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.