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!