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.