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.