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.