either. Is it any wonder I ask for more accountability and in facts and numbers, not emotional spin.

Nope, still don't like em!
Big boys with toys as far as I am concerned.
Ban all non essential firearms

Actually suzeonline, every one I get I have to demonstrate 'genuine reason' or 'genuine need' for. That is interpreted very heavily by WA Police where I live.

Its the redundant and pointless over-regulation that irks me, and apparently its designed out of contempt for me and my values, because they deliberately ignored the ideas of people who actually knew anything about the subject.

ChrisPer, I understand your frustration if you happen to like guns.
However, if a gun owner who applied for his/her gun in good faith and pressed all the right buttons when he/she applied for it, can still become depressed or very angry sometime in the future.

It is so much easier for a depressed person who owns a gun to just pull it out and shoot themselves while in a depressed state of mind, or kill someone or several people along with them.

Yes, there are other ways to commit murder or suicide, but not so many other ways that are quicker and easier, or can kill so many at once.
I have nursed people with shotgun wounds too- and it was awful!

It is theoretically possible that a person who satisfied all of the conditions to become licensed could one day do harm to herself or others but the likelihood is low.

Similarly it is possible for a Council bus to suddenly career off the road one day to flatten you, however the likelihood while low, would be a damn sight higher than the licensed gun owner doing a nutter in the first example.

Who says? Numbers says.

That is why reason and facts should guide our decisions, not emotions. Being risk averse is not an option, it would mean that no-one would leave the bed in the morning.

Of course when the revolution comes you could ban anything you like, but most people are too attached to their freedom to let you do that.

Meanwhile, it does matter that the Howard gun buy-back was a waste of a huge sum of money that could have been put to better use. Likewise, not only is there a lack of evidence that the Howard inspired gun laws have reduced crime, but the control framework is poor, and the administration is inefficient and enormously wasteful of public and private funds.

Streamlining to remove redundant and weak controls and to increase efficiency is urgently needed and is necessary to release expensive trained police personnel for their real job of detecting and apprehending criminals.

Wow. Cornflower's a gun nut.

Who'd a thunk it?

suzeonline:"It is so much easier for a depressed person who owns a gun to just pull it out and shoot themselves while in a depressed state of mind, or kill someone or several people along with them."

Suzeonline,
If I said we should not allow women to own kitchen knives, panadol, rope or vacuum cleaner hoses because they are subject to post-natal depression and PMS and might suicide or maybe even murder their children, it would be properly condemned as stupid sexism. You, I and millions more walk in front of trucks and cars in traffic, even leading small children, and trust that not only will the drivers not TRY to kill us out of 'depression', they will not even do it accidentally if we just take care. I suggest this is evidence that the risk of your projection fantasy is acceptably tiny in real life.

People almost all go through their lives not killing each other. Only for the firearm, useful and symbolically important to us but symbolically 'bad' to you, do you overblow this imagined risk so much that public policy should be based on it.

Now please examine my suggestion. I am not asking for more people to carry guns, or for licensing to be abolished; I am asking for the same level of benefits of control while removing the regulations and costs that do not contribute to it, where possible and based on evidence.

suzeonline 'How many times have we heard about criminals obtaining their guns from 'gun cabinets' in people's homes? How many times have we heard of people who own guns using it as a murder weapon or as a suicide weapon?'

Answer to first question - since the laws were toughened regarding safe storage of firearms, very few. Also, more guns have been stolen from police stations and unattended police cars than from private owners so should we take away police guns too?
Answer to second question, since Port Arthur ONE licensed gun owner committed murder (the Tobin shooting), no licensed shooters suicided. Maybe you are thinking of unlicensed owners with illegally owned firearms. Or maybe you are just making wild statements because you don't like guns so no-one should have them.

CJM, what's a gun nut? I have a gun grub screw that holds my compensator on, but no gun nut.

Austin Powerless - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture#Gun_nut .

Alternatively, look in the mirror.

While on the subject of PMs and governments throwing large sums of money around to promote themselves and redefine 'problems' as always being capable of being fixed with more laws and public bureaucracy, the Federal Climate Change Department and Tony Burke, the Minister for Population are good examples from the present.

After the four hundred public servants in the Federal Climate Department get their five hundred new computers (and more 'free' staff from the failed insulation scheme), the first priority will be finding a role for the department.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/money/money-matters/kevin-rudds-department-of-hot-air-costing-taxpayers-90m/story-fn3hskur-1225859701357

Like Howard before him, Rudd never has enough money for the fundamentals like health and education despite the earnest demand of taxpayers that these should be given first priority, but he always has the odd $90 million for a ministry to find 'problems' to regulate. Then there are the problems of his own making where he needs to cover his behind - overpopulation and sustainability - where another ministry is found to be 'necessary'.

Similarly, Howard had no money for mental health and like Labor before him, cast about for every excuse to sell off mental health assets and reduce the real value of annual allocations for that purpose. However he did have the odd billion for grandstanding buy-backs and redundant gun laws. Matthew Bryant has marginal IQ (he does not suffer from a mental illness) and his stress and dysfunction in dealing with ordinary life was well know to public authorities all of the way through his schooling and into his adult life.

Howard's fraud is that a Bryant can still buy illegal guns (criminals get plenty of new stock from overseas) and petrol as he did back then.

What if the odd billion or few that PMs like Howard are prepared to waste to get re-elected were directed into providing real support and counselling facilities in schools, or alternative education opportunities focussing on physical rather than mental accomplishment for the less gifted, and sheltered workshops where the daily social demands are not so daunting? The looney left and the far right might object out of idealism, but so what?

I need a gun, because of a stupid local law, [council].

You see, my mother used to breed a few miniature horses, & I a few "proper" ones.

My little 20 acre block backs onto a 10,000 acre one, with just a little river, you can often step across, between them.

There are foxes, dingos, & some packs of rather large wild dogs roaming this & adjacent large properties. The wild dogs, in particular are capable of taking down quite large foals, & minis are just a snack for them.

Our council, which should know better, demands that all dogs must be locked up, where they are usless in protecting our stock. I don't know who they believe will lock up the wild dogs, which it probably could be argued, belong to them.

There are some foals, but many sheep, goats, & alpacas taken each year, but even those special gard dogs, breed & trained to think they are a sheep, must be locked up at night, when they are required. If we could just make the townies, & city people, who want the damn fool laws, responsible for the harm, it may help.

If they had to put down our maimed animals, & clean up the dead, we might get some sense. Meanwhile they wonder why many of us just ignore all the fool stuff that comes out of council, & government

Hasbeen

What government does instead is tell you to lock up your dogs and then they drop a load of 1080. All approved by keyboard greens and so-called animal welfare people who are emotionally upset by the thought of farmers culling with a rifle, but are careful not to think about the poison remedy that government is forced to take instead.

The 1080 result is terrible lingering deaths and destruction of native wildlife as well as the ferals.

http://www.youtube.com/user/thewynman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m81afDNSS-4&NR=1
- a NZ example, but Australian State governments drop plenty of 1080 here too.

Alternatively, through its Game Council, NSW is successfully reducing targeted feral pests in gazetted forest areas, vastly reducing the cost to the taxpayer and providing a much needed boost to the economy of small country towns. That could restrict the use of 1080 to limited zones where absolutely necessary, which is very good news!

http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/portal.asp?p=Chairman

As I have said before, I am not entirely opposed to 1080 for very confined uses, however 1080 is an easy way out for government (eg NSW govt and deer or Tas govt and wallaby) both in NZ and Australia where there are regular widespread drops.

A quick bullet from licensed hunters operating under a strict game conservation council framework would be a better solution and has been proved (NSW Game Council) to significantly reduce exotic animals. As a bonus, meat and furs can be used rather than left to rot in the field, poisoning wedge tail eagles and other predators through eating carcasses (1080 can kill up to four times over).

CJ, StG

You are both wrong.

They're nuttier than psychotic squirrel on Ice.

Love "the right to defend one's self" against what? Charging rogue elephants, ET's anus obsessed rellies?
And every home should have a semi automatic .22 you never know when you might be confronted with a savage feral road sign. You need 6 shots at least to kill one of them.
I know other nutters with guns who don't agree with "them".

But in truth they do need changing .....made tougher!
Guns access to guns should be on a strictly *need basis*

Examinator

Needs basis, huh?

Well Austin Powerless needs his compensator, OK?

ROFL - too funny.

CJM, I looked up your Wiki reference.
'The term "Gun nut" has been used to describe firearms enthusiasts who are deeply involved with the gun culture.'
blah, blah, blah
'However to others it is regarded as a pejorative stereotype cast upon gun owners by anti-gun advocates and hoplophobes as a means of implying that they are fanatical, exhibit abnormal behavior, or are a threat to the safety of others.'
As I shoot once a week, I don't see how I am 'deeply involved with the gun culture'. As I practise martial arts two or three times a week, does that make me a 'karate nut'? By your own admission quite some time ago, you would be perceived as an 'anal-nut' due to your advocacy toward that kind of sex.
So, logically, the second explanation must apply, where you are an anti-gun advocate and think that you should try to bring down those who engage in a sport that you don't like. Have you ever tried shooting? Go to your local IPSC club and have a go, you might even enjoy it.
I did look in the mirror and was happy with what I saw. Can you say the same? Or did you just see a bitter soul who hates to see others enjoying themselves, to the extent that you would like to see them lose their recreational pursuits?

Examinator, 'access to guns should be on a strictly *need basis*' That's fine, as long as I can have mine on Saturdays.

Severin, I do need my compensator. How else could I fire off heavily charged loads without the recoil pulling my gun way off target, preventing a quick back-up shot?

Austin Powerless, if you legally own a semi-automatic pistol, then I must reassess my previous agreement with StG. The gun laws obviously need tightening.

AP

>> Severin, I do need my compensator. How else could I fire off heavily charged loads without the recoil pulling my gun way off target, preventing a quick back-up shot? <<

Of course, I should've thought of that. It's OK to expect a lot of compensation when you need it.

CJ

The only time I ever agreed with Howard was when he passed the gun laws. And before anyone starts on about how I don't know what I am talking about, I did have a gun licence which I used to shoot rabbits - so I am not squeamish and fully understand that killing is what guns are designed to do.

Interesting, Severin. I actually grew up with guns - I used to hunt with my father when I was a kid, and the last rifle I had was a brilliant little .22 semi-automatic survival gun that I sold back in the 1970s. Since I live in the bush, lots of my friends and acquaintances have guns. Indeed, I've sometimes thought recently about getting a gun to deal with the occasional rabbit and fox problem we have, but for a couple of good reasons I haven't done it.

One is that, although I wouldn't have any trouble getting a licence, the bureaucratic impediments and expense of are off-putting. However, I confess that my major aversion to owning a gun (and guns in general these days) is because a close family member was randomly murdered by a couple of young crims with a stolen rifle about 20 years ago. They had apparently stolen it from a farm and then proceeded to use it for armed robberies, one of which resulted in the senseless murder of my stepfather.

So I'm all for very strict regulation of access to guns. Yes, it's annoying for those who want them, but the current regulations certainly prevent crimes such as the one that randomly befell my family.

Re "compensator" - I'm still amused at the Freudian aspects of the term. Mind you, I thought Mr Powerless was talking about the pistol, rather than one of its components. In which case, it would appear to be a very apt term indeed ;)

To legally have a rifle in Queensland, you have to do a safety course (about $60), have a gun safe (about $350), the gun itself ($?), and be prepared for unannounced visits by the police to check its all in order.

The other way of having a rifle in Queensland, is to buy one at the pub for about $200.

I reckon, there's a danger that by making things too difficult in the first scenario, you increase the appeal of the second scenario. Unfortunately, the bulk of voters have no real knowledge or experience with guns, as they are generally in the suburbs.

C J Morgan, "the current regulations certainly prevent crimes such as the one that randomly befell my family."

Your case is sad but anecdotal. Where is your evidence that the Howard laws "would certainly prevent" such crimes over and above the previous licensing system which was retained, but just added to through duplicated controls? These criminals were unlicensed and stole to get a firearm. Presumably they killed for a purpose, such as to prevent later identification. There were already laws and severe penalties to prevent killing, by whatever means.

Weapons are freely available on the black market, new, shiny and modern from police, the army and from overseas.

It is the rare crime that is carried out with a firearm from the robbery of a licensed gun owner. Why do you think that the labour-intensive gun registry is worthless in deterring, detecting or solving crime?

If you have any numbers and facts to prove how any of that was improved by the Howard laws lets have them by all means.

Further, if you have any evidence to challenge any of the examples of poor risk management, examples being weak and redundant controls, then again, lets have them on the table. What about the complete lack of evidence that the gun registry, which accounts for much lost police time, has ever provided evidence to collar criminals and convict them?

I am not interested in a debate about whether firearms are good or bad, I am merely seeking evidence of results from one of the most publicised and wasteful stunts of any Australian prime minister. My concern is that the money could have been better spent - then and now. I am talking about accountability in policy and administration, which requires evidence, not emotional rhetoric.

We've been down this road before. I for one, am amenable to considering the laws regarding rifles used in primary industries, but as for handguns, I've no sympathy at all.

They're designed to kill people. That's their purpose. Not hunting. Killing.

They're far more easily concealed than rifles. There's really no need for people to have them.
The self-defence argument is a fallacy. If there really was a problem with crime, then we need to fix our police force, not adopt a wild-west-I-will-protect-my-property-from-the-crime-ridden-masses mentality. That's tantamount to relinquishing control of society and just plain giving up.

But that's irrelevant anyway, because crime rates aren't on the rise, with the exception of alcohol fuelled incidents.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-cutting-edge-of-fear/story-e6frg6zo-1225857279863

And in alcohol fuelled situation, guns sound like about the dumbest thing I could think of.

You said: "What is excessive and should be removed:
- Long waiting periods drawn out further by bureaucratic delays.

"long" is subjective. The more delays, the less likely it is people are buying a gun on a spur-of-the-moment and possibly illegal reason.

- Way excessive restriction on ordinary sporting guns like semi-auto .22s and repeating shotguns.

Truth be told if your 'sport' means allowing people access to guns, I'm not all that sympathetic, but I accept that sporting enthusiasts would like access to some firearms. They however, should be the bare basics. To hell with 'semi-automatic'. I don't see why that's at all necessary.

- Excessive restrictions on air rifles, air pistols and replicas;

Fair point. I don't see the harm in being more reasonable about air rifles.

- Viciously excessive requirements on pistol club probation and attendance.

To hell with pistols. Why not get air rifles? Far less dangerous and serve the same purpose.

- Denial of the human right of self-defense. The right remains as a vestage but the means are banned.

This is rubbish. See above.

- Obstructive police policy and abuse of police discretion on firearms.

"Obstructive" is a subjective term.

- Waste of the public's time and money through bad process design and failure to use technology.

I can't speak to that one.

It is ignorance of the Howard gun laws and their operation that causes the public to swallow the myth. For example, hand guns and concealable weapons were already tightly controlled and subject to strict 'demonstrated need' prior to Howard.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can be fooled by politicians who promise more laws and more penalties - as if the subject offences aren't already covered by strong laws.

Any takers to prove any value for money in the billion $ plus that was directed into helping the Little Deputy's political career? Only thing he achieved some say - doubtless with a knowing grin.

If anyone is wondering where the cops went who are supposed to be watching out for their safety, the said cops are frittering away their days to retirement printing reams of bureaucratic forms (and fuming at the indignity) while looking over the shoulders of law abiding licensed gun owners.

The gun registry is hopelessly stuffed by the numbers of bits of useless data they are required to maintain and records are often wrong. The bolt of a gun is a gun and the remaining gun without bolt is a gun etc.

The random flying visits to firearms licensed clay pigeon shooters and farmers are carried out by any cop who is unfortunate to be seen with his/her hands the same length even if that is draw breath after a highway patrol ("Sarge, but we only stopped to do reports").

As for the crims, well John Howard never did figure out why they didn't come in to fill out his forms - but maybe that wasn't the whole point of the 'initiative' either, so JH is still laughing.

The present governments? Well, they are still promising 'law & order', with more laws and more penalties. Now just where are those bikies again and just why won't they bend over and take it just like those 'dangerous' old buggers who have been in Service Rifle competition for years?

severin, if you don't know what a compensator is, you don't know much about guns and, therefore, any comments you make on this subject lack any substance.

CJM, I'm surprised at your stance, given your claim to have grown up with guns. Your relative's unfortunate murder was 20 years ago, before the gun storage laws were tightened up, so stolen rifles were much more likely then.

Cornflower, as Powerless points out, current regulations about storage of guns, firing mechanisms and ammunition were implemented following the Howard government's legislation to restrict access to guns in Australia. If they had been in place 20 years ago, my stepfather would not have been murdered. I don't need to refer to any statistics for that to be true - he was killed because a firearm and its ammunition were not stored securely.

Powerless - you may whinge about being restricted in your access to playing with deadly weapons, but if the current regulations prevent just one such tragedy as that which befell my family, then I think they're worth a little inconvenience to the 'weekend warrior' set.

C J Morgan, "I don't need to refer to any statistics for that to be true - he was killed because a firearm and its ammunition were not stored securely."

It was regrettable that someone did not secure a firearm, but the criminals did have to break and enter or trespass to commit the theft. Likewise they were unlikely to be there to steal a firearm, rather they came across it while thieving other property. It is fair to assume from their later behaviour that they might have killed had anyone been there or resisted and before they found a firearm. Knives and blunt weapons are plentiful, in domestic houses too.

However, even if that firearm had not been available at the farm they robbed, the criminals would likely have chosen another gun, or another weapon. The motivation to commit the offence and ensure there were no witnesses resulted in your father-in-law's death not the availability of a particular stolen firearm. Besides, where criminals are willing to commit theft to get what they want and are determined, gun safes are no impediment.

The numbers gathered since Howard's changes tell the same story, those who set out to commit a crime are going to do it anyway and procuring the tool is part of the process, not the driving force.

My concern though is at a higher level: the ease with which governments can get away scott-free with very poor decisions with lasting ill-effects, in this case the wastage of a billion dollars and counting, just through the right emotional spin.

contd..

contd..

Years later it is abundantly clear that Howard's gun buy-back and gun laws were not based on evidence, had no real goals and did not put any limitations on known illicit use of firearms or address those groups who are prone to engage in criminal behaviour. For instance, there is nothing in the legal and operational framework to recognise and address the very obvious links between drugs, violence and firearms.

Was Howard smart to reduce complex social problems to an emotional appeal against a 'gun culture' (and win cheap votes) or was he so bloody thick and insensitive that he didn't realise a holistic approach to violence and criminal behaviour was urgently required? In the right hands, that billion or so could really have gone a long way to addressing some real social problems. BTW, my money is that the error was inevitable, given JH's hubris at then time. Anyhow, JH was a pragmatic politician and scratching around with the chooks was always preferable to soaring with the eagles where policy was concerned.

Austin Powerless: "Joke, Joyce".

Cornflower:

Not really sure what your issue is about, that the government is imperfect - yeah we're on to that. Doesn't mean that laws should be eased, nor that hand-guns are a right - far from it. And, irrespective, of whatever laws are introduced crims will always be crims - why make it any easier?

CJ Morgan:
- sorry to hear about your personal loss due to theft of rifle.

I know my father must've rolled in his grave (well his ashes must've trembled) , given his antipathy to any sort of firearms, when I learnt how to shoot. But I needed to understand for myself about guns (I was married to a German at the time - whole other story). I know I can hit a rabbit in order to obtain a meal for myself. Apart from that, I don't find much of a thrill in killing at all. It is satisfactory to be able to hit a moving target, not fun at all when it hits the ground running - a strange anti-climactic experience.

Have always been rather partial to collective nouns:

A 'grunt' of gun-nuts.
A 'wallow' of weekend-warriors.
A 'wound' of shooters.

I am sure others can devise far better collective nouns than I.

How about a 'smug' of political correctness?
And a 'triumph' of sanctimonious busybodies?

This thread is about basing law on EVIDENCE not collective self-righteousness.

Severin

So if you spent a billion $ of other people's money and failed to achieve a reduction in lethal violence or suicide you wouldn't be bothered either?

Just blow the money on emotion, not evidence? Don't give a hoot about best practice?

It is plain dumb to have a general aim of 'gun control' when the goal should be to reduce violence and criminal behaviour. No wonder nothing has been achieved in a decade and a half.

To take an example, domestic violence is a significant contributor to women suicide numbers. If government was focussed on reducing violence and criminal behaviour something might be done about that. However government is not going to do that while it is easier to pull votes through emotional prejudice, for instance against licensed gun owners, 'bikies' and other convenient whipping boys.

However, what is even more galling than waste of taxes through ill-directed government policy is the further waste of taxes on white elephant gun registries and police actively monitoring thousands of private citizens who have already been found to be law-abiding respectable people. What S.O.B of a cynical PM would pull trained cops away from collaring criminals and have them treat normal citizens as criminals instead?

So yes, it should matter to you that this is ongoing large waste of resources that could result in police not attending your emergency until much, much too late. It also matters that a woman might be contemplating suicide as you read this and sweet bugger all will be done for her. - Although that statement might trigger another emotional reaction from some against 'men', entirely losing the point once again that the answer lies in a holistic approach to violence and criminal behaviour, not in further diversion of tax money into emotionally charged pursuits to suit noisy lobby groups.

The emotional cry of "If one life might be saved" that results in wasted effort and blown taxes would be better replaced with policy based on evidence and best practice in carrying it out. Now that is something to get emotional about.

No I am still not convinced that we need to relax gun laws. Should we relax them enough to follow the gun-crazy American lifestyle?

If we make it easier for 'law abiding' registered gun holders to acquire their guns and licenses then what message is that sending to gun-mad youngsters and criminals?

Unless you are a farmer, criminal, police, or armed forces personnel, why would you need a gun?
Is it so you can 'kill' cardboard people at practice ranges?

Maybe some people need to grow up from when they used to play cowboys and Indians as kiddies.

Suzeonline, I don't WANT to convince you to relax the gun laws. I just want their design based on evidence of effectiveness. A rational explanation of why they make a difference in THAT wording, and not another.

Cornflower you fail to convince a need to relax gun laws, apart from an as needs basis as others have pointed out, there is nothing in your argument to change my opinion. Can't we just agree to disagree? I see no reason to become a little USA in everything.

Collective nouns cont'd:

A 'wank' of weaponry.

Severin

This is a democracy and it matters to me that thousands of known and certified (through character references and police checks) law-abiding citizens are entered on police computers as likely criminals and that they are subjected to random police inspections at their home.

Many of the targets of this heavy-handed authoritarianism are serving and ex-service military (service rifle range competitions are popular), but there is the usual cross-section of society from chippies to heart surgeons. There are many women who are active members of gun and rifle clubs. These are ordinary people.

This is not a police state and there is no evidence whatsoever from nearly fifteen years of the Howard system of any benefit.

It doesn't matter to me where the hurdle of gun ownership is set, but I do care that John Howard played fast and loose with facts and had scant regard for the freedoms we value as part of our birthright.

I care that police are stretched to breaking point and put their lives at risk daily because resources are tied up elsewhere wading through worthless bureaucratic forms and busywork and all in the name of political correctness.

Howard's spin is all that is 'protecting' you. His laws never affected criminals because they do not apply to them. How is that for laughs?

CJM, where did I 'whinge about being restricted' ' to playing with deadly weapons'? Which post was that? If you can make wild accusations, can you supply proof? You really have to stick with what was written and not manufacture your own version of my posts.

I certainly didn't complain about the storage regulations that would have prevented your rellie being killed if they had been in place back then. It's not a hassle to buy a couple of safes and install them. In fact, with kids and unlicensed people around, it should be automatic not mandatory. Only I can access my guns.

Anyway, I have never killed with my firearms (not deadly weapons) unless cardboard and steel targets are alive. Shooting is a sport in this country as is golf. Golf clubs can also be deadly weapons, just ask Tiger Woods.

What you all have to realise is that shooting is an old tradition here and just because the chattering classes have been brainwashed into thinking that it is only for rednecks etc, it doesn't mean that it should be made more difficult for shooters.

For your interest, I shot a service pistol match today and one of the shooters is a police officer, active with STAR. Does that make him some kind of STAR Nut? Other members include a lawyer, a doctor, a chef and a paramedic. Rednecks? Gun Nuts?

Cornflower - leaving aside your quite bizarre subsequent rant - my point was that if the current regulations regarding storage of firearms were in place in 1991, it would be unlikely that my stepfather met the tragically untimely and brutal death that he did.

I think that current rules are sometimes a bit onerous for those who actually have a need for firearms, but I have little sympathy for those who whinge about restrictions on their recreational access to weapons whose primary purpose is to kill.

Thanks for the kind words, Severin. Not that I wish it on anybody, but experiencing the reality of what can happen to a family when guns get in the wrong hands is is a very good reason why I'm steadfastly in favour of maintaining very strict gun laws. Undoubtedly there are bureaucratic inefficiencies that should be corrected, but the same can be said of all governmental regulation.

Powerless - you whinged about having to change the calibre and magazine capacity of your 'compensator'.

I'm quite friendly with our local Police Sergeant, who's looking forward to retirement after more than 20 years in our little town, during which time there's been a few suicides and the odd murder with guns. He loathes guns.

C J Morgan

It is all bluster and name calling with you isn't it? I knew you were clueless about the firearm laws when you mused about using a firearm on your postage stamp block, "Indeed, I've sometimes thought recently about getting a gun to deal with the occasional rabbit and fox problem we have". Caught out as usual, that would have resulted in loss of licence and confiscation of your firearms. But do you know why? Are you completely naive about the carry of shot as well? Are you even sure you are not within the town limits as well? Better check.

You did not manage to rebut my argument that the criminals who who say murdered your father in law case might not have been deterred from doing the same anyhow even if they had not had the chance discovery of a firearm elsewhere. But then had a safe been found they would broken into that too.

That is why you resorted to your usual emotional personal attack. No facts, so better go the verbal biff, eh?

Your anecdotal story about your local police sergeant loathing guns because there have been a 'few suicides and the odd murder with guns' does nothing to dismiss the findings of peer related scientific findings that the Howard modifications to the gun laws have not resulted in any reduction in murders or the overall number of suicides.

However, assuming your story has some basis, it supports the point I have been making that government should be concentrating on violence and criminal behaviour, where a holistic approach is needed and is long overdue.

Would you like to go back to your pastime of baiting serious respondents now or do you have another story?

You really are a quite horrible person, Cornflower. You're certainly no advertisement for the gun lobby.

You just can't resist, can you?

Severin, I am loving the collective nouns! Lol.

How about:
A sh#tload of shooters.
A gaggle of gunners.

A bit of humorous relief sure beats all the aggressive huffing and puffing from the members and supporters of the aggrieved gun lobby.

Imagine what they could achieve if they put their collective might behind a worthy cause?

You're right, suze. My suggestion: an arsenal of arseholes :)

That is so pathetic, profanity as well. You might as well be holding your hands over your ears going "La, la, la, la", excepting for your churlish intent to disrupt the thread for others.

Come the revolution there will be your view and no others, eh CJ?

Cornflower there is nothing pathetic about having an opposite view to others.
If you don't like it, you can always put your hands over your eyes :-)

Yes, well. Sexualised hate speech is a large component of anti-shooter prejudice - funny how its legitimate when disempowering what they imagine to be poorer males.

A choice instance was the taxpayer-funded activist (now a professor) in a thread at Andrew Leigh's blog who referred to shooters going all 'priapic' over the Coroner finding that the NCGC and 'A Current Affair' showed a man the way to blow his own head off just before Port Arthur.

We often see opponents licking their lips over a claim that guns are Freudian 'compensation' for genital inadequacy. Freud has been exposed as a fraud who lied in his 1890s papers claiming treatment successes, and who created a system of circular thinking that for sixty years corrupted public and private rationality. Good enough for their sneers though!

So fellow sportspeople, you should be secure in the knowledge that the sneering of the opposition is really about displaying their own moral superiority - hey, its a huge shot of endorphins without even going for a jog, and its much better than free if you impose huge costs on others! Schadenfreude is not a word in English, but its still true that in contests of self-righteousness it isn't enough to win - others must lose.

suzeonline,

You have made CJ's day, there he is hiding behind your billowing skirts after having gone off both half-cocked and premature in this thread, an amazing feat even for CJ. From his efforts on OLO he was never more than a squib load though and as indicated by his last post, prone to backfire.

Good to see that you and the other desperates have got that insulting jokes routine down pat, even to the raspberry at the end (well done Dear!), but then you have done the routine in so many other threads it has become, well, very tired and worn. A new act please, that is if you can coax CJ from his um, place of repose.

ChrisPer,

A national meeting of police commissioners, with the Attorney-General's Dept doing the drafting is not the most democratic or effective way of doing things. The bikie laws (anti gang) were a result of a similar process at State level. More politicians promising that 'problems' (of their definition) can be solved by more laws and harsher punishment. More 'law and order' eh, folks?

I have written enough on this already and without going over old ground, I firmly believe the way forward is to concentrate on the goal of reducing violence and criminal behaviour. Focussing on firearms control is putting the cart before the horse. That has been done by Howard, billions have been wasted and nothing has been achieved. Put the same sort of money into the right goal (reducing violence and criminal behaviour), rely on evidence and see where it all leads.

In the interim, the State governments that administer firearms laws should look very closely at streamlining their systems to improve efficiency with a view to urgently releasing more police for active duty. To repeat for the bureaucrats, that doesn't mean keeping the bureaucratic mess and having civilians run parts of it, say through post offices because the overheads remain the same.

The other, equal urgency is to convert the paper-based system into an electronic one. It is really stupid and wasteful in this day and age that a dinosaur paper-based system was introduced and is still operating when it is so easy for (say) gunsmiths to direct enter data for customers. Reduces transcription errors and delays too.

Yes, I know that one State has made faltering, timid steps to put some minor bits on computer but hey, it is taking an eternity and it shouldn't.

I will leave it there.

Cornflower, I don't need a new act 'dear'.
Not if the current act annoys you. :-)
See you on another thread.

My my, these gun nuts get quite nasty when disagreed with, don't they? All the more reason to continue the current sensible restrictions on recreational access to deadly weapons, I reckon.

Cornflower to Suzeonline:

>> even to the raspberry at the end (well done Dear!) <<

Dear Cornflower, you need some help with emoticons, the following are "raspberry" emoticons.

:-P
:P
XP
:-p
:p
=p
:-Þ
:Þ
:-b
:b

Suze has been smiling at you, dear. If you can't even recognise a friendly smiling face, how can you be responsible with a firearm?

Now do you understand why people do not want gun licensing laws relaxed? Some people cannot identify friend from foe.

You don't have to thank me - always happy to help the less informed.

But Severin, sweetie, we already have the guns. We just want laws that do not include gratuitosu prejudice in their design.

Severin

OK, you're on, precisely where did I support the relaxation or otherwise of gun laws?

You jumped to that conclusion because firearms is an emotive subject for you and because you did not bother to read and comprehend what I wrote.

This is what I said and as most would be aware, it is a common theme in my posts about government policy, regardless of party and regardless of policy:

"Just to say from the outset that I don't mind government taking taxes from me and spending same but like everyone else, I want to see some proof of positive outcomes and that value for money was obtained."

I went on to say:

"Regarding the Howard gun buy-back, there is abundant scientific, peer reviewed evidence that the half a billion dollars spent buying back guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no appreciable effect on the homicide rate. The 'initiative' was a waste of money."

It is about evidence and proof, transparency in decision-making and governments being held to account. Nothing to do with what should or should not be approved.

Along with suzeonline you jumped to the wrong conclusion. Now you are locked in to the usual childish sniping and game playing.
contd..

contd..

In Canada, NZ and Australia the relative number of gun deaths has been very low and on a consistent downward trend for thirty years and more, long before Howard. With the rare exception, gun incidents are crim on crim (the police express that more rudely), but even taking that into account gun crime is unusual.

What all of the sensationalist stuff about guns, bikies and so on does is stereotype violence as being solely about men and weapons, which conceals other less exciting (to the media) but prevalent violence and criminal behaviour that causes the greatest bulk of suffering and death. An example I gave was the incidence of suicide by women because of domestic violence - not of interest to you, why not? Equally I could have chosen violence in youth death and injury and the links with drugs including alcohol.

It is misleading for anyone to suggest that I was promoting liberalistion of gun laws or a gun culture whatever those emotionally laden terms might mean. I was neither for or against and it is irrelevant as far as I am concerned to measuring the outcomes of government policy.

CJM, read my original post again -
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3601#86274
and tell me where the 'whinge' is. I did state that I had to hand in a 40 cal pistol but, contrary to your 'perceptions', stating a fact is not whingeing. Actuallly, I handed in a CZ semi-auto and used the compensation to buy a Para Ordinance semi-auto of 38 calibre. As the Para is a superior gun to the CZ, I'm certainly not whingeing. My scores improved with the new gun so I was actually happy with the whole 'buy-back' affair, especially with the amounts of compensation given for accessories. I made 1000% on a couple of items with high gains on others and slight losses too. All in all, I came out well ahead. Whingeing? Not me.
I laughed at, "you whinged about having to change the calibre and magazine capacity of your 'compensator'". For someone who 'grew up with guns', you don't have a clue what a compensator is, do you? That kind of negates the rest of your little 'arguments'.
Your fabrications and twisting of facts is typical of the rabid anti-gun lobby who 'don't like guns so no-one should have them'. Once you learn to reply in context and formulate a level-headed argument, you might be taken seriously. Until then, you will be the Forum Clown.
To all you anti-gun posters - slinging childish insults will not deter us legal shooters from our sport.

Fascinating. Cornflower now asserts that she hasn't been promoting the liberalisation of gun laws after all - her beef is simply the lack of government efficiency. Powerless now tells us that he was actually happy with the buy-back of his pistol - so I guess his point was to let us know that he still has one. ChrisPer admits that he already has guns, but that his problem is the "gratuitous prejudice" he perceives in the current gun laws.

I guess we're supposed to disregard Cornflower's rants about the supposed intrusiveness of the current regulations on those who want to play with deadly weapons, Powerless's subscription to a bizarre Port Arthur conspiracy theory, and ChrisPer's bleating about "viciously excessive requirements" and "denial of the human right of self-defense (sic)".

On the arguments presented here by the gun lobbyists, I'm still comfortable with my initial comment that the current restrictions on access to firearms are probably about right, but that the bureaucracy surrounding them could be made more efficient for those who can demonstrate a real need for them. I still have little sympathy for those who get their jollies out of playing with deadly weapons for entertainment.

Incidentally, Powerless - you're right about me knowing little about pistols. The only people I've known to have them are acquaintances in the police or the odd social misfits who join clubs where they shoot at pretend people. I don't know very many of either type, I'm quite happy to say.

<< On the arguments presented here by the gun lobbyists, I'm still comfortable with my initial comment that the current restrictions on access to firearms are probably about right, but that the bureaucracy surrounding them could be made more efficient for those who can demonstrate a real need for them. >>

Me too.

<< I still have little sympathy for those who get their jollies out of playing with deadly weapons for entertainment. >>

Absolutely.

Question - so WTF have Powerless, Cornflower & Chris Per been carping on about?

The government could be more efficient with the regulation and licensing?

Well, clearly yes.

However, making fantasy claims about Suzeonline and CJ Morgan for expressing their respective POV's are a worry.

As far as I am aware there is no psychiatric evaluation performed as a requirement for gun ownership is there?

Something to consider...

Well CJMorgan, your
"but that the bureaucracy surrounding them could be made more efficient for those who can demonstrate a real need for them. "

is just about the level of support I can hope for. Thanks!

C J Morgan & severin

It is abundantly clear that you are both manifestly ignorant of the content and operation of the gun laws. Nonetheless, your support for ex-PM John Howard is touching, or is it just your bigotry speaking?

The invitation remains for either of you to actually read what I have written and quote precisely where I have supported the relaxation or otherwise of gun laws.

To again affirm what I said at the beginning of this thread and have maintained throughout despite your jibes and game playing,

"I don't mind government taking taxes from me and spending same but like everyone else, I want to see some proof of positive outcomes and that value for money was obtained."

That isn't much to ask of any government that spent a billion (and still counting!) of taxpayer dollars, now is it?

Severin, how is it OK for Suzeonline and CJM to express their 'POVs' yet when those in favour of guns express their 'POVs', you call it 'carping'? Oh, of course, you are in agreement with Suze and Morgan so any other 'POV' must be wrong. Also, ' there is no psychiatric evaluation performed as a requirement for gun ownership is there?' Wrong. Any doctor can recommend suspension or cancellation of a firearms licence.

Good ol' CJM, ducking and weaving when questioned about his accusations of whingeing. As for whingeing, he's been the only whinger on this thread as he keeps carping on about his step-father.
He admits to knowing little about pistols except that they are 'very naughty things'. So much for 'expert comment'. He accuses sporting shooters of being'social misfits' in his typically chidish name-calling manner. Then he includes his police 'acquaintances'. I'm sure that 'acquaintances' are all they are as I couldn't see your average cop wanting to be associated with the CJM. What a sad little man.

Powerless: << ' there is no psychiatric evaluation performed as a requirement for gun ownership is there?' Wrong. Any doctor can recommend suspension or cancellation of a firearms licence. >>

When did you last have a psychiatric evaluation, Powerless? I think that gun owners should have them at least annually - possibly more for those who are pistol enthusiasts.

<< He admits to knowing little about pistols except that they are 'very naughty things'. >>

When did I say that pistols are "very naughty things"? What I said is that they are "deadly weapons". Liar.

C J Morgan, "I think that gun owners should have them at least annually - possibly more for those who are pistol enthusiasts."

However you know zilch about the firearms laws and have no evidence to back that up do you? It is just another of the intolerant and inflammatory assertions you make on OLO to bait and stir.

Even if the random, exceptional case of Matthew Bryant is taken into account, he was sane as confirmed by many independent psychiatric examinations conducted from his childhood. However he has marginal IQ and was stressed by normal life. Of course the looney left and the parsimonious right had had their effect on both sides of government and the facilities for people who are similarly disadvantaged or do have mental health problems had been sold off and funding had been cut. Howard cut just as Keating did before him giving relatives, carers and authorities precious few options - a situation that continues to this day.

It is just more proof that the failed Howard buy-back and laws were wasteful and the money could have been directed elsewhere to better effect. Howard's political opportunism and pragmatism ruled.

However Bryant used petrol too against the object of his hate and that would have been devastating in a crowded area. Petrol was used in the Whisky A Go Go fire bombing in Brisbane (15 dead), which before Bryant was Australia's largest mass killing. Its use in a large venue is unthinkable.

So what is it to be? Ban petrol too, along with kitchen knives and the wide variety of possible harmful tools and substances that can be used as weapon or take up the rational option of reducing violence and criminal behaviour the goal of government to make some real headway in reducing needless harm and suffering?

That is why government policy should be based on evidence and why it is crucial that outcomes be measured and changes made where policy is not producing the desired results.

Cornflower: << However you know zilch about the firearms laws and have no evidence to back that up do you? >>

Yeah well, it's just my opinion. Apparently you know zilch about the experience of victims of crimes committed by gun users, but that doesn't stop you attempting to diverting attention away from them. BTW, Bryant's first name is Martin (and from another thread, Pearson's first name is Noel, not Neville).

My opinion was prompted by Severin's comment about there currently being no requirement for a psychiatric evaluation as part of getting a firearms licence, and Powerless's obtuse response. In the case of those who get their kicks out of playing with semi-automatic pistols my opinion is that such evaluations should be compulsory and regular - particularly so in the case of those who display questionable sanity in their advocacy of bizarre conspiracy theories concerning the Port Arthur massacre.

Unfortunately, psych evaluations are not so exact a science that psychs are prepared to sign off that anyone is 'sane enough' for just about any purpose or reason. Predicting behaviour at high accuracy is not their schtick. In any case they would tell you its wrong to stigmatise the mentally ill when only a modest few of them ever commit violent acts.

However, existing licensing systems based on criminal history are already VERY good - of 850,000 legal gun owners in Australia, only a tiny fraction commit any crime of violence in their whole lives.

This makes the obvious point that posters who stigmatise shooters as above are continuing to argue from ignorance - which they think is a virtue.

Ha ha, CJ, you spat the dummy. You call me a liar yet you accuse me of 'whingeing' but refuse to back up your accusation.
Imagine you calling me a liar - what a nasty, horrible person, to paraphrase parts of your previous posts. Also a sad, bitter, little man.
When I replied to the comment about there currently being no requirement for a psychiatric evaluation as part of getting a firearms licence with the fact that a doctor can have a licence suspended or cancelled, you labelled that as an 'obtuse response'. What a strange view you have.
I think that everyone should have a psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to post to this forum. Where would you be then, CJM?
Keep up the good work, I enjoy my daily snigger.

More people are killed by falling coconuts each year than in shark attacks.

The drive to the beach is more likely to be fatal than a fatal shark attack.

Many orders of magnitude more sharks are killed by humans, than humans by sharks.

But still we are terrified of being attacked by sharks... and we still go to the beach and play in the waves, just like their natural prey would.

I imagine guns evoke the same less-rational fears about being shot by a maniac or gangster (thanks underbelly), when the reality is a farmer shooting the odd fox/dingo/rabbit/goat etc., or some ordinary person down at the firing range shooting targets.

I'm not an expert, but there is a bit more to Port Arthur than we are led to believe, though the whole thing is still the fault of one loony. Would this loony have been prevented from doing what he did, if the same laws were in place before the incident? Who knows, but I suspect not a huge difference as he was left to do his thing for about an hour as the authorities were terrified. The average would be about one person shot every two minutes, easily achievable with a single shot bolt action rifle. Limit the magazine capacity to whatever it is these days (maybe 8?) then simply have a few spare magazines in your backpack. I am not sticking up for the loony, and I dont have any guns myself, just a kneejerk reactions by inexperienced urban dwellers and publicity-seeking politicians might not be the way forward.

I heard, a lot of the guns that the Government bought back were not actually funcional, on the news I noticed a few held together by string and stuff. Its great to be able to produce an impressive figure of guns to be destroyed, but it would be even better to know how many of these guns were capable of firing.

Powerless: << I think that everyone should have a psychiatric evaluation before being allowed to post to this forum. Where would you be then, CJM? >>

My best guess is that I'd still be posting, while you wouldn't be able to post your insane conspiracy theories and other irrational comments. An added benefit might be that you might have your deadly weapon/s confiscated.

Chris Per - I agree that psychiatric evaluations aren't precise. However, anybody who wants to join the police or the armed forces has to undergo one, so all the more reason for those who want a licence to play with deadly weapons to have one, in my opinion.

Tell us, gun enthusiasts - have any of you ever actually known anyone who was murdered with a gun? I suspect your attitudes might be different if you had.

It is a pity you can't bring yourself to regard licensed firearms owners as the normal everyday people that they are.

Why continue to direct such irrational malice and spite towards them when there is no evidence of wrongdoing on their part and the licensing process has certified that they are fine, upstanding, responsible members of society?

They are obviously not the criminals you are worried about, so why do you fear and sledge them and not the criminals?

I have known two murderers, a survivor shot in a murder incident, one victim of murder (not firearm murder), and several suicides. I have also known people who were family of suicides and a housemate of someone who was killed by Cooke the serial killer. In line with the statistics, some used firearms but most did not. I have known former soldiers with active combat experience too. People are all around us wiht these terrible kind of experiences.

Remember about gun control enthusiasts, the reason they sledge shooters (not criminals) is because they are really enjoying the emotions of self-righteousness. That enjoyment is enabled by a self-serving 'belief' that they are doing it to prevent violence.

Gun deaths have traditionally been very low in Australia. The numbers were trending down before Howard and after and there is no link or benefit from any of Howard's redundant bureaucratic paraphernalia.

There is a lot of hysteria created from the sensationalist treatment by the media of any firearm incident the world over. That is to increase media audiences and sell advertising.

The CJs and the anti-gun zealots who catastrophise about:

- the farmer having a needed tool to cull feral pests and euthanase terminal animals;

- the hunter who assists conservation and reduces taxes by taking a deer from the forest to eat; and

- the polite grey haired old chaps who shoot service rife competitions on Saturdays;

really need to have a glass of cold water and get a grip on themselves. Least of all they could attack the criminals not the normal, respectable and very ordinary people who appropriately qualify for licences and as is the case with so many owners, have used them lawfully for decades.

Importantly though, the police weapons branches and local police stations have better things to do than maintain records and surveillance of ordinary citizens who are licensed and law-abiding and to make random flying visits to their homes to demand inspections.

It is astounding for instance, that in a supposedly free country like Australia, ordinary citizens are required to report in person to their local police station to be quizzed by police to get a government form (available on the government site). So much for civil liberties.

I knew you wouldn't let me down, CJM. Maybe I should give up shooting for fishing, considering how easy it is to attract bites.
I see that you are still whingeing about gun murders as in 'have any of you ever actually known anyone who was murdered with a gun? I suspect your attitudes might be different if you had'. Have you ever known anyone killed in a traffic accident? If so, do you still drive? Or is that too 'obtuse' for your limited intellect?
Why do you think that I shouldn't have guns? Would it make you feel safer?
I like how 'odd social misfits who join clubs where they shoot at pretend people' have morphed from a previous post to 'gun enthusiasts'. Maybe you've finally digested my post on the vast diversity of people who are gun club members. Remember? Doctor, lawyer, paramedic, STAR officer. Also some serving army and RAAF members, civil servants, a plumber, some engineers etc. Sound dangerous?
As for your claim that anyone who wants to join the armed forces has to have a psych evaluation, did you make that up yourself? Anyone in the know will say that you are an idiot for suggesting that.
What a clown. CJ Morgan, the 'C' is for Crusty.

Whatever you say, Powerless. It is my opinion that you're one of those "odd social misfits who join clubs where they shoot at pretend people", and I think you're exactly the kind of gun nut for whom the current regulations are designed - although it worries me that someone who has displayed the sociopathic sentiments that you do is still permitted under current regulations to own a semi-automatic pistol.

That is, of course, why I think that Severin's suggestion of psych evaluations for those who want to play with deadly weapons has merit. When was your last one again?

Perhaps you could expand on your conspiracy theory about the Port Arthur massacre to illustrate my point.

Others - how many massacres like Port Arthur or Hoddle St have we had since the current regulations concerning firearms were implemented in Australia?

C J Morgan,

Heh, heh, your prejudice is showing. Otherwise why would you so pointedly disregard the abundant peer reviewed evidence that has been cited in preference to recycling discredited claims from an anti-gun activist?

Wikipedia:
"Data interpretation of trends in this study differs from other authors, while clearly being based on the same data. Media reports gave Professor Chapman wide publicity while failing to reveal his involvement in gun control activism. Since then, it has been revealed in a Senate Inquiry that Chapman's research was fast tracked for publication by the journal Injury Prevention, bypassing the standard peer review process."

Why would an academic, in this case a sociologist with a PhD on the semiotics of cigarette advertising fail to declare his anti-gun activism and bypass the standard peer review process?

John Howard was very effective at wedge politics and self-serving spin, but the public deserves better than emotional appeals and prejudice, otherwise problems such as violence and criminal behaviour remain unchallenged. It is reprehensible that the public purse was plundered for no good return, then and now.

Have you looked into the mechanism and motivation by which massacres occur? Typically an earlier act is partly imitated - its called a copycat crime or 'contagion effect'. Paul Mullen, Professor of forensic psychiatry, has published on this so you can see the references yourself.

The media and activists with sensational stories and stunts actually teach the potential perpetrators how to do it, and that is why they often occur clustered in time. The Port Arthur massacre was a copycat following Dunblane and Hoddle Street, and activists and media gave the incentive and then instructed in getting illegal weapons for staging a massacre.

We are told by authorities (AIC) that about 40 to 60% of the target guns were concealed and not surrendered in the 'Buyback'. Therefore, semi-auto guns still exist in the community, there are order of one hundred thousand of them, and that many less law-abiding people possess them. Why then has there been no massacres (of four or more) since?

The nearest event, in which five people were shot and two killed, was the 2002 Monash event. This followed weeks of publicity for the Washington snipers, and NCGC claiming that semi-auto handguns were easy to get in Australia. The media and NCGC activists gave incentive and instruction to the killers.

The numbers of guns are still the same in Australian society. Washington sniper-style attacks don't need semi-auto guns, and a WW1 .303 or 1873 Winchester is still effective enough for massacres for those so inclined. The toxic anti-shooters like John Crook say we shooters are violent, and we have effective guns just as before. Yet massacres have stopped COMPLETELY in Australia. WHY?

The only explanation is that the massacres were caused by social contagion effects independent of Australia's ordinary shooter and gun ownership culture. The media with NCGC used to tell people massacres were easy; and when they won new gun laws, gave the public impression that the dangers of gun massacres were now 'fixed'. They stopped teaching it as easy.

So I take it that you both acknowledge that Australia hasn't experienced a firearm massacre like Port Arthur or Hoddle St since the current regulations were implemented in 1996?

Nice try though, ChrisPer. Undoubtedly there was something of a 'copycat' effect in the Port Arthur massacre, but it's hardly a sufficient explanation. Bryant had to be able to purchase his guns and ammunition without having a gun licence in order to carry out his horrific crime. To say that "the media and NCGC activists gave incentive and instruction to the killers" is complete bollocks.

There have been numerous reports of international shooting sprees perpetrated by deranged killers since 1996, yet Australia hasn't experienced any 'copycat' examples. I think that restricted access to weapons and ammunition is very likely a factor, despite your obtuse protestations.

It's interesting that you mention the 2002 handgun murders at Monash University - which led to the further tightening of restrictions around handguns (about which Powerless didn't whinge...). You neglected to mention that the perpetrator was both mentally ill and had owned and purchased the five handguns he used in his murders legally. I understand that he was also a member of the Sporting Shooters Association.

Of course, such information clearly strengthens the case for requiring those who want to play with deadly weapons to undergo regular psychiatric examinations. Better still, just ban handguns altogether for non-security applications.

Cornflake - I haven't referred to Chapman at all, so your entire ad hominem rant about him is redundant. I've drawn my own conclusions on gun control on the basis of publicly available information and my own experiences. Mind you, given that you are someone who frequently and spuriously accuses others of ad hominem attacks, your hypocrisy is mildly amusing.

I'm away for the weekend, so I'll leave you 'gun enthusiasts' to it.

C J Morgan

To my knowledge there haven't been any panthers discovered in the Blue Mountains since Howard's laws either. Fortunately too there have been no bombings either. Chalk both up to Howard's 'initiative'

You mean didn't slavishly followed the discredited Chapman article? No jelly bean then for being equally desperate to find something, anything to support Howard's wasted billions.

Just keep on repeating how it is all your belief and you have faith in Howard, because the parallels in your behaviour with your hated religious 'fundys' you are forever trashing is very funny indeed. Or is it solely through prejudice that you and Howard are joined at the hip?

Heh, heh, CJ has spoken: it is 'ad hominem' to ask why a senior academic rushed to public publishing of his controversial conclusions without subjecting them to peer review and didn't at the same time declare his anti-gun activism.

Once people used to get underground 'mutton' from the field to eke out their budget. Since Howard found such ordinary people to be very, very dangerous and took their pea rifles away to stop them becoming mass murders there has been an explosion in rabbit numbers and the SA government is encouraging the use of poison gas, dynamite and explosives made from nitrate fertiliser. In CJ's nutty anti-gun religion, greater proliferation of the use of poison gas and explosives is much safer than someone with a scatter gun getting rabbits for dinner. Oh, the danger and inhumanity of rabbit hunters with pea rifles and the missus at home chopping taters and onions for the harvest!

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/10/australian-farmers-told-dynamite-rabbits/?test=latestnews

CJ, important points but you dodge a couple of issues. I agree that knowing how to pass or avoid the requirement for a gun licence was part of both episodes; but in both cases the NCGC provided instruction in the media to the extent that the Tassie Coroner found that a man acted on their script when he travelled to Tasmania to get a gun and suicided with it. The timing of buying the AR15 by Bryant strongly suggests he was influenced by them, though he already knew a dealer who was willing to break the law to sell to him.

Your claim that the number of international massacres have not been attended by copycats is disingenuous - because we don't count the five people shot at Monash as a massacre (only two were killed). The Washington sniper media frenzy was at its height when he acted, and there are plenty of commonalities with US school shootings. Definite imitation there. Incidentally, his Chinese background may have become an imitation factor in the later 'mentally ill asian student' shooting in the US.

I agree that the tightened laws are a factor in reducing mass shootings, but only in that the media frenzies hyping the looseness of gun laws first created the series of massacres, then after the new laws created the widespread view that guns were either completely banned or 'fixed' by the tightness of the laws.

On the note of ad hominem, your choice to mischaracterise fellow debaters as dangerous and mentally ill is pretty clear cut. And the item about Professor Chapman may be expressed a touch critically, but he has examined the same data as several other reserach teams and reached contrary conclusions - like tobacco-funded researchers, his self-interest in his claims is relevant.

Have a nice weekend CJM.

Your repetition of 'odd social misfits who join clubs where they shoot at pretend people' still shows your complete ignorance of shooting sports. How can a roughly diamond shape or a rectangle with concentric ellipses equate to 'pretend people'? Not even a 'sociopath' would think so.
'how many massacres like Port Arthur or Hoddle St have we had since the current regulations concerning firearms were implemented in Australia?' - only a fool would think that the tightened regulations have prevented such. A legal 38 is as deadly as a prohibited 45 or 40 cal. A legal pump action rifle can be as fast as a prohibited semi-auto rifle. No legislation will stop the wrong people having guns criminals, bikers etc.
You rightly point out that the perpetrator of the murders at Monash University was both mentally ill and had owned and purchased the five handguns he used in his murders legally. Pity that you never mentioned that he was (and still is) the ONLY licensed shooter ever to have committed gun crime. Don't let the facts get in the way of your theories, eh?
Your lack of knowledge and wild claims in this subject further prove that the anti-gun lobby hasn't a clue on shooting but wants it abolished. Remember your idol, Brown Bob, who spoke of people driving around with 'machine guns in their gloveboxes'? How ridiculous and uninformed.

Have to go now, it's the shotgun match today.

Austin P:"Pity that you never mentioned that he was (and still is) the ONLY licensed shooter ever to have committed gun crime."

Not so I am afraid. You might be mixing it up with the old 'No deaths ever in legitimate target shooting clubs.' This has slipped I believe due to a couple of suicides sneaking into the system to get access, especially at commercial ranges.

About 15% of gun murders are by legal owners. Just think though -
that means that of the million or so gun owners the murder rate is order of 0.2 per 100,000, compared with 1.8 for the whole population and about 18 for the population in the disadvantaged US urban black population.

ChrisPer, 'About 15% of gun murders are by legal owners'.

What is your source for that statement? Can you name a couple of these licensed gun-murderers? If you can, I will retract my statement as, at the time of the Monash shooting, the general word going around shooters and the media was that the perpetrator was the first licensed shooter to use a gun as a murder weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
gives details, under 'Monash University Shootings' of what I claim to be the only murder by a licensed shooter. I would amend my statement to 'since 1996' if that helps. The article rightly does not mention any other licensed gun-murderers. Why would it?

Austin P, I am a co-author of that Wikipedia article.

2001 National Homicide Monitoring Program: "Ms Mouzos said only 10 of the 68 offenders were licensed to own a firearm and six used a registered firearm. One offender was killed with the victim's own gun."
"Robbery murders on the rise AAP 26mar02"

See also http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/141-160/tandi151.aspx The licensing and registration status of firearms used in homicide.

But note that dishonest researchers like Alpers or Chapman use the idea that some legal shooters have committd murder to imply all legal shooters are 'at risk'; but that is an activist talking and you cannot trust them. Think about it; even if EVERY gun murder was a legal shooter with a licensed gun, it would have nothing to do with th epotential guilt or innocence of the 850,000 who did not commit any crime whatever. How about the scum who kill families in drugged and drunken driving and car chases; almost all their cars are REGISTERED. Does it mean anything?

Anti shooter thinking, even by people with research credentials, is loaded with this kind of category error and non-sequitur thinking.

ChrisPer, I just looked up the link you gave. The abstract statement was,
'The findings of the report show that since 1997 licensed firearm owners have not been responsible for over 90 per cent of firearm related homicides. Most firearms used to commit homicide were not registered and their owners not licensed.'
Firstly, this equates to less than 10% of firearm homicides, not 15%.
Unfortunately, at the webpage your link points to, when I click on the references, the message both times is 'Sorry. What you’re looking for isn’t here at the moment'. I downloaded the paper, though and found nothing to support any claims of licence holders commiting murder with registered firearms since 1996 (even Monash wasn't mentioned). What was mentioned was a study done by the Home Office in 1996 where it was stated that 15% (could this be where you got your figure?) of firearms used in homicides in the period 1992-4 were 'legally held by someone—either the perpetrator, the victim, or an original owner from whom the firearm had been stolen'. Not exactly the same as 'About 15% of gun murders are by legal owners', more like 15% of guns used in murders belong to legal owners who may have had them stolen etc. Also, as this study was in England and Wales and pre-1996, how is it relevant?
After reviewing these statements, I still ask why the Monash shooting is the only one mentioned when the subject of homicide by licensed shooters and registered guns comes up. Does no-one else wonder why there are never any other examples given? Do these 'other examples' exist? Or can I go back to believing that the Monash shooting is the only incident since 1996?
I'm still open to actual evidence.

Sorry Austin, I pulled that 15% from memory, in response to the suggestion that whatsisface at Monash was the only licensed shooter to commit murder.

My apologies that its really 10%. The link just worked for me, and right next to the sentence you quoted:"Of the 117 homicide offenders who used firearms to commit homicide, only 11 (9.4%) homicide offenders were licensed firearms owners with registered firearms."

That rather undermines your "Pity that you never mentioned that he was (and still is) the ONLY licensed shooter ever to have committed gun crime. Don't let the facts get in the way of your theories, eh?"

Gun crime is a much bigger category than murder. It includes items like armed robbery, malicious wounding, assault, going armed so as to cause fear, poaching, and armed trespass while in possession of an aardvark for purposes of sexual immorality. It includes peppering the arse of burglars with a shotgun when you catch them in the act, too.

The gun control groups and their fellow travellers are only interested in restricting legitimate shooters, and only interested in crime they can blame legitimate shooters for. I have found over the last 14 years that arguing from facts doesn't get us anywhere, but getting the facts wrong is even less helpful.

ChrisPer, I still can't access the links at
'References
Media release: Licensed gun owners not responsible for firearm homicides
Information on how to order this publication'
All I get is
'Sorry. What you’re looking for isn’t here at the moment.
The AIC website is being redeveloped and the page you requested is currently unavailable.'
The report that you referred me to stated that over 90% of firearms homicides were committed by unlicenes perpetrotors using unregistered guns. It did not state how much over 90% - was it 90.15, was it 99.9%?
Just ask yourself, why is it that only the Monash shooting is ever mentioned in connection to a gun murder by a licensed shooter? Have you heard or read of the supposed others? If so, where?
I think that the statements on there being other licensed gun-murderers is purely propaganda put out by the conspiracy theorists who think that they are in danger from legal gun owners.
No-one I have asked and no amount of research I have carried out has ever pointed to these other licensed murderers who have killed with registerd guns.

Sorry about your link probs Austin, you might like to try going to the AIC website directly and selecting 'publications', 'Trends and Issues', and finding no.151 in the series.

As to the rest of your comment, I unfortunately knew two murderers in my life. One would certainly have got a gun license if he had applied, but he didn't that I am aware of. The other was a sort-of farmer, licensed to own a couple of rifles, and he used one of those and an illegal handgun to murder a policeman. I am aware of two other family murder-suicides in WA (over several decades) involving conflicts with stepchildren, and to the best of my knowledge both were licenced owners. I hate to dwell on this, because my interst is analysisng and defending the evidence for legal owners being trustworthy. You should be doing a little research for yourself.

Seventeen pages and not one shred of evidence at all of any benefit from John Howard's buy-back or his redundant gun laws and gun registry.

However there is plenty of evidence that his political stunt redirected police resources, both manpower and computing, into the worthless busywork of bureaucratic paper-shuffling and in the surveillance and random inspections at the homes of ordinary citizens who had already been found to be law-abiding and of good character.

Without even counting the twenty plus new taxes and fees introduced and maintained since, that is a billion dollars of taxes blown and still counting.

ChrisPer, I did more than a little research myself, as stated in my previous post.
I have stated over and over that the Monash shooting is the only one mentioned when the subject of gun murders by licensed shooters using registered firearms rises - certainly since 1996.
The two murderers that you mentioned you knew don't fit the bill either. The first was someone who you think didn't have a license while the other used an illegal handgun. As for the two cases in WA, you, yourself, can only state that the perpetrators were licensed to the best of your knowledge. As that's only hearsay, it appears that my original statement stands and the only murder by a licensed shooter using a registered gun was at Monash.
No amount of research has come up with any information to challenge this. I can only research the facts that are there - if there is no information out there I can only draw the conclusion that there is nothing to report.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/A/D/3/%7BAD36E187-1F6F-426D-9E58-B6926D3450F7%7Dtandi361.pdf Sept 2008 Bricknell Criminal use of handguns in Australia

Thats Trends and Issues No 361 if you are not able to use the link.

"Legal status of handguns used in homicide
The majority of firearms used to commit homicide in Australia since 1989–90 were held unlawfully at the time. Of the 150 offenders known to have used a handgun to commit homicide, 12 percent were licensed firearms owners and two percent had used a registered handgun. Considering all firearms (n=313),15 percent of offenders held a firearms licence and 11 percent of firearms used were registered."

Some research you have done Austin.

The Institute of Criminology reports are regularly quoted by the media where the use of percentages conceals the very low number of firearm deaths through suicide and crime.

The illegal use of firearms is linked to drugs and violence, proving a point I have been making that Howard's laws were wrongly targeted. The goal should have been to reduce crimes and violence not to make more restrictions for law abiding citizens. The latter (Howard's way) is irrelevant to reducing crime and violence and that is precisely what the numbers show, as correctly picked up by researchers.

On the other hand, some of the effect of Howard's refusal to direct resources into mental health can be seen from reports most people killed by police shooting have mental problems. It is a very great pity that both sides of federal politics can't see political points in putting more money into facilities for such sad cases. Similarly the Institute of Criminology isn't interested either.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-shootings-link-to-mentally-ill-20100513-v1rw.html

ChrisPer, I'm starting to wonder which side of the debate you are on.
Your comment, 'Some research you have done Austin.' is a bit rich considering you have already stuffed up with figures as with your '15%' number, and when you refer to murderers that you knew, you wrote that 'One would certainly have got a gun license if he had applied' but you weren't aware of whether he did - a bit vague, eh? Then you use a 'sort-of farmer, licensed to own a couple of rifles' as an example but admitted that he used an illegal handgun to murder a policeman. As for the murder-suicides in WA, you wrote that they were over several decades - therefore outside the time-frame and you thought that they were committed by licenced owners only 'to the best of my knowledge'. Again vague. A major fact here and in the statistics in your link is that no names or examples are ever given. Did the murderers you knew or the ones in WA have names?
Remember you confused England and Wales' statistics with Australia's, so maybe these other murders aren't exactly as you thought. Ask yourself why Monash is still the only example that isn't merely a 'statistic'.
All along I've asked for some proof as I can't find any. If all you can offer are vague recollections of shootings, confusion with other countries' data and statistical reports with no documented facts to back them up, your research is no better than mine - maybe worse.
Or maybe you're playing devil's advocate.

Austin, pardon me for contradicting your belief with evidence. Your initial statement was that no licensed shooters had committed 'gun crime' with no time restriction; on your own statements since you are trying to move the time frame to since 1996 only? And its only valid if they used licensed guns and not if they used a licensed gun and an unlicensed one too? And it would appear that peer-reviewed statistical publications are not valid as evidence, because they don't have names of perpetrators?

FWIW, the name of the man who I knew as a licensed 'farmer' gun owner in 1979 shot two policemen with a licensed rifle and finished one of the wounded men on the ground with an unlicensed pistol was Donald Parre, at South Stirling in WA. The man he murdered was Sen Cst Bill Pense, the wounded survivor Sgt Jim Keelan.

For the rest, I do not hold myself responsible for curing your false beliefs.

ChrisPer, you've lost it ,mate.

As the debate, which you started, was based on the effect of the gun laws since Port Arthur, I was perfectly justified in specifying 1996 as the start of the time frame, wasn't I? Especially as that was the year given in the initial (your) post. To put it plainly, you came up with 1996 first, I just agreed with you on that year.
As for 'pardon me for contradicting your belief with evidence' - do you mean your very vague statement where the murderer you knew (who you still haven't named) would have had a licence if he applied but you 'weren't aware of whether he did'. Other 'facts' you gave were to the best of your 'knowledge'. Not enough to cure my 'false beliefs'. You did manage to supply one name but that was from 1979 - remember the time frame? Since 1996.
Your further 'evidence' was when you confused the statistics for England and Wales with Australia.
So I don't see why you are upset if your flimsy 'evidence' does not convince me one bit.
I really hope you are playing devil's advocate as the alternative is very detrimental to yourself.

Austin, I don't lose anything; debating on your terms is not my intent.