Yet another tragic mass shooting has occurred in Tuscon, Arizona.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/09/3109139.htm

"And then there are the guns, readily available in a state with relaxed gun control laws.
"The number of guns and the angry people that have access to them is astonishing," Mr Gutierrez said.
"That combination of anger and guns in Arizona is almost an invitation to violence."
- Reuters-"

America is a lost cause as far as gun laws are concerned, but we can be vigilant here in Australia and not follow the USA down the violent path of relaxed gun laws.

I heard on the news this morning that the gunman involved in the latest shooting in the US had a history of criminal violence, was mentally ill, and had a mad website extolling the virtues of guns.

Yet this guy was able to wander in to an Arizona gun shop and purchase a gun over the counter!

The gun lobby would have us believe that using guns is a 'sport'.
We need to ban this kind of 'sport' by banning all gun clubs and general availability of guns in this country.
The only sane reason for owning guns is in the farming, military or law enforcement areas.

Gun enthusiasts, who love to play with loud violent toys they see on cop shows and cowboy and Indian movies, will carry on about knives and car crashes as taking more lives than guns in this country.
Yes they do, however knives and cars are a necessity for many lawful activities too.
Guns are not.

I don't want Australia to follow America in the way they have their regular, suburban citizens 'armed', do you?

suzeonline.

"The gun lobby would have us believe that using guns is a 'sport'.
We need to ban this kind of 'sport' by banning all gun clubs and general availability of guns in this country.
The only sane reason for owning guns is in the farming, military or law enforcement areas.

So farmers, the military, and law enforcement should only have "to play with loud violent toys they see on cop shows and cowboy and Indian movies"

Have you even read what you have written?

So who makes this world, that all the little boys play in......and who teaches them to think so?

SUE you've written a pile of rubbish. So your saying, cause of a hand full of morons or mentaly ill......you put all in this bracket?

BLUE

It is a bit low to try to sensationalise and make political capital out of this tragedy,

Political Hacks Waste No Time In Shamelessly Exploiting Giffords Shooting To Demonize Political Oppositon,

http://www.infowars.com/political-hacks-waste-no-time-in-shamelessly-exploiting-giffords-shooting-to-demonize-political-oppositon/

Sections of the media are even trying to lay blame on Sarah Palin, drawing a very long bow on a political advertisement.

As an example of the extent to which the media (and commentators) will go to manufacture a story through speculation, two books have been cited from books in the alleged offender's possession. Guess which ones,

Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver's Travels, MEIN KAMPF, The Republic, and Meno.

As usual, the media ghouls will create rumour after rumour, using the usual suspects to whip things along. Waiting for the Oz current affairs to 'appear' on site (with the recognisable rear projection behind).

Interestingly, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement have been receiving some peripheral flack in the wake of the shooting in Tucson.
Palin came up with a "target list" of U.S. lawmakers she wanted to see unseated in the recent mid-term elections. The rhetoric employed, and the use of "crosshairs" on a map of targeted districts to get her message across, has given many pause for contemplation.

Gabrielle Gifford, the Congresswoman who was shot, was representing one of the districts targeted on the map.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027918-503544.html?tag=exclsv

So which is to blame

Another lone nut, or the

Second Amendment?

The American constitution was written for cowboys and that is going to take a lot of changing.
The sort of guns they have is a disaster waiting to happen.
It takes a lot to get a gun license in vic, You have to be a farmer or belong to a gun club, before you can apply to the police to get a license

Poirot,

You have got to be kidding, even the Huffington Post ran out of puff trying to make something out of that advertisement,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433.html

It is one thing to be critical of Sarah Palin's politics, but unless you know more than the cops it is a bit rich implying she was in any way responsible for the tragedy.

Get your hands off suze's wooden spoon.

...Waiting for Tracy Grimshaw to explore the bottom of the barrel.

"Take Back the 20"

Website has been taken down

Just coincidence?

Poirot,

Oops, I nearly forgot, here is an Australian Greens politician declaring outright he had 'targeted' a seat.

http://www.adrianramsay.org.uk/sites/adrianramsay/news/100120_polling_success.html

I seem to recall Bob Brown saying the Greens would target various seats. This quote is from the Greens site, so they think 'targeting' is quite OK by them.

"..with the Greens saying they'll now target inner city Melbourne and Sydney seats"

Gosh, if any misfortune befalls any of the Greens' political opponents Poirot will no doubt nod sagely and say "I told you so!". Perhaps not, speculative gossip is aimed exclusively at disgracing one's opponents, right?

Shintaro goes a step further, implying that taking down the advertisement is proof of guilt.

C'mon Tracy Grimshaw, your audience awaits.

Despite other amusing comments, this link just shows how many responsible gun owners there are here....45.000 of them, keeping the feral populations down, just for you, and you....and of course you.

And here's the big one....AT THEIR EXSPENCE!

http://tinyurl.com/2fh3hva

And this...

"I don't want Australia to follow America in the way they have their regular, suburban citizens 'armed', do you?"

That I agree with to a point....who do you think Iam.....the CIA or a military solder?

Just call me JOE:)

BLUE

Cornflower,

I'm not implying that Sarah Palin was responsible for this tragedy.
I am, however, implying that her particular brand of red-necked, down-home patriotism is unhelpful and may be simplistically interpreted by some as an incitement to violence.
The rhetoric employed and the fervour with which it is often delivered is extremely provocative and incendiary in a society that its bulging at the seams with guns.

(I don't watch Tracy Grimshaw - but you can keep me posted)

Poirot,

That is speculative gossip.

BTW, from what you have said here you are not short on "provocative and incendiary" language either.

You just don't get that do you and that you are stretching it to make political hay out of a tragedy?

I am not keen on Sarah Palin's politics, but that doesn't mean I would take an opportunity to hang something on her. The end doesn't justify the means.

America is in trouble.
Such lunatics can get guns and act like this.
Within an hour TV was quoting him from his online activity's why not before.
Palin and some shock jocks have always looked more Nazi to me, and yes the fools web Page went down.
Palin at least, yesterday lost any chance of standing for the top job ,all down hill for her now.
America should get rid of guns.
I am a sporting shooter but hand guns in city's?
A gun in the hands of such as this bloke is insanity.
Worth thinking about impacts, I think a much closer look will be taken to our online activity's.
Not that it is not now but this seems true, had local police known this fella was talking such junk he may never have gone out with a gun.

Cornflower get those reins in your hands and make the beast stop.
FOX over 4 hours reported what Palin had said and it was far more than the hand washing you have said.
She now is dead in the water gone and we are better for it.
Suzeonline you copped a bit ,but did you note the first response to you came from some one who totally miss read/failed to understand your post?
I did like the self description in the last line however.
Poirot do not give ground you are quite right and its nothing to do with your politics, such inflammatory rhetoric should be out lawed, just think fascist media FOX can see Palin is gone.

Suze

What was gained by taking swipes at gun owners? One of the key issues that created to recent tragedy was an inflammatory tone in a range of political debates. However much you hate working class, rural yobbos, this debate should be about the guns, not the people who own them.

Belly,

A more likely cause is a psychotic episode from drug use.

However there are no newspaper sales or TV audiences in waiting for the police report.

I'm with Suze on this one. Last time I checked the stats,
something like 100'00 people a year were shot in the US.
That is a huge figure.

Lots of accidents, lovers tiffs, madheads, etc.

The reality of the human brain is that the stronger an emotion,
the less we think. People fly into a rage, a gun is handy,
they go click and often regret it for the rest of their lives,
locked up in jails.

So a comparison with knives is invalid.

Keep guns in the community to a minimum, makes perfect sense.

Its one of the reasons why I would never live in the US.
When I was in New Orleans last, it was August and I asked the
taxi driver how safe his job was. So far that year, 6 of his
buddies had been shot. They were carjacking people in the
centre of New Orleans with machine guns. The US gun laws
are a disaster. Luckily we don't have that problem here.
Lets keep it that way.

Thanks for that voice of reason Yabby :)

Deep Blue<"Despite other amusing comments, this link just shows how many responsible gun owners there are here....45.000 of them, keeping the feral populations down, just for you, and you....and of course you.
And here's the big one....AT THEIR EXSPENCE(sic)!"

Is that comment really true Deep Blue? I have lived in the country over the years, and most of the guys out there blasting the feral animals to kingdom come were either paid to do so by the property owners or the Government, or they were mindless rednecks just out there to get their thrills with killing something, anything?

Benk <" However much you hate working class, rural yobbos, this debate should be about the guns, not the people who own them."

I never said I hated working class men at all Benk... and it was you that called them rural yobbos.

I hate the violent gun culture in America, and make no apologies for disliking the non-essential use of guns in our society.

I hope Australia never follows Americas lead in the ongoing tragedy that is soft gun laws in that country.

*45.000 of them, keeping the feral populations down, just for you, and you....and of course you.
And here's the big one....AT THEIR EXSPENCE(sic)!"*

Hehe I love it, Blue and his mates as our new Mother Theresa :)

Suze, I'd say that Blue is just having a lend of you here, for he
would know his claims are rubbish, but he does have a sense of humour.

Hunters actually interest me. Some of them pay a fortune to hunt
some trophy in Africa and elsewhere. Methinks its all tied up with
our genetic heritage. Go back 500 grandmothers, we lived in caves and
hunted. It still shows in genetic terms and genes influence behaviour.

I think its expressed in a number of ways. Some will want to go out
and hunt, it attracts them like a magnet. The businessman will go
out and try and make a killing. Others go to the football and freak
out over support for their tribe winning. Its all evolutionary
stuff, playing out in a different world that we live in now.

Yes Yabby, evolution certainly has a lot to answer for!
However, I am sure people these days can appease their primal 'killing' instinct by playing or attending sporting activities, or in everyday work life etc as you said.
Most of us have moved on from cave-man days.
This is called evolution!

Deep Blue may or may not be serious, but he/she seems very pro-gun to me.

Guns are available freely in most states in America because there is obviously a market for them amongst law-abiding citizens as well as the criminals.

If they cut out the easy availability of purchasing guns, then surely that would mean less chance of so many guns falling into the wrong hands?
If that means the loss of the old-fashioned hunting and gun-sport activities, then so be it. Human lives are more important.

Whatever the answer is, America and South America seem to hold the bulk of the gun capitals in our world. If other countries don't want to end up with the number of civilian gun deaths that they have, then we don't ever want to emulate them.

I'm with Suze on this one. Last time I checked the stats,
something like 100'00 people a year were shot in the US.
That is a huge figure. Yes well there would be, since there are 300 million people in the US, compared with 21 million, which only 59 people killed here per year by fire-arms.

Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries Amount
# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369
# 5 Philippines: 7,708
# 6 Mexico: 2,606
# 7 Slovakia: 2,356
# 8 El Salvador: 1,441
# 9 Zimbabwe: 598
# 10 Peru: 442
# 11 Germany: 269
# 12 Czech Republic: 181
# 13 Ukraine: 173
# 14 Canada: 144
# 15 Albania: 135
# 16 Costa Rica: 131
# 17 Azerbaijan: 120
# 18 Poland: 111
# 19 Uruguay: 109
# 20 Spain: 97
# 21 Portugal: 90
# 22 Croatia: 76
# 23 Switzerland: 68
# 24 Bulgaria: 63
# 25 Australia: 59
# 26 Sweden: 58
# 27 Bolivia: 52
# 28 Japan: 47
# 29 Slovenia: 39
= 30 Hungary: 38
= 30 Belarus: 38
# 32 Latvia: 28
# 33 Burma: 27
# 34 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 26
# 35 Austria: 25
# 36 Estonia: 21
# 37 Moldova: 20
# 38 Lithuania: 16
= 39 United Kingdom: 14
= 39 Denmark: 14
# 41 Ireland: 12
# 42 New Zealand: 10
# 43 Chile: 9
# 44 Cyprus: 4
# 45 Morocco: 1
= 46 Iceland: 0
= 46 Luxembourg: 0
= 46 Oman: 0
Total: 100,693

BLUE

I read about the little girl who was receiving a school award? from Gabrielle Gifford at the time.

Her life and future gone, and I pray she has no siblings in shock and grieving at the loss of their sister.

Not an enjoyable experience having guns pointed at one's head by individuals caught up in a power play or in an angry frame of mind, regardless of being shot either.

You are correct Suze, I don't wish to see our country's current gun law legislation relaxing at all in the future [its the minority that forced the disposal of guns and registers implemented] years ago.

Gun references should be placed under more scrutiny too; references can be given to any lunatic and the odd gun owner placed under pressure as the result of a social obligation or association in their lives [into giving those references]

"Yes Yabby, evolution certainly has a lot to answer for!
However, I am sure people these days can appease their primal 'killing' instinct by playing or attending sporting activities, or in everyday work life etc as you said.
Most of us have moved on from cave-man days.
This is called evolution!...lol....You might want to have a chat with the US army, that's having a great time with their evolved sence reality...over in the middle east.

Deep Blue may or may not be serious, but he/she seems very pro-gun to me.

Oh you two are just hilarious:) Yes I was stretching it there a bit:)

*45.000 of them, keeping the feral populations down, just for you, and you....and of course you.
And here's the big one....AT THEIR EXSPENCE(sic)!"*

Deep Blue may or may not be serious, but he/she seems very pro-gun to me.
Suze..... Iam pro-gun to a point, and you lot just loving taking things out of context:) Bellies point of no guns in cities is of course commonsense; and just to add, gang-members are mainly the victims of their own culture in the US, and who will miss them. Some may see why Iam anti US to a point, or maybe not. Their culture seems to be a bad influence on many levels. Where starting to see it here...and this can not happen.

Yabby....feral cats was my main resentment, along with wild pigs.

I could fill this thread on what damage they have caused.

However, thank Q for your anti-gun stance...., I too do not want a US/AUST world here either.

BLUE

*Yes well there would be, since there are 300 million people in the US, compared with 21 million, which only 59 people killed here per year by fire-arms.*

Ok Blue, that is how many actually died, not how many were shot. So lets do the maths.
21 million is around 7% of the US population.

59 times 14, is around the 826 mark, compared to their 9300.
So we have less then 10% of their gun related deaths, an a gun
deaths per head of population.

Those kinds of numbers speak for themselves really.

Stuff the guns.

Cornflower,

It's interesting that you find my comments provocative and incendiary. On tonight's 7:30 Report, I watched a file video of Gabrielle Giffords raising the same concerns about the crosshair imagery and the shoot-em-up rhetoric employed by Palin.
Giffords said: "The way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district, when people do that, they have got to realise there are consequences to that."
In the wake of this tragedy it seems both sides of Congress are doing a little soul searching about the turn political discussion in the U.S. has taken of late.
I stand by my original point, which is that in a civilised democracy, high profile public figures have a responsibility to avoid the delivery of inflammatory imagery and rhetoric in the public domain.

Well Deep Blue, I am glad I have made you laugh...and am also glad to see you really do have some sensible remarks on this scary issue :)

Yes, I was joking a little about cavemen and evolution- see, you don't have the mandate on sarcasm/untruths on this forum :)

It can certainly be difficult to spot sarcasm or jokes at times when communicating only in the written form though can't it?

I am with Poirot though with the comments about inflammatory political sparring that may be seen by some disturbed and/or aggressive citizens as the red light to start shooting at everyone who they feel disagrees with them - and not caring who else gets shot in their haste to 'get' their human prey.

The gun laws in Australia are not in need of further reform.
Americas problem is surely only its own making.
Sorry yabby but normal blokes do become sporting shooters, I know many.
Ferrel pigs are mostly hunted by them, in good growing years farmers ring and invite them to help.
More on the seat of this problem, growing hate filled rhetoric.
both sides are at it here and in America this morning, over this issue, right blaming the left for, mentioning it.
Do not believe me prove it for your self, dreadful thing to say,, but here goes, watch FOX for, please help me, 4 hours, gee I under stand it is water torture but give it ago.
American Christian right/tea party/and some Afro American groups are,well you will see be brave try it.
OH done it again! true left will agree with my first two but call me racist for highlighting some racist views American minority's hold .

I found another listing which gives rates of murder with firearms by capita for a number of countries. An expansion of the point Yabby made.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Anybody want to move to South Africa?

R0bert

""..with the Greens saying they'll now target inner city Melbourne and Sydney seats"

but you do not see Mr. Brown or other Greens posing for pictures with big, powerful and fancy guns with a look of pleasure on their faces as you do of Ms. Palin.

Good to see Palin in the cross hairs at last but there's millions more drongos just like her in the USA.

Whatever happened to the 27th Amendment, 'it is the right of every American male to shoot the President'?

Cornflower, you are an apologist for bitterness, stupidity and ignorance.

Here's a fairly good summary on the current debate in the U.S. on the language of violence in politics.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/loner-triggers-vitriolic-debate/story-e6frg6z6-1225985204517

Poirot

No mention that Murdoch is a major player in creating the environment being debated.

Funny how talk of violence influences no one, but talk of sex or porn does, when you're a right w(h)inger.

Very good point, TBC.
Of course, that article was from the Australian.
I often wonder how these things are worked out...there was criticism of Glenn Beck and Fox News...and Beck does a sterling job of pushing the sort of mindset that creates division.
I watched a few of his shows recently and he actually refers to an encroaching danger called "they". "They" are doing this and "they" are doing that. So to his faithful legions, he is presenting an anonymous and threatening entity (somehow tied up with Obama and communism) and the people that are taken in by Beck feel as if there is a huge conspiracy that is coming to take their freedoms away.
This is the sort of mindset that feeds the neurosis of people...and it is not beyond reason to suppose that once in a while a particularly unbalanced person is going to take matters into their own hands

The best thing the Howard Government did was to ban semi-automatic and automatic weapons, pump action shotguns and introduce a national registration requirement.

I don't think Australia will ever get to the stage that America has let itself go under some skewed perception of freedom and individual rights. If it was so concerned about rights and freedoms there would be no illicit drugs - they would all be legal. If a government can recognise the harm in legalising mind altering drugs why not recognise the danger of the growth of gun ownership and obvious 'staring the in the face' statistics on gun related crimes and gun fatalities.

There was an interesting discussion on a program that said the nature of the political debate in the US has hit a new time low with a growth in hostility including the Palin gun/target map incident. While Palin is not responsible for the actions of a probably unbalanced shooter, the fact that guns are so readily accessible in America (it was a glock for goodness sake) and the alarm bells are ringing.

But alas, there have been numerous similar 'alarm bells' and they keep going off but no-one is listening.

Poirot

There is a conspiracy to take away their 'freedoms' indeed.

The freedom to be completely stupid and fearful.

It is a conspiracy of their own making.

Led by their nose rings, willingly, with their consent, into dullwittedness.

A Glock eh? Odd to see how unfettered USA investment in Israel has a blowback effect in the nation of the free.

Still, it could have been a legally owned RPG, or a bazooka even.

Couldn't resist this post, an 'open letter to xtian rightwing drongos, here and the US as far as I can see:

Read all here:
http://www.truth-out.org/the-wrath-fools-an-open-letter-to-far-right66686

You false patriots who bring assault rifles to political rallies, you hack politicians and media personalities who lied through your stinking teeth about "death panels" and "Obama is coming for your guns" and "He isn't a citizen" and "He's a secret Muslim" and "Sharia Law is coming to America," you who spread this bastard gospel and you who swallowed it whole, I am talking to you, because this was your doing just as surely as it was the doing of the deranged damned soul who pulled the trigger. The poison you injected into our culture is deeply culpable for this carnage.

You who worship Jesus at the top of your lungs (in defiance of Christ's own teachings on the matter of worship, by the way) helped put several churchgoers into their graves and into the hospital. You who shriek about the sanctity of marriage helped cut down a man who was about to be married. You who crow with ceaseless abandon about military service and the nobility of our fighting forces helped to critically wound the wife of a Naval aviator who fought for you in a war. You who hold September 11 as your sword and shield helped put a little girl born on that day into the ground.

You helped. Yes, damn you, you helped.

The "mainstream" media is already working overtime playing up the "Disturbed loner" angle with all their might. There is no doubt, from the available evidence, of Mr. Loughner's transformation into a disturbed individual. But here's the funny part: all the crazy crap he spewed, about the gold standard (a favorite of Glenn Beck, the master of Fox "News" fearmongering...so he can sell his gold scam to suckers) and government mind control and everything else before going on his rampage, is straight out of the Right-Wing Insanity Handbook.

Tell us what you really think The Blue Cross and stop reading my mind.
Suffered for the cause this morning ,watched more than milli second of Glen Beck,all of him!
Will clean up the mess soon, glad I missed the TV.
He is a self promoter isn't he, think he believes that rubbish? he supports the tea party,, no need for further debate.
Look please, guns as used in America and yes south Africa, [note the reasons for having them are about the same?]are not our problem.
We will always have guns, criminals can get them, but we are not in danger from such lunatics.
We however are followers of America, in every thing.
We long ago embarked on slander in stead of truth in politics.
IF we,and America do two things, stop feeding media its headline rubbish, and get back to open debate not street fighting in politics we will be better for it.
Must be calming down my dogs have climbed on my lap again.

Sorry Belly, here's what Gerard Henderson thinks though:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/abc-needs-to-rein-in-the-rise-of-abuse-posing-as-analysis-20110110-19l1d.html

Always 'in the lead' is our Gerry, almost as thinking as Andy Bolt.

Has he posted anything anywhere?

Oh yes:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_abcs_vilification_of_sarah_palin

So, perhaps the suggestion that this sort of discussion leads to violence might hold up in Andy's eyes?

If both sides are engaged in it, it sounds like political leaders and journalists are in fact helping, if not crafting, the view that violence is not 'an' answer, but 'the' answer?

I do agree with Gerard though when it comes to the parlous state of political journalism, and all other branches of it, that drips from the real or virtual pages of newspapers.

I do wonder at the role of The Drum too.

Everyone has an opinion, so what? Why do they get to air them there and then try to pretend to be objective journos somewhere else.

News is a commodity, and it gets sold to its markets.

No one would tolerate most high profile journos today otherwise.

It looks to me that they don't need guns to protect themselves from foreign invaders but to protect themselves from each other.

A society at war within itself and living in perpetual fear of violence is not a healthy one.

True Wobbles, but at least they can bear arms, say what they want and be FREEEEEEE.

Insightful stuff TBC your comments not those two.
Read them this morning FOX, along with our own warriors against balanced reporting and truth are a symptom.
Clearly unable to say it like it is,American poltics is in trouble, and even less able to retract things they said that fueled this fire,they content them selves informing us the sky is down earth up.
Both sides yes left too should find a better way to inform us what is happening , most of our news media are so very bad it is hard to look for truth from them.

Anybody want to move to South Africa?
R0bert,
Save your money going there because the way we're going we'll have it here before long.

The recent murder/suicide of a mother and her infants at Heidelberg in Victoria underlines a fact that is already known but is quickly lost where politics and lobby groups are involved as in the present US case, which is the parlous state of mental health services in most countries and certainly the US and Australia.

Proactivity and prevention are possible and lives will be saved, but not in societies that shy away from providing resources and facilities for mental health.

Evidence is now leaking out that authorities in the US (and specifically the local sheriff who was quick to volunteer his opinion that it was all down to 'hate' political campaigning) had been aware for some time of the mental state of the offender, but were most likely very limited in what they could do.

The same applied in the case of Martin Bryant (Port Arthur) where treating medical staff and police had been aware of his various problems but nothing could be done, a situation not assisted by the sale of mental health facilities by both LNP and Labor governments in the years before.

In Australia, John Howard blew a cool billion dollars on redundant 'gun control' regulations and a buy-back of unwanted guns from law-abiding citizens (as if criminals would give up their already illegal guns), which helped him win an election but swept mental health issues under the carpet (neat one, JWH!).

Few would criticise the licensing of gun owners, although in the US case it would appear that the Sheriff's office has slipped in not previously recording and reporting the offender to ensure he could not obtain a gun from a legal source. Of course he could still have bought the same on the black market or used other even more devastating alternatives, such as petrol.

Here is hoping that the debate moves rapidly away from the usual political argy bargy and blame game in order that the gaps (chasms) in mental health services can be surfaced and discussed. Of course politicians and bureaucrats will be most reluctant to do that and for obvious reasons.

Guns don't kill people

People with guns kill people

Keep guns from people

Guns don't kill people

People with guns kill people

Keep guns from people
Shintaro,
Not that simple. People who kill people are either just bad or defend themselves against bad people. No good person does any harm to another good person. Bad people cause harm to others. There are many people who should have stopped giving others a hard time & they could still be around. Law states that self-defence is not a valid reason to carry a gun. Tell that to the many bodyguards & the wild pigs in the bush. What would our defence force defend us with if self defence is no valid reason to carry a gun ? When's the last time you heard of a good person do bad ? Knives are used to kill & maim. So, keep knives from people ? Cars, trains, hell, even work kills people. What about bad bureaucrats who drive decent people to suicide ? Keep bureaucrats away from people ? YES PLEASE !

Individual is channelling Sara Palin rather well with the enthusiasm for gun toting citizens.

What a shock!

What a Shock !
The Blue Cross,
I can tell you that exposing your mentality is not a shock at all. Thinking OLOers expect that from you.

Individual,

I had no idea that things were so simple. Fancy there being "good" people and "bad" people....surely, it that's the case, there should be some mechanism in place whereby the bad people can't get their hands on the guns.

Anyway, here's an article on the reactions of Palin and Beck to the Giffords shooting....

http://www.politicususa.com/en/palin-beck-violent-rhetoric

Thanks Poirot, a jolly article indeed.

Individual, let's be honest, we do not see eye to eye on most things, but to suggest that your efforts represent 'thinking' is a stretch of an elastic imagination, is it not?

"See, in this world, both Palin and Beck are cast as lovers of peace who hate violence. And they do this through such a falsely contrived, obviously orchestrated propaganda-esque technique that the listener is left wondering if Beck and Palin have any connection with reality", could this include those who support the gun toting attitude to life, such as you seem to promote individual?

Poirot, of course there are 'good' and 'bad' people. All 'good' people are xtians, who employ people (just out of kindness to give them a job) and who send their kiddies to private, preferably 'faith' schools, vote sensibly for other good people, never the evil Greens or the communist ALP, and who drive 4WDs, mostly black ones, at speeds well in excess of speed limits. These are the backbone of our glorious nation.

By comparison, 'bad' people cling to a sense of community as being a part of a solid basis for organising groups of people, and see little benefit in sticking with everything without ever raising a question. They can never be good people, and that is why good people support no gun control whatsoever.

When Jesus returns, only good people will be saved, even though Jesus seemed to prefer the company of bad people.

Odd, isn't it?

I had no idea that things were so simple. Fancy there being "good" people and "bad" people,
Poirot,
Are you saying that people are so mentality deficient that they are incapable to differentiate ?
You had me fooled, I thought you were smarter or are you of the type who can't handle anything that hasn't been made artificially complex by some mutt academic ?

How is the gun shop

Able to know who are the

"Good" and "Bad" people?

Shintaro, easy.

Only good people buy guns.

Couldn't be easier could it?

It stands to reason really, give individuals helpful guide to life to guide us all interpret life correctly, or in a 'good' way.

Can we just cut this idiocy & concentrate on positive stuff. Seeing that you mutts don't comprehend between good & bad i.e. decency & deplorable I once again feel myself compelled to reply.
A good person will go & register themselves when applying for a firearm. Pretty much like registering the other lethal weapons like cars. Obviously, you can provide proof that you have attended firearm safety instruction & are a member of SSAA. This organisation has far stricter regulations/rules that your average driving school. There's a plus already. If you only shoot at competition then you can store your firearm at those premises. If you are in the bush then you you're most likely not that stupid in the first place as to requiring so much baby sitting.
A bad person should be on record as such from very simple misdeeds onwards. This nonsense of no criminal conviction after stealing a car needs attending to by those thumb twiddlers in the Law Reform Commission.
Any conviction automatically is placed into a register for Police & Gun shops. No gun sold to any such mutt.
And, yes TBC the helpful guide you mentioned could be in the form of national service.
Such an arrangement will produce a far greater number of good citizens than any academic idealism which so clearly denounces any sense of responsibility.

individual, you raised the issue of good and bad people, remember.

Here's a question for your ethical side to think deeply about.

What about a good person, complete with the black 4wd, private school for the kiddies, donation envelope ready with a $5 note inside for Sunday at church (oops, not quite 10% of the wage though is it?) who goes home and shoots his wife and private school kiddies? All eight of them.

He's passed the gun shop test, his amputation of the family cat's head was overlooked in youth as an 'accident', and he has thus far fooled everyone, including himself.

Is he now a 'bad person' even though that morning he was still seen by all as a 'good person'?

Unfortunately, our chap is getting on a bit, second marriage and new kids, and he served in Vietnam as a national service man.

His Harley and tats are a bit of a clue to the state of his failing mind, but because he has a MBA from a prestigious university, overseas no less, a 'recognised' one to boot, and he has been an Olympic skeet shooter, winning only a bronze (hence his sense of failure and shame) and he runs a successful engineering consultancy business, no one suspects that he is at this point, the crucial one, quite deranged and highly volatile, with a brittle personality, and a short fuse.

Should he have a gun in his house-oh, he lives out of town and helicopters to work and his kiddies are normally ensconced, as boarders, in the chaplains office there, pouring out their bitter hearts, at Kings, or is it Crufts?

Unfortunately for them, it's the hols, and they are fearing their time with Dadda, just waiting to escape back to that nice chaplain with his large 'listening ears'.

Well, wherever the upwardly aspirational neo-liberal drone sends their kiddies these days

What a load of garbage in this thread from some, and the last in particular.

I respect the words of this guy more than any arm chair lefty with a university education that thinks they know it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-3GTwalrGY&feature

If only someone like this was at Port Arthur all those years ago!

The inalienable right of self defense is not negotiable in my mind, I don't care how you want to spin your words. If my enemy has a big stick then I'll getter a bigger stick to protect myself, it's as simple as that! It's why nations have nukes after all.

RawMusturd

Your Neanderthal honesty is refreshingly clear.

But the nukes you endorse, and the keenly thought through processes for setting them off, is why some, not all for sure, people like to try to control just who has access to these big stick weapons.

I can see you are a supporter of all nations being armed to the teeth, along with every living human.

I agree, the world would be so much safer if Iran, Burma, Egypt, Germany, Japan, Serbia, Wales, Isle of Man, NZ, Fiji, Sri Lanka and other sundry lesser nations were equipped with 'nukular' capability.

Oh what a world to dream for, and work to bring about!.

I envy people who can think clearly on these matters.

Enemy with stick

Can't do much damage, unlike

Madman with Glock

If a belief in the M.A.D principle makes me a neanderthal then so be it.
Do you deny it works?

Well, considering the 'allies' felt that Saddam should be stopped from having them, and there is a lot of angst over N. Korea, and do people really believe Burma needs them?, I'd have to question the value of a bi-polar world 'resolution',MAD, being applied to a multi-polar world.

You see, there is resistance to 'everyone' having them, and if 'we' all believed in MAD, then the doors would be open, and many nations would make a motza from flogging them to their friends, and better still, to their enemies, who would then never think of attacking with them, would they?

Glenn Beck's letter to the American people, politicians and media:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/01/10/glenns-letter-to-the-american-people-politicians-and-media/

TBC,
thanks for the description of yourself. We now know to steer clear of you when we see you loitering around particular parks.

What is it with Americans and guns? The reactions thus far over the recent gun massacre in the US have been varied ranging from puzzlement over the shooters mental state but they have scarcely raised the issue of gun control. In fact some congressmen have stated that they will carry handguns and see to it that their staff have training in how to shoot. Compare this with 1996 - the gun massacre in
Tasmania that prompted a deeply conservative federal government to push for restrictive gun laws. I'm so glad that I live in Australia.

"""
What is it with Americans and guns?
"""

Most of them understand that you can't stop people doing what this guy did by taking their guns away!

7 dead in Tokyo stabbing rampage.
TOKYO (AP) — A man plowed into shoppers with a truck Sunday and then stabbed 17 people within minutes, killing at least seven of them in a grisly attack that shocked a country known for its low crime rate.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-06-08-stabbing-tokyo_N.htm

Exactly, Lexi.

These massacres take place with morbid regularity in the U.S. It's overwhelmingly the same response every time - the perpetrator is dismissed as being unbalanced and, therefore, American society should look no further than each particular event in isolation.
My point is that if a society is awash with firearms, then occasionally a deranged or unbalanced person is going to create mayhem. But apparently that is something American society is willing to tolerate.
If you read Glenn Beck's letter above, you will note that he is making the point that it is "all" the fault of a lone (deranged) personality - end of story.
Aside from launching his new agenda of "non-violence" - he is also appropriating the deeply felt mourning of the death of the child involved and her link with 9/11 to appeal to emotive patriotism and to sidestep any issue involving lack of gun control or the politically inspired rhetoric of violence.
Seems there is no end to the spin...sort of gives one the creeps.

RawMustard,

Why then do they send soldiers to war with guns....could it be that they are infinitely more likely to inflict lethal damage while remaining at a distance from their quarry?

Because they are under no illusion the other side won't have and use them!
Come on, Poirot. You're smarter than that!

Come on RawMustard. You would have had to google to find that one.

Whereas mass shootings in the US, are a dime a dozen.

We simply don't have the problem of guns everywhere, as they do
in the US, where they sell them at Walmart.

I have a dear old friend in the US, a grandmotherly type, who
feels that she needs to have weapons in the house, as eveyone
else has weapons. Frankly, given her eyesight, she is far more
likely to trip over one of them and shoot herself by mistake, then
to outshoot any gangster :)

She seems to think that the US is past the point of no return, when
it comes to guns, as there are simply so many of them. We in
Australia, are fortunate not to have that problem.

We certainly don't need that problem either

TBC, take no notice of the trigger-happy good-ol'-boys above :)

Since we are talking about 'goodies' and 'baddies' in our society, I too have a scenario.
Mr Goodie lives in Getumboy and has a cabinet full of guns - his pride and joy. He bought all his guns legally and has joined a gun club.

He spends his weekends blasting the hell out of any animal that moves on his property, or joins his mates down at the Killem Club and pops holes into a pretend man-shaped picture.

Mr Baddie and a few of his bad mates break into Mr Goodies house and steal the guns.
They go on a rampage about the place and kill real people.

The moral of the story?

If Mr Goodie didn't have the 'right' to legally buy violent guns for 'sport', Mr Baddie and his like are less likely to easily acquire guns in our country.

We need to make it harder for both the goodies and the baddies to acquire guns- both legally and illegally.

Sue...."We need to make it harder for both the goodies and the baddies to acquire guns- both legally and illegally."

lol..Sorry to pop your little bubble, and see the good intent behind your sincerity, but not all handed there guns in when asked to. There are still millions of weapons out there and making it harder to obtain them....well:)...wishful thinking's. Mans infatuation with the gun is very deep seeded, and some strongly think they have a right to arm themselves. ( I mean, you wouldn't take a spear off a caveman now, would you?) See arms dealers like the good old uncle Sam, make there way to Australia too, and if one was in the know, $2500 right now, can buy you shells and the weapon of your choice.

The more you try to stop something that was free/and a part of the Australia way, all that will happen.....is that you will play into the hands of the black-market.

I take it, you know little of street life in Sydney:) I lived in Sydney and had some quite interesting neighbors from time to time.

Trust me.....If a nut wants to get hold of a gun, it takes less than a hour. (Watch the movie Two Hands...its is that easy). Luck for us here, the mentality of our people is a lot more stable compared to the US. Their Disneyland/religious ways of acting out on the big screen, just explains it all when concerning their mental stability.

All though, it would be nice to live in a perfect world.

Training and education are the only ways to live safe with guns.

And of course a good deep understanding of who you are training:) DNA checks might not be such a bad idea.

BLUE

We are talking about America.
Hand guns in the streets.
Not here.
Criminals and fools will kill.
Do kill , increasing disturbing knife crimes prove that.
Australia has no need to change its gun laws.

Yes Deep Blue, of course I am aware of the black market and how easy it is to buy a gun. Unfortunately I have had to nurse many people with gun shot wounds from guns purchased from the US over the internet.
However, the recent murderous nut-case in America bought his over the counter didn't he?

We have to start somewhere.

The cavemen eventually gave up using spears to kill each other willy-nilly when they became more 'civilised'.

I live in hope :)

More on the shooting victim Sarah Palin.

Yes, this article says that poor Sarah is the real victim of this shooting by a 'lone madman'.

Well, lone amongst 300 million others maybe?

Worth a read, individual and others will love it:

"Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly and the rest of the right-wing media machine have turned professional victimhood into a license to print money, and people like Sarah Palin are all too happy to jump on that bandwagon. You're losing your country, your rights, your guns, your family, your religion, the sanctity of your marriage, the supremacy of your heterosexuality, my God, you're losing Christmas, for the love of God! You're losing everything (...psssst...they're talking to White Christians when they say this stuff, by the way, which just cracks me all the way up...), and if you don't "take up arms" to stop it, well, it will just make the Baby Jesus weep bitter, bitter tears.

"Speaking of "taking up arms," here is Palin's explanation for such rhetoric: "When we say 'take up our arms,' we are talking about our vote."

"Of course. How could we have missed such an obvious reference? Silly us."

Read it all here:
https://mail.google.com/mail/#inbox/12d7c474bc141d3e

It seems that Sarah Palin has adopted the of new tag line of "Blood Libel" as a defence against any criticism which questions her penchant for violent rhetoric. Seems like she's determined to dig a bigger hole for herself.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/sarah-palins=blood-libel-charge-stokes-row-over-gabrielle-giffords/story-e6frg6so-1225986896912

Love it Poirot

Funny how it says not many Republicans defend her on this, but here at OLO they fall over themselves to present guns and Sarah as, well, beautiful!

I like this bit:

"Mrs Palin apparently plucked the phrase from the right-wing blogs where it has proliferated after earlier appearing in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on the controversy. She seems, however, to have used it without consideration of its anti-Semitic origins or the fact that Ms Giffords, the target of the shooting, is Jewish.

"Jewish leaders were quick to condemn her words. David Harris, the president of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said: "Sarah Palin's invocation of a 'blood libel' charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction." The Anti-Defamation League said: "We wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history."

I suspect that Sarah knows this, and is one of the adherents to 'the Jews killed Jesus' mantra.

She is, however, as in the post I stuck up before, painting herself as 'the real victim'.

Pathetic!

Still, there are many, here and in the US, who really believe that, and that includes OLO posters by the sound of them.

I fear the tea party Americans can do stupid things but if they put that fool in?
Well it will not happen she is now dead in the water.
we are better for it, FOX is much the worse for its idiot presentation of neo Nazi theory's, just maybe on the way down.
Suzi tell me are you treating more knife and blunt object injury's?

"""
Come on RawMustard. You would have had to google to find that one.
"""

Only the link, Yabby. It was featured on the telly here when it happened. What does having to google for it have to do with the topic?

"""
We simply don't have the problem of guns everywhere, as they do
in the US, where they sell them at Walmart.
"""

We also sold them in Kmart here years ago. Brought a Stirling 22 magnum and scope and used to get my ammo from them, so what?

"""
I have a dear old friend in the US, a grandmotherly type, who
feels that she needs to have weapons in the house, as eveyone
else has weapons. Frankly, given her eyesight, she is far more
likely to trip over one of them and shoot herself by mistake, then
to outshoot any gangster :)
"""

That's probably the norm for most people, Yabby, nothing wrong with that. But I can tell you that my whole family know exactly how to handle a firearm. If someone were to try a home invasion (on a significant rise I might add) in our house, they can rest assured they would be introduced to my best friend, buddy, pall, Mr Winchester!

It's better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six is my motto!

"""
She seems to think that the US is past the point of no return, when
it comes to guns, as there are simply so many of them. We in
Australia, are fortunate not to have that problem.
"""

We never had the problems of America because our population is a lot smaller, we're also not surrounded by violent lefty countries like America.

It's funny how people who have never experienced a violent attack on themselves would dictate to others how they might defend themselves.

I can just see them reach for their IPhone and press the stop raping my daughter button as some thug checks for her prostate gland with his third leg. I wonder if you can download an app for that?

Oh do please tell us all Rawmusturd, of the violent attack on yourself, please do.

Naturally, you whipped out your Winchester and Navy Colt and saw them off with a couple of well placed shots to the forehead... bullseye!

Followed, I hope, with a thorough knuckling with the Commando knife, the combined 6" blade and knuckle duster one.

By the way, I can see that you are a gunnut, so some things might be hard to grasp, but 'the shelias' don't actually have a prostate gland, yer know.

Amazing I know, but true.

And, I really don't know how to say this, but, well, this might also come as a shock, there are 'other differences' about them too.

Gawd Rawmustard, sounds to me like you have been watching far too
many hollywood movies!

All you need is a baseball bat, not too many burglars would stick
around.

Besides, by the time you have found your way to the gun cabinet,
remembered where you stored both keys, loaded it and made your
way through the house, that burglar might well be gone.

*We also sold them in Kmart here years ago.*

Certainly not here in WA, but its always been much more difficult
to obtain a gun over here, then in the East. That big desert between
us is not such a bad thing really.

Yes, there would be some illegal guns in the community, but many
are also routinely removed, when the bikers clubs are raided yet
once again, or suspect cars are searched, etc.

I think the stats show pretty clearly that lots of guns in the
community means lots of people get shot.

LOL...funny stuff:) Baseball bats, violent attacks, and speaking of which:)....I think I can translate Raw Mustard's post.

"I can just see them reach for their IPhone and press the stop raping my daughter button as some thug checks for her prostate gland with his third leg. I wonder if you can download an app for that?"

And here's the evidence........"By the way, I can see that you are a gunnut, so some things might be hard to grasp, but 'the shelias' don't actually have a prostate gland, yer know."

Now I don't know about you lot, but something sounds quite Gay about all this...don't you think:)

BLU

Fancy yourself as a bit of a writer, TBC? Enjoy reading your own colourful words? Perhaps in your haste to amuse yourself, you could find the time to read fully what others have written and try to comprehend?

I never said a sheila has a prostate, but anyway!

As to my experience with violence, I have no need to explain anything to a dip that can't read!

And tell oh colourful one, what constitutes a gun nut in your eyes?
This should be interesting.

Ah, the old baseball bat, Yabby. There are many of these floating around Victoria these days. In fact my son and his mate just found out headbutting them hurts lots more than the Africans swinging them!
They thought the odds were in their favour, 2 to 20, not bad odds if you're on the 20 side.

You'll be pleased to note, I hired him a personal maths tutor rather than buy him a gun. That should help him realize that 20 is a far greater number than 2. What happened to that education revolution thingy? Spent it all on baseball bats for the immigrants I suppose?

The Blue Cross- lol! Love your sarcastic style :)

Belly asks if I treat more knife and blunt object victims.
Actually I no longer work in emergency departments, so I don't see many gun wounds or recent trauma wounds anymore, thank goodness.

I work in the community now, treating people at home after they get home from hospital. I see more knife and broken glass entry wounds from victims of domestic violence and pub violence mostly.

I am glad to be out in the community now. I hated gunshot wounds- the exit wounds were worse than the entry wound on most occasions, and the burns caused by the gunpowder around the edges of the wounds were nasty too.

I hate guns.

Arizona shares a border with Mexico, where the private ownership of firearms is banned. However in Mexico thousands are killed by guns annually. No wonder Mexicans flee to neighbouring Arizona.

However, according to the mantra of the Greens and others, it should be the reverse - people in Arizona should be fleeing to Mexico, made peaceful by its gun bans.

Switzerland has the highest number of military assault rifles in private homes than any country in the world and 50 rounds are issued with every firearm. The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female and subsidises ammunition purchases.
http://www.swissrifles.com/shooting/

Again, according to the simplistic mantras of Australian Greens and the antis, Switzerland should be awash with blood, yet gun crime is rare.

'Gun culture' is a media label, a meaningless stereotype. Evil people exist and their violent crimes are not limited by the availability of a particular tool. For instance, Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski) used bombs. In Australia, the Whiskey Au Go Go killers used petrol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Au_Go_Go_fire).

What I continue to argue for is for government to set a goal of reducing violence instead. Politics being politics, President Obama will probably take the easy way out by proposing gun control. However, America (and Australia) needs a statesman who can eschew the politically attractive and easy band-aids like gun 'control', more laws (eg Australia's bikie laws) and harsher penalties, to invest in a lasting change by researching and dealing with the actual causes of violence.

Evidence and numbers should advise and underpin policy, not emotional rhetoric.

Its the same old story, when it comes to the roots of the main problem, doesn't it. Societies bad elements that breeds violence are and should be the main targets. If one was to put a box of guns in a room of angry people, you'll have mass-murder on your hands, and with the same box of guns in a room of peaceful people, some will pick them up for a look, while the rest wouldn't give them a second thought.

Cornflower.....and what a sound example.

"Switzerland has the highest number of military assault rifles in private homes than any country in the world and 50 rounds are issued with every firearm. The government sponsors training with rifles and shooting in competitions for interested adolescents, both male and female and subsidises ammunition purchases.
http://www.swissrifles.com/shooting/

Again, according to the simplistic mantras of Australian Greens and the antis, Switzerland should be awash with blood, yet gun crime is rare.

Take the negative element out of the community, and whats the problem again?
I heard an old saying....."society is to blame" maybe we should be looking on how Switzerland does it then?

BLUE

Ah Cornflower, I was just waiting for you to bring up the Swiss
example. The American gun lobby do it all the time. So I'll tell
you how it works.

In Switzerland, all young men have to do what is called
Rekrutenschule. For 4.5 months you join the army. You learn to
handle a weapon, strip a weapon, clean a weapon, learn about
weapon's safety and are generally indoctrinated about that weapon
in every way. You also learn to respect that weapon and its ability
to cause damage. If you give them a hard time during that RS,
you do another 4.5 months, until you learn to shut your mouth.

Following that, every year you return for WK, for the first 8 years
for a month, then three weeks, then 10 days, until you are about
40. So the Swiss have a trained army force of half a million men
which they can activate at any time.

The 50 bullets issued are in a sealed can, if anyone opened a can,
it would be instant jail.

Swiss houses, under them, have a "Keller", which is thick concrete,
designed to protect citizens from nuclear attack. So weapons can
be stored fairly safely in these nuclear bunkers.

People with mental issues generally show up in military training,
they don't get to take guns home.

Now if all Australian youths went through that kind of training,
your example might be valid. That is however not the case.

Thanks for that, Yabby.
It does make a difference when you get the whole story....I think you mentioned once that your origins are Swiss?

Rawmusturd

Err, we are all 'writers' here on OLO, including you.

Let's see what you did say shall we? Cutnpasted direct from your post.

"I can just see them reach for their IPhone and press the stop raping my daughter button as some thug checks for her prostate gland with his third leg. I wonder if you can download an app for that?"

Here is the offending line:

"as some thug checks for her prostate gland with his third leg."

Let's break it down a little further, for your benefit:

"her prostate gland"

And now your response:

"I never said a sheila has a prostate, but anyway!"

English IS a tricky language, for sure.

Now for your claims to have been personally attacked:

"As to my experience with violence, I have no need to explain anything to a dip that can't read!"

No, you have no 'requirement' to explain, but since you wrote this, it might have been expected, since you alone raised it, that we would more readily understand your point if we could empathise with you having understood how you were assaulted:

"It's funny how people who have never experienced a violent attack on themselves would dictate to others how they might defend themselves."

Again, broken down for your easy comprehension:

"a violent attack on themselves"

Now, I could be quite wrong, but it sounds from your response, that, in fact, you have not "experienced a violent attack" but actually are living vicariously through your son's experience, for 'effect' on OLO.

So be it. continued....

...continued But I CAN understand being very upset if one of my children were to suffer a violent assault of any kind.

As I am when I hear of anyone being attacked, or gunned down by some dangerous boofhead with a gun, or stabbed, or glassed, or whatever.

There is no doubt that there are gun owners, in Australia, who are responsible people.

I happen to know one, with an official gun collection-guns deactivated, including a Luger and all sorts of small handguns, as well as a collection of 303s and target rifles, shotguns and every imaginable sort of gun used for war activities.

But this fellow would never be heard promoting the use of guns for killing others as some form of mindless self defence, at least, not outside of a war situation.

Personally, I question the wisdom of having these guns at the house,even secured in their official cupboards, inside an old bank safe, inside a secure shed, but it's his hobby not mine.

I even owned guns myself, as a child, but would not dream of owning any now, now I have grown up.

Neither would I allow my children to own any, or any knives beyond a Swiss army knife or Leatherman type of tool, if they had a use for one.

Cornflower,
Mexico's high rate of gun trauma is not linked to domestic gun ownership - which, as you point out, is strict. It is linked to organised crime and corruption and is part of the two-way illegal trade between the U.S. and Mexico of drugs and firearms.

http://mexidata.info/id869.html

More commentary from the USA on the gross denial from the right wing and gun-toters everywhere.

.........................

There are several "frames" that the mass media uses to explain away high-profile political shootings. The Cognitive Policy Works warns of these cookie-cutter approaches the media has and will use in explaining away the Tucson assault on democracy:

* The "Lone Shooter" Frame
Emphasis will be on individual actions, ignoring cultural patterns that influenced the event like the militant imagery of Tea Party leaders and Fox News personalities.

* The "Crazy Gunman" Frame
Effort will be made to reduce this complex event to the explanation that the shooter was insane, disregarding the anti-government sentiments that fueled him to action.

* The "Both Sides Equal" Frame
Media coverage will presume violent rhetoric is equal on the left and right, ignoring how leftist individuals target individual people (e.g. Bush hater), while right-wing individuals target groups (e.g. liberals, Jews). Also the scale of violent imagery is disproportionately on the right side.

* The "We're All Sorry" Frame
Spokespeople on the right who have fueled violent rhetoric (e.g. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh) will publicly condemn violent actions while continuing to promote negative views of entire classes of people. This behavior will not be present among liberals.

Haven't we had enough political violence in America egged on by the right wing to recognize what happened in Tucson on Saturday, regardless of the mental health diagnostic category of the shooter? Espousing the government as the enemy has been the key theme of all things Republican for many years now.

...................

Now, that sounds like the OLO posters who are in denial because they LURV guns and violence clearly forms a central element in how they deal with the world around them.

Will these goons get a posse together to lynch 'Mother Nature' for flooding Qld, before they offer her body as a sacrifice to 'Father God', I wonder?

See how the rhetoric of, frankly, stoneage ignorance, forms a part of our everyday language and shapes our thoughts and deeds?

Poirot, "Mexico's high rate of gun trauma is not linked to domestic gun ownership - which, as you point out, is strict. It is linked to organised crime and corruption and is part of the two-way illegal trade between the U.S. and Mexico of drugs and firearms."

Fine, then you realise that gun laws 'control' only honest, law-abiding folk. Now what about you make the next mental leap and realise that licensed gun owners in (say) Australia and NZ are not the sources of gun crime either. In Australia for example gun crime is almost without exception "Scum on Scum" as the police say, which translated means criminals and drugs. The remainder is police running out of options with people suffering from mental conditions. Yet suzeonline and others ask for more limits for law-abiding, licensed gun owners. That is why Howard's 'initiatives' didn't achieve anything meaningful or measurable as well, they were ill-targeted (or well targeted for Howard who won an election).

Yabby, Poirot,

The Swiss guvvy issued rounds might be checked regularly but what is to stop people loading the subsidised rounds into those assault rifles, which are the best in the world from all accounts.

There are many countries with low gun crime and Australia and NZ are examples. In fact NZ has very low gun crime without all of the bureaucracy and regulatory paraphernalia of Australia.

However you totally miss the point of the examples given, which question the notion of a 'gun culture' that causes killings. Secondly and most importantly, I have no interest in defending or challenging gun ownership at all, but I am asking that the diversion of 'gun control' regulation and other public order regulations be dropped and attention focussed instead on the study of violence and means to reduce it. That does not prevent the licensing of gun owners or whatever, but it does require that whatever action is taken is based on evidence not emotional rhetoric.

Measurable results and value for money is what I am demanding. I oppose populist policy and support evidence based policy. What about you?

Poirot, yes I have a Swiss background.

*Measurable results and value for money is what I am demanding*

Cornflower, the results are clearly measurable. In America, were
guns are everywhere, huge numbers of people get shot. Accidents,
crimes of passion, you name it. The problem with the gun is
that it is so easy to use, but the results are so deadly.

Even the most rational individual can become emotional and at those
times do silly things. With a gun its just too easy.

In Switzerland around 20% of people are rejected for army training,
as being unfit physically or mentally. The definition is that they
might cause harm to themselves or others, so few risks are taken.

Add the intensive training over many years and the provisions for
safe storage, there are no guns lying around Swiss houses, as in
America.

Personally I think that our present laws are not unreasonable and
seem to be working. I gather that in NSW these days, you need to
do a course in using firearms, before they grant you a license.
I think that is fair enough.

I subscribe to an American farming list and over there, the gun
culture is alive and well. One of the problems that they face,
is gungho youths driving around, sometimes taking pot shots at
their livestock. Luckily I don't face that problem and I don't really
want it.

Yabby,

No, you have not provided a measure for the effectiveness of gun control policies in reducing gun deaths at all.

You conveniently skate past the simple, incontestable fact that Switzerland has more guns and assault rifles in private homes than any country on Earth.

What practical differences are there between countries with low gun crime numbers - such as Switzerland, Australia and NZ - and the US with its so-called 'gun culture'?

Remember too that States of the US have gun laws. In passing, had the alleged offender in the Arizona killings been charged or even investigated by police for the offences they now admit they knew about (eg threats to people, aberrant behaviour) he would never have been able to obtain a gun from a legal source (but there was still the black market and other options like explosives).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

Again, I have no interest in win/lose or taking sides. There may be differences between the US and other countries that predispose or encourage its citizens towards violent resolution of differences, but the availability of legal firearms (cutlery, baseball bats, Venetian blind cord) doesn't appear to fit the bill. Fact is, 'mass' killers don't always use guns either. Obviously something must be wrong and there must be reasons - assuming the comparative stats are right.

Cornflower:

Do you know if the "defense" use of guns in the US outnumber criminal uses? It would be interesting to find out. I don't have the time to do it at present - but I'm just curious as to what the stats are?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/sydney-man-shot-by-home-raiders-during-break-in-in-sydneys-west/story-e6frf7l6-1225986765305

Silly man, should have had a baseball bat in his home, that would've foiled them!

I think I'll start writing that phone app now. You'll be able to download it for 99c in about a month. Should go a long way to solving this kind of problem; provided you can push the "Don't Shoot Me" button before they pull the trigger.

I wonder if the attackers gun was registered?

@TBC
What part about "checks for" her prostate gland don't you understand?

*You conveniently skate past the simple, incontestable fact that Switzerland has more guns and assault rifles in private homes than any country on Earth.*

I thought I explained it quite well, Cornflower, but perhaps you
don't quite realise what indoctrination by the Swiss Army, on how
to think of and treat that gun, actually entails. It is purely
a way for soldiers to fight their way back to their platoon, should
war break out. There are no tolerances. Anything else means
instant jail. There is no gun culture in Switzerland.

America is the land of loony tunes and Hollywood. Every second
dude wants to emulate Arnold Schwarzenegger. They watch this stuff
every day on TV. They also claim that owing weapons is their
right under the constitution.

Fact is, when people start to carry gunes, to protect themselves
from other people who might be carrying guns, all hell breaks loose.

Given that Australian youth copies alot of American culture, we watch
their tv shows etc, I would suggest that if guns were available
everywhere here, as there, we too would have a massive problem,
as our society takes on more of their habits.

You cannot compare other weapons with guns. They are not as
clinical or easy to use, your victim might respond too.

Clobbering somebody to death with a baseball bat, takes a bit of
doing. With guns it takes just a click, from a distance. Quite
different

http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2009/03/11/gun-deaths-measured-daily/

See above the % for Switzerland compared to the USA.

http://blogalwarning.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/30000-gun-deaths-per-year/

http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%20Updated%202009%20Section%201.pdf

"Compared to other industrialized countries, violence and firearm death rates in the United States are disproportionately high. Of the approximately 50 upper- and middle-income countries with
available data, an estimated 115,000 firearm deaths occur annually and the U.S. contributes about 30,000.11 Among industrialized nations, the U.S. firearm-related death rate is more than
twice that of the next highest country (See Figure 4). The firearm death rate for this period in the U.S. (14.24 per 100,000) is eight times the average rate of its economic counterparts (1.76).12
Global non-conflict related firearm deaths are estimated to be 196,000 to 229,000 in 2000.13 Public data are not available for 122 countries, representing more than three billion (54%) of the
world’s population, predominately in lower and lower middle-income countries. Estimates of firearm death for the countries without data range from 33,200 to 66,200."

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/214.abstract

Oh dear, "What part about "checks for" her prostate gland don't you understand?"

But there you go again!

What part of 'her prostate gland' don't you understand?

I can see that it's hard for you to grasp, but women DO NOT have them, simple as that.

So, why would your mythical drone (perhaps it's actually your doppelganger?) be 'checking' for one, unless, since you are his Creator, YOU actually believe that women do have them?

Ok I see I have to spell it out for you.

I'll try to write s l o w l y _ f o r _ y o u.
He's "checks for" her prostate gland """ t o _ s e e _ i f _ s h e ' s _ g o t _ o n e. """ Do you get it now?

In any case, it can be argued whether a woman has a prostate gland or better known as the Skene's gland. Both male and female have them at the embryonic stage, they then develop differently.

Happy now, can we move on, or do you wish to continue derailing the original conversation by arguing human anatomy?

Well, now you seem to understand there is no prostate in women, yes, we should move on.

You need to structure your sentences to reflect what is going on in your head.

I am glad that you understand, it will make your life a lot simpler.

Lol!
RawMustard you didn't make that clear in your original comment at all!

So you were suggesting a guy puts his finger in the anus of the woman to find out if she is really a male, by checking for a possible
prostate gland?

Charming.

I can't say what I wanted to really say or I'd be banned. But it goes a long the lines of "while he's F.........g er up the___________"

Get it now?

Are you people that stupid?
I think you need to get out in the "real" Australian world and get a clue, FFS!

Ah, now all is clear Rawmusturd.

Your modesty prevented you from saying what you normally do.

Fair enough.

Very understandable, considering.

Suzeonline, no, you have it wrong there I'm afraid.

Rawmusturd wrote, "some thug checks for her prostate gland with his third leg."

Now, I could be wrong, given Rawmusturds slipshod writing, but I think he might be a fan of the Rolf Harris song, Jake the Peg, the 'raunchy' version.

The man with three legs song.

Now, when Rolf sings it, it is an innocent silly song, albeit open to imagination, but I suspect when used by Rawmusturd, it refers clearly to the 'male appendage', not the doctors testing probing finger.

I think, in Rawmusturd parlance, he is referring to the 'back bum' rather than the 'front bum'.

Some chaps have difficulty understanding the different roles of these 'parts', and describe all within their limited framework of understanding, perhaps from suffering an 'institutional' experience at some time, where their humanity is removed from them, and replaced with a, well, for want of a better image, a bestial approach to life and living.

Time to put all behind us I think, now we know the misfortune that has befallen Rawmusturd.

It is probably not his fault, after all.

This discussion is beginning to look like an envelope without any address on it.

In an attempt to try and get back on topic - the following website may help:

http://usliberals.about.com/od/patriotactcivilrights/i/ProConGunLaws.htm

Pros and Cons of Gun Ownership & Use Laws for Individuals.
by D. White.

Yabby,

This thread was directed at policy in Australia, using the 'lost cause' of the US 'gun culture' as an example.

What I do understand is that like Switzerland and NZ it is exceptionally unusual for a private, licensed person in Australia or NZ to commit any offence with a gun. In fact the rifle and gun clubs made the boast for years that none of their members ever committed a firearm related offence.

Almost invariably any instance of gun crime involves criminals and drugs and it represents only the tip, a small part of an overall pattern of criminal behaviour and violence. [Other deaths are as stated earlier, from police use of their service pistols and mainly involving mentally ill persons.]

All should understand that gun control regulations only affect the law-abiding person who obtains a licence. The strong control lies in the licensing of the person, the rest are weak bureaucratic controls, superficially impressive but practically useless and a waste of police resources. However, no person with criminal intent will be stopped or even seriously impeded by the gun regulations.

After years, there is no evidence whatsoever that John Howard's redundant gun regulations (licensing was already in place), gun registry or gun buy-back produced any discernible positive result. That was a billion dollars plus that could have gone to another worthwhile purpose.

Weapons Branch and local station police are exasperated by having to maintain extensive computer records on ordinary citizens, being required to update a useless white elephant gun registry (criminals do not register their guns) and being required to conduct random inspections in the homes of respectable, law-abiding, licensed firearms owners. Police would prefer to be collaring criminals.

Yabby, I don't reckon you have a clue what is 'wrong' with US society that violence and criminal behaviour are so entrenched, but then again I don't know either, or even if the 'stats' support the stereotypes some peddle. What I do believe in however is policy based on facts and evidence and that is not what is being put forward here, not by a long shot.

Cornflower is worried that any tightened gun laws in this country will only target "...the homes of respectable, law-abiding, licensed firearms owners."

Well Cornflower, that may well be true, right up until the time that 'respectable' gun owner gets really upset by someone else and decides to reach for the quickest, most comfortable method he has for solving that problem.
At the end of the day, gun owners don't buy a gun because they are pacifists. They buy them to kill animals or to pretend to 'kill' targets.

How many times have we heard of guys who owned their gun deciding to shoot the girlfriend, wife and/or kids because she had left him or had an affair or similar reason?

Are you suggesting that the only gun owners who kill others are all mentally unbalanced?
That's the oldest murder defense in the book!

Wouldn't we then have secure mental health facilities holding a lot more 'mentally ill' murderers?

No, of course not.

There is no place for guns in private homes in Australia, only for the military, law enforcement or farming use.

We can't do much about criminals and the black market etc, but we can do something about the other unnecessary guns.

Otherwise, we WILL end up like the trigger happy USA.

*However, no person with criminal intent will be stopped or even seriously impeded by the gun regulations.*

I'd have to disagree there, Cornflower. You are correct in terms
of hardened criminals, not so for petty crime, which is commonly
committed by drug addicts, wanting another fix.

The latter rely on resources that are easily available to them.

I'd be rather suprised if the police supported the deregulation
of guns, for of course they would be the first casualties.

The nature of drugs today, has alot to do with violence etc.
When people use dope, they are quite placid, usually smiling,
its not a problem. Even on heroin they are quite placid, but will
do anything for another fix.

But these days there is alot more speed and particularly Ice around.
Speed makes them think that they are Tarzan and Ice fries their
brains to the point where it sometimes takes half a dozen security
guys to wrestle them down. I know of cases of nurses who have
quit, because they were sick of being attacked by patients on
drugs, in emergency wards.

Alcohol too, does its share of damage. Some turn violent on it,
some don't, it seems to vary.

The billion spent by Howard, removing half a million guns, is neither
here nor there. We spend over a hundred billion $ a year, just
on social welfare, the gun buyback was over 10 years ago.

The bloke in America who shot these people recently, had to stop
to reload after 33 bullets. A woman overpowered him. Even Americans
are realising that if such large magazines were not allowed, less
people might have been shot. Americans it seems, will simply take
even more pain, before they learn.

If there are few guns

It makes sense that it's harder

For crims to get them

It is simply not true that if there are fewer guns around the criminals will not get them:

- first, theft from safes of licensed owners is usually opportunist, coinciding with break-in for other purposes and the number of guns illegally obtained that way are few according to Australian crime statistics; and

- secondly, plenty of new, modern guns are available from the pub, imported from China and other sources, as shown by finds of guns in packing crates for OMGs for their drug businesses.

Yabby,

You wrongly suggest that I support 'deregulation'. That is a complete misrepresentation of what I have said.

At all levels of government in Australia we seem to have parliaments reduced to being factories for producing more and more laws as responses to campaigns by interest groups to embarrass individual politicians and government agencies, and to demands by the tabloid media for populist policy. The Greens especially churn out a relentless stream of militant pap simply to embarrass and get attention.

The Howard inspired 'gun controls' have not produced any reduction in gun crime which was already low in Australia and trending downwards. Demonstrably, Howard blew a cool billion of taxpayers' money for no appreciable return and there should be accountability for that.

The way ahead is to deny the populist, failed 'fixes' of political opportunists like the Greens and coordinate research into violence. The occasional "Scum on Scum" gun violence is only the tip of a very large iceberg of violence that extends beyond obvious criminal behaviour. Policy in Australia is often media driven and that needs a statesman to challenge it. Many of the public seem aware and are frustrated by the political games played for votes.

In short, apply the money to establishing causes and deriving solutions for a worthwhile goal where real results are possible. Policy based on evidence and no easy, superficial, knee-jerk 'law and order' campaigns, bikie laws and laws to duplicate existing laws.

suzeonline,
Ignorance, blaming, misrepresentation and hysteria add to the problem, not the solution. Didn't you listen to President Obama's memorial speech?

*The Howard inspired 'gun controls' have not produced any reduction in gun crime which was already low in Australia and trending downwards*

Cornflower, that is a wild claim, because you cannot predict the
future. More urbanisation of Australia, the increase in drugs etc,
could well have proven to show an increasing problem, if nothing
was done.

After Port Arthur, they had a good look at Australian gun laws and
there was clearly a problem. Some states like WA, already had
strict gun laws, others did not. So it made sense to tighten the
laws where required and act before a larger problem arose, not
after the event.

I don't think that the present gun laws are unreasonable.

*secondly, plenty of new, modern guns are available from the pub, imported from China and other sources*

Wow, certainly not from the pub where I go. If they are, then
clearly the police need to act pretty quickly to contain the
imports, rather then issue traffic fines and other trivia.

If Howard's action on guns, stopped a gun culture from developing
in Australia, then it achieved heaps. A billion $ is neither
here nor there in today's budgets. The money in fact went back
to Australian citizens. Govts have done worse, like giving billions
away, for no good reason.

Cornflower, have you ever been to the US and spent time in areas
where a gun culture dominates? I assure you, its not a pretty
picture.

You have more chance of dying from an accident in America than being shot by a gun. In fact gun deaths don't even rate in the top ten causes of death in the US of A. Must be a pretty terrible place, Yabby.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Yabby,

No, not a wild claim at all, supported by research,
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

You mentioned Port Arthur, where the offender Bryant, the "pathetic social misfit" (sentencing judge), a man with marginal IQ and a perceived grudge (treatment of father) and known to authorities and treating medical specialists for the better part of his life, obtained an illegal firearm that had been turned in to police in an amnesty previously. He also obtained petrol which he also used, but fortunately not in a crowded area (cf Brisbane's Whiskey Au go Go).

J W Howard's later 'initiatives' would have done nothing, zilch, to stop Bryant. However, had Howard and Labor not stripped mental health of assets and income, forcing mental patients back onto families without adequate supports in place, maybe authorities might have been able to intervene proactively regarding Bryant.

Typically, with an election in mind John Howard thought it better to make political capital out of stereotypes such as "gun culture" and the wasteful diversion of "gun control" rather than figure out what limitations in law, resources or services assisted Bryant. There should have been a public inquiry into Port Arthur, but Howard moved rapidly to prevent it.

You justified Howard's wasted billion dollars of taxpayers' money, saying it went back to Australians. Yes, it did and resulted in owners being able to replace their old clunker SKS, best used as a tomato stake, with a new Remington.

"If Howard's action on guns stopped a gun culture from developing in Australia"? Which 'gun culture' would that be, US one or Switzerland's? 'Gun culture' is a meaningless stereotype. Anyhow, since when was paying owners to replace old for new stopping a 'gun culture'?

Police say there is a trade in black market guns and cheap too for a slightly used pistol.

I am not opposed to licensing citizens to own guns. Such regulation does not stop criminals nor criminal acts but for honest, respectable, law-abiding people it is a strong control over who owns and uses guns. Otherwise, it is no better than the laws and penalties that already exist against killing people.

Cornflower:

I'm pleased to read that you're not totally against gun control laws.
Because as far as I understand it, no one is actually asking for a total ban on guns - what's being suggested is simply that we have laws that enforce responsibility on gun owners to ensure that they are properly trained by setting standards to ensure shooter and public safety. Luckily for us in this country there are laws that exist towards this end - and we don't have the "anything goes" attitude of the Americans. The following website may be of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Politics

I wonder if these anti gun people realise how easy it is to make one?
If I really had to, I could have a four shot pistol working in about 4 hours, it's that easy. Any handyman with a cordless drill can do it with their eyes shut. You don't even need gunpowder!

You can call for the removal of guns all you like, it won't stop the crim's and will only give some despot leader an easier task of taking your life and liberty from you. History doesn't lie!

What price do you people put on your liberty? I don't think you people have really thought about human life and liberty fully have you? You're probably the type that says it will never happen to me? Well history would disagree with you.

There was an excellent movie not long ago called Defiance. It stared Daniel Craig and was based on a true story about a Jewish group fleeing the Germans. Do you think those people thought it would happen to them? Do you think that could never happen again? Do you think Australia is beyond that happening? I bet they thought that of their country as well! The worlds history is littered with stories of people being terrorised by their governments or minority, wackjob groups. Are you that naive to think we're past all that? Do you think your government is capable of protecting you and your family?

Interesting Cornflower, that your evidence was compiled by a
woman associated with the International Coalition of Women in
hunting and shooting. It seems that previous mass shootings in
Australia, were simply ignored, also ignored was that we have
had none since.

All this from the very article that you quote. It also concedes
my point, that our gun culture could have grown without changes
to the gun laws.

Given that in the last 14 years, with more US TV, internet and all
the rest, our culture is becoming more like theirs in many ways,
why would gun culture be any different, if guns here were as
easily available as there?

Last time I checked, there were something like 65 million
handguns in the US. People commonly carry them, to protect
themselves from being shot by other people. Hardly a pleasant
scenario.

Our gun related homicide rate runs at one fifteenth of theirs,
on a per pop basis. The numbers clearly speak for themselves.

Guns at the time of the buyback, were paid at market value. A
crappy and old gun should have attracted a similar price.
If that did not happen, blame those valueing the guns.

Fact is, alot of automatics and semi automatics were handed in.
To get anything more then a single shot, you need some pretty
good reasons. People now have to store weapons in gun safes,
another good policy.

People like Bryant are on the streets, because there was a big
change in how we treated people with mental conditions. We don't
just lock them all up in institutions for decades any more,
like we used to. Many of these cases are just not black and
white enough, to do that. If the diagnosis is wrong, its a pretty
cruel thing to do. Besides, most of them are harmless.
So the new policy is considered more humane, but of course they
don't always take their pills etc.

Lexi said....

"Because as far as I understand it, no one is actually asking for a total ban on guns - what's being suggested is simply that we have laws that enforce responsibility on gun owners to ensure that they are properly trained by setting standards to ensure shooter and public safety.....and That says it all, don't you think.

Now Raw Mustard, I hope your not going to get into building bombs....cause I know you just love to fish:) Since the terrorist hand-book has been available to just about everybody, such talk can get you into a lot of trouble. One of the books you can buy on this, is the book.....uncle festers homemade explosives....which can be obtained in the US....funny that:) Yes, it seems the world is crawling with Hippocrates these days.

Anyway, we'll see what happens next, when the next human blames a machine for its problems in the world today. Maybe, someone will go around with a cordless drill and proceed to kill people with it. I guess if some other mechanical device is used incorrectly, we can all apply for lic for them as well. ( nail-gun ) ETC

Training, Education, DNA profiling, can and is the only way to go.

BLUE

Illegal imports

Are no cogent argument

Against fewer guns

How many murders

Are committed utilising

Home crafted firearms?

Shintaro.....lol....:) Just love your work;) Poetry in motion.

http://tinyurl.com/4q3nxw8

Swords and guns, and swords and guns......... Suze...yes Iam glad we are evolving:)

http://tinyurl.com/4zvo4sj

And does this not tell the stories of the human Trailways.

BLUE

Do we really want to be like America? Lets look at the facts.
In international terms, the US is an extremely violent sociey, with a homicide rate far exceeding that of any other industrialized nation. A single American city like Chicago, Houston, or Los Angeles records more murders in a typical year than does the whole of England, where even the police do not normally carry guns. Most other countries severely restrict private handgun ownership, but there are millions of handguns in the US - and weapons of this type are used in the thousands of murders that occur each year. According to Ian Robertson, "Sociology", in 1990, the American handgun homicide rate was 77 times the average rate for England, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, Israel, and Canada. Why then, does the US permit such a widespread access to handguns? One reason seems to be - the persistent belief that, since criminals have guns, law-abiding people need them for self-protection. Actually, according to Robertson - gun-owning households are much more likely to suffer fatalities from their own weapons than from those of outsiders. According to Robertson - recent surveys show that - only 2 percent of all slayings in gun-owning households were for self-protection; the remainder were suicides, homicides, or accidental deaths, almost all involving family members, friends, or acquaintances. A second reason for the proliferation of handguns, according to Robertson, seems to be the belief, deeply held by many Americans, that gun ownership is an individual right. For granting this liberty to the individual, American society pays the price in the deviance of those who abuse it.
I repeat, is this the kind of society we want in Australia?

What real difference

Between Oz and the US?

The right to bear arms

"""
Training, Education, DNA profiling, can and is the only way to go.
"""

I agree with the training and education, but I have a problem with DNA profiling, that's a bit lefty don't you think? Or do you mean for convicted crim's, nutcases? In which case I would then agree.

And I wasn't suggesting I would do such a thing, merely pointing out it's not hard to do. And yes there are sites that give detailed instructions on how to mass maim people. Isn't it interesting that countries with people that really want to do harm to others don't use guns but IED's

Fishing, me never :)

It's a fools path these anti gun people follow, they haven't really thought it through!

For every statistic they throw out there, we can throw one right back at them. It just boils down to they're right and we're wrong, typical lefty thinking and attitude. They scare me more than the crim's!

Yes....Raw mustard....even if the many can think at the same time, others just have to be awkward. Thanks for the DNA question, since its one of the greatest concerns what with the Australia card and all, however, If everyone wants peace of mind about what there follow human is thinking, DNA tells the story about us all, which no-one can hide from.

The DNA testing is window into how you are, and medical science can now see what some of us are capable of. Now concerning GUNS, this must be a tool we can use. BIG BROTHER is here:), and for those that fear still...its a welcoming thought that risky DNA people can be told they have some vol-anti community traits. Some people are un-a-ware that there's an unstable element with-in there structures.

I've had my DNA tested.....and fortunately, Iam just the garden variety:) but with-out getting too deep in the sciences, I feel strongly about, not only my validity, but of those around me.

BLUE

RAW.

"I agree with the training and education, but I have a problem with DNA profiling, that's a bit lefty don't you think? Or do you mean for convicted crim's, nutcases? In which case I would then agree.....

Sorry, I get ahead of myself at times. See, the future is going to know all about you, and this cave man maniacal behavior, will be seen as another stepping stone as the shaky cart of humans rolls along. Can we define what course on our next take on life will be?

"that's a bit lefty don't you think? There's always middle to be found, but you know human behavior;)

Jane Goodall had it just right I think:)

BLUE

*and will only give some despot leader an easier task of taking your life and liberty from you*

Hehe Rawmustard. Somehow I don't think that Julia Gillard is about
to come and take your life:) Your liberty, well given your imagination
and claims, I see a quite different scenario unfolding:

Rawmustard comes home unexpectantly and finds the wife in bed
with the milkman. Enraged, he pulls out his homemade in 4 hours
pistol and shoots the fellow in the prostate.

Rawmustard's wife is now in tears, pleading with him. "But darling,
who do you think paid for the new widescreen tv, and all those
mortgage repayments where we were battling, plus the new kitchen
and those dresses I bought"

Rawmustard is calming down now and realises that she has a valid
point, so he puts a blanket over the poor fellow and calls the
ambulance.

But its too late. It was nearly a homicide. Rawmustard is just not
a very good shot. Julia's policeforce are waiting, to take his
liberty for a few years.

Us OLO posters will of course pass the hat around and send
food parcels :)

.

Geeeez......lol....were all full of comedy to-night. The US has much to answer for since we are soooo addicted to what ever we are told.

NEXT!

BLUE

Yabby,

The research quoted was peer reviewed, then and since and confirmed.

Lexi,

As usual, I am asking for evidence-based policy and due diligence in administration, especially measurement of results obtained against what policy promised.

Like Yabby you have been around OLO a long time and you would realise or should, that there is no difference here to what I demand in respect of any public policy.

It is a fact that the three levels of government churn out more and more regulation every year and through ministerial delegation the public service bureaucrats do the same and more. Yet there is very little measurement of results obtained and any that is done avoids numbers and comparison with the original intent of the legislation and the public agency.

I repeat, no-one has been able to find any evidence whatsoever of positive outcomes from Howard's gun buy-back and laws, which impact only on law-abiding people who would have obtained a licence anyhow and are most unlikely to break the gun laws or any law.
On the other hand there is evidence that police are being hampered in their work through having to devote their scant resources to looking over the shoulders of respectable citizens, including making random 'raids' on their homes to conduct inspections, an invasion of privacy and civil rights that would never be contemplated for criminals.

You would have to be bonkers to prefer to have the solo police patrol that is available to most big suburbs out checking licensed gun owners, who can't get a licence anyhow if they have a criminal conviction and many of whom have twenty plus years as exemplary citizens in their areas.

Again, I don't mind either way, but I am not so gullible that I would be swayed by anything apart from evidence. I pay taxes and I want to see results, value for money and accountability, nothing less.

Wonderful, lets play/continue.....now! Where is the mouse?

This must be a window into your own reflection. WHO are you? and what are you doi=ng here?

Some say....this is a planet of peace.

So if your so smart.....why are you all killing it?

Go on! Answer the question.

BLUE

And your so smart.....LOL....please continue.....

Cornflower:

People in different walks of life may interpret the same phenomenon -
whether it is a military budget, gun-control policy, a religious doctrine, in very different ways. In other words, people tend to see the world from a viewpoint of subjectivity. Sociologists themselves can adopt varying perspectives on the same problem and can come to different and even contradictory conclusions as a result. Statisitics are open to interpretation, like anything else. If the world consisted simply of some self-evident reality that everyone perceived in exactly the same way, there might be no disagreement among observers. But the truth of the matter is that what we "see" in the world is not determined to what exists "out there." It's shaped by what our past experience has preapred us to see and by what we consciously or unconsciously WANT to see. Knowledge and belief about the world do not exist in a vacuum, they are social products whose content depends on the context in which they are produced. A fundamentalist preacher will tend to view pornography in one way; the owner of a strip club in another way. The same applies to guns - owners and victims will view things differently. Each will be inclined to perceive facts (stats) selectively and to interpret them accordingly. If you want stats - there's plenty around - from gun control organisational websites: http://guncontrol.org.au/2000/11/gun-killings-down-gun-control-success/ citing ABS stats, to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia which also cites ABS stats.

*The research quoted was peer reviewed, then and since and confirmed.*

Yes, Cornflower, I know that. You miss the point.

If another researcher with an agenda, decided to list all the
ways in which our culture has copied US culture in the last 14
years, they could create some impressive statistics. They
could also show that despite our changing culture, copying US
culture, one area where we have
not copied the US, is in their gun culture, as our laws are
quite different and were tightened up, when the proverbial writing
was on the wall.

The statistics would be impressive, the claims impressive and the
data could be peer reviewed for accuracy.

Fact is, the gun laws needed tightening, less guns in the community
means less threats with guns. Its not just criminals who use them.

So called law abiding citizens, in times of high emotion, can land
up doing silly things, when guns are right there, ready for them to
use. I myself was once threatened with shooting, by a misogynistic
boyfriend, who kept his girlfriend in line with threats of using
his gun collection. I offered to help her leave, if she ever
felt she needed assistance to get out of the situation. She left,
he started threatening me with his guns, the police moved in and
confiscated the lot. There was no good reason for him to own them
all the in the first place.

We have enough domestic violence as it is, without the need and
often tragic outcome of guns in the wrong hands, at the wrong time.

A great many people are aware of similar situations.That is why
Howard had so much support for his policy, apart from the gun
lobby of course, who are seemingly still spitting their dummy.

Yabby, are you sure you have not come across Rawmusturd in your past?

Your gun collection story sounded as if it might fit there.

I too had a 'gun experience' with two other fellows, many years ago, when a 'legal gun owner' pulled out an automatic type handgun and threatened us all with it, in a most disturbing manner.

We managed to escape but it was not an experience that our lax gun laws should be encouraging by allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry to own a gun, particularly a small handgun.

That people on OLO know how to get one in a pub, and presumably do nothing about ensuring the police are engaged to rid the local of gun runners, is also disturbing, if it is true in the first place.

I have no idea, but I would hope, that we do not regard 'collecting anthrax' or some other dastardly means-of-death, as a 'hobby' to be encouraged as a joyful activity to be engaged in by bogans, who may, or may not, as their mood swings dictate, let loose a horrible disease within the community, just because someone 'looked at them' (or their missus) in the boozer the wrong way.

The collection of data on 'anthrax' might well show that it is not a widespread danger to the community, and indeed there was a greater chance of being killed or maimed by a badly driven car, driven by a bogan of course, but that hardly legitimises 'anthrax collecting' as a justifiable hobby, does it?

Or does it?

For those who regard all 'regulation' as inherently evil, then no doubt they will now rush to start anthrax collecting as a hobby, and shoot any official who threatens their peaceful pursuits, just as those 'right to lifer' drones blow up and kill people in abortion clinics, under the second amendment umbrella, no doubt.

The old, 'every American males right to shoot the President' one.

It would be interesting to see the brain activity of 'gun collectors' when they see/hold a gun, would it not?

What might it be equivalent to?

The stories of being threatened are interesting because available law from God knows back when was always sufficient for dealing with threats, regardless of the source and tool.

Lexi,
Your link claimed a reduction in suicides from Howard's gun laws. That was disproved. Guns were never the preferred method of suicide, hanging is by far the most popular method, but for the small number who used a gun, where guns were unavailable they substituted another method. Gun Control Australia is yet another of the 'organisations' in Australia that doesn't give any particulars of its owners, source of funds, or membership. In fact it actively conceals all of those particulars while going about its lobbying, why is it so?

My point remains that policy must be based on evidence and there is nothing here except blind faith that would support Howard's gun laws. There is nothing controversial in what I am demanding and it is for the good of public policy and public administration generally. It is not lobbying for or against any particular position, just demanding a policy based on facts and evidence. The available evidence is however that Howard wasted a cool million dollars of taxpayers' money that could have been better spent elsewhere.

Lol Yabby and Deep Blue, I am loving the amusing gun scenarios you put forward! : )

Cornflower <"The stories of being threatened are interesting because available law from God knows back when was always sufficient for dealing with threats, regardless of the source and tool."

Gee Cornflower, I don't know about you, but when the choice of which 'threat' I would rather face in a dark street by a rabid person: gun, knife, baseball bat or star picket, I know which one I would be most scared of! At least you have a chance to run away from the ones that aren't guns.

Now, I am sorry I am being 'emotional' about the subject, but that is just a human trait I happen to have.

I really don't care about Howard's gun buy back at all- that is old history now. We can't change that. I am not asking for a buy back scheme again.

I am talking about now.
The less guns we have in this country, the better.
Ban the gun 'sports',and gun shops for non-essential purchase of guns

Cornflower:

The following website may possibly set the record straight for you:

http://msl.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/50/1/53
Firearm deaths in Australia after law reform

Suze:

I Totally agree with you - why doesn't logic prevail?

Thanks for that info Lexi.
That about settles the argument for me.

The civilian gun lovers amongst us should holster their weapons, throw away the ammo, and mount the guns on their walls as relics of the past.

Suzeonline

Can they keep the mullets, Ugg boots, tats and checked shirts though?

It would be a bit too harsh to ethnically-cleanse a cultural sub-group for being gun lovers, don't you think?

Yes, the info was most interesting.

I look forward to Cornflowers rebuttal from the National Rifle Association, RSL, League of Rights, KKK, Colt Owners Club, and where ever else there might be any pro killing-civilian material that purports to promote the inherent safety of guns, because, after all , 'guns don't kill people, people do' and other such silly 'wisdoms' that get trotted out to excuse the place of guns in our community.

(cont'd) I just found an article on CNN today re a gun 'show' being held in Tuscon, Arizona, a week after the mass shooting there!

(RSS:+Top+Stories)&utm_content=Google+International
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/15/arizona.gun.show/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_topstories+(RSS:+Top+Stories)&utm_content=Google+International

America never ceases to amaze me!

The quote of the week would have to be this one- coming from a shoot-em-up good ol' boy - a member of the American Gun Lobby.

"Heller argued that a well-armed society is a safer society. "Being armed is the natural state of man," he said."

It may well be his 'natural state', but thank goodness his kind are in a minority in this country at least.

It seems gun lovers

Are in the minority

Which is a Good Thing

A thought.

Since more guns will be bought in Tucson, to keep everyone safe from there being more guns in Tucson, I am just wondering why, given Arizonians are armed to the gunwales (literally so it seems) how come no one shot this 'lone gunman?

You'd think there would have been pocket pump-action shot guns, handbag guns, hip born guns, the occasional passing car with a RPG device, all sorts of guns in and around that crowd, yet none thought to 'defend' themsleves and those around them and shoot the bastard.

What are they all carrying guns for, for defence, when they don't even think to use them when under attack?

Hell, a shot in the back would have done him in, or isn't that sporting?

So much for 'guns keeping us safe', they didn't even have the wit to use them when they could, to try to prevent the extent of his rampage.

And what an excellent thought that was TBC!

We could go further and question how ALL the recent mass gun shootings in the USA managed to happen on such a scale if all the onlookers and their dogs should have been 'armed to the teeth', because "...Being armed is the natural state of man..." in a free democratic society
like the US of A.

Having such lax gun laws has certainly not decreased the number of gun-related deaths in a country that demands a 'right' to arm themselves to keep themselves safe.

Lexi,

Dr Chapman is a anti-gun advocate whose zeal surpasses his objectivity. Don Weatherburn, the head of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, disagreed with Chapman, saying that falls in armed robberies and abductions in NSW had more to do with the heroin drought and good policing than firearms legislation. Declines in the homicide rate began long before Howard's 'initiatives'.

Nationwide, the proportion of robberies involving weapons is the same as it was in 1996, while the proportion of abductions involving weapons is higher, the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics fiures reveal. They show a mixed result in firearms-related offences since the mid-1990s.

"I would need to see more convincing evidence than there is to be able to say that gun laws have had any effect," Dr Weatherburn said.
"There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards."

Think for yourself, if John Howard's buy-back and laws had worked there would be a noticeable drop in gun crime (and Howard would have fallen over his own feet getting to the media to claim a result), but no, the traditional low rate of gun crime in Australia has continued along with the tapering off recorded before Howard.

Of course it should be obvious that restrictive laws against legitimate ownership and use do nothing to stop gun crime because only law-abiding citizens will obey laws.

Policy must be based on evidence not on blind faith and prejudice, and it must have rigorous measures built in from the start to ensure the policy delivers the desired results.

Cornflower, the evidence is quite clear.

Gun thefts have dropped by two thirds for instance, since the
new laws.

Assault weapons as used by Martin Bryant, were also removed
from the community and can no longer be bought,as before.

Qld and Tassie used to have pretty slack gun laws. That made
it more difficult for sensible states like WA.

IIRC the gun byback was paid for by a 1% tax levy. So no funding
was taken from other sources.

The gun buyback and tightening up of gun laws, was supported by
far the majority of the Australian community. That is democracy
for you. Your gun lobby will just have to wear it, no matter how
many times its spat the dummy over this.

Yabby,

According to Australian Institute of Criminology, 6 in 10,000 guns used in crimes are stolen. The common sources of stolen guns are security services and police, not private individuals.

In fact it is believed that a whole shipment of guns for the NSW police went missing (were 'diverted') from the wharf.

Queensland
"2024 MR FOLEY ASKED THE MINISTER FOR POLICE, CORRECTIVE SERVICES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES (MR ROBERTS)?

With reference to handguns and knives used in crimes in Queensland for the last financial year?
(1) How many handguns were found to be owned by identifiable, registered gun owners?
(2) How many knives were used in crimes during the same period?

ANSWER:
Blah, blah, blah about the Bligh Government supports the national legislative framework and so on. Blah, blah blah, the Qld policy gun registry system needs to be upgraded (the long-suffering, under-resourced Weapons Branch is well behind in processing permits)[my addition in brackets] Blah, blah, blah, blah and more blah.

With specific reference to part (1) of the member’s question, I am advised it is not possible for the Queensland Police Service to provide all the information requested due to the limitations of the Service’s current computer Weapons Licensing System (WLS)."

...As a prominent licensed Dealer put it, since there are no figures available on how many privately owned handguns were found to be involved in crimes, it's pretty safe to assume that there were none.

Rather than bothering the boring old clay pigeon shooter with his 'under and over' scattergun, the OLO gun control experts should be concerning themselves about these fellows who were totally unaffected by Howard's laws (funny that),

"Bikies, Triads, Officials linked in Drug Smuggling Ring

One of the nation's biggest investigations into organised crime has exposed an international drug importation syndicate with links to the Comancheros outlaw bikie gang, Chinese triads and corrupt Australian officials.

Operation Hoffman, a landmark multi-agency investigation led by the Australian Crime Commission, has also revealed the deep links between drug importers and rogue Australian maritime workers......"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/30/2996666.htm

Yes Cornflower, we do have nasty criminals out there who do illegally own guns, and yet it is not these guys in the main, who are doing the mass shootings in the US is it?
No, the last mass shooting was done by a gun owned legally by the murderer.

And then the American Gun Lobby in that same city decide to have a 'gun show' a week later.

Yes indeed, that lot are normal, law abiding, caring citizens who also just happen to like killing real or imagined living things with guns!

I found this comment on Wikipedia today:
"Several massacres occurred in Australia leading up to firearms licensing laws in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacre, one of the deadliest lone wolf massacres in history. Most major gun massacres in Australia occurred before 1996."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

I have come to the conclusion though that no amount of real statistics or dead gun shot victims will change the minds of big boys who still like to play with loud toys.

suzeonline,

OK, you're on, which of those 'mass killings' would John Howard's gun laws have prevented?

If only one child is saved it is all worth it, huh?

What sets this suspected murder-suicide in Australia apart from the 'mass' killings you are concerned about? It must have escaped your attention because you didn't rush to print about it.

"A TEENAGER and her brother were stabbed before their house was set alight killing them, a sister and mother in an apparent murder-suicide.
The violent row that left four unrecognisable bodies among charred remains at the Heidelberg Heights house, in Melbourne's northeast, spiralled after 36-year-old mother Kylie Maher fought with her 18-year-old daughter, Sammantha Fowler, on Sunday afternoon."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/suspected-murder-suicide-in-melbourne-house-fire/story-e6frg6nf-1225985880097

Murder-suicide is at the extreme end of the violence scale and was for a long time an interest of the tabloid press, their relentless search for crimes to report and sensationalism of any they found encouraged the sort of hysteria seen in the reporting of media stereotyped 'mass' murders in present times. Here you go, some numbers,

"Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1999 Dec;20(4):323-7.
Murder-suicides involving children: a 29-year study.

Byard RW, Knight D, James RA, Gilbert J.

Forensic Science, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. byardr01@forensic.sa.gov.au
Abstract

Review was undertaken from February 1969 to January 1998 at the State forensic science center (Forensic Science) in Adelaide, South Australia, of all cases of murder-suicide involving children <16 years of age. A total of 13 separate cases were identified involving 30 victims, all of whom were related to the perpetrators. There were 7 male and 6 female perpetrators (age range, 23-41 years; average, 31 years) consisting of 6 mothers, 6 father/husbands, and 1 uncle/son-in-law. The 30 victims consisted of 11 daughters, 11 sons, 1 niece, 1 mother-in-law, and 6 wives of the assailants. The 23 children were aged from 10 months to 15 years (average, 6.0 years). The 6 mothers murdered 9 children and no spouses, with 3 child survivors. The 6 fathers murdered 13 children and 6 wives, with 1 child survivor."

What I am proposing is simple enough, that the government needs to set a goal of reducing violence, which covers the full range of violence and in all circumstances. I don't separate the boozed bashing on Saturday night from the glassing in the pub from the fiend who kills a number of people - there needs to be sufficient funding for full coordinated research and done by properly qualified researchers.

That is the only way to ensure that policy is advised by properly conducted research and evidence. It is an absolute waste of opportunity, time and money to do what Howard did, arrive at a cynical political solution that suited him and gave the impression that something was being done. Years later it is as obvious as it was then that his political fix was merely window dressing and a complete waste of taxpayers' money.

It is really silly of anyone to claim that more laws and restriction could stop 'mass' killings, especially where the sort of publicity and notoriety given to the Tucson offender is known to encourage copy cats. No ban is capable of removing all possible methods available to an evil, motivated offender.

Have there been any

Mass shootings in this country

Since Howard's gun laws?

Cornflower, I am not condoning all the domestic violence deaths by means other than guns that you suggested.

However, this thread is about, GUNS, mass shootings and gun ownership.

Can you name all the MASS murders that have occurred in this country from means other than guns?

I am suggesting that without readily available guns, people would not have the immediate means to kill multiple numbers of people at once.

And yes, if it saves even one life, it IS worth it.

Cornflower:

I get the distinct impression that no matter what evidence is presented to you - you'll find it unacceptable for one reason of another. Fair enough. Basically I think it all comes down to what you believe about guns and what kind of society you want to live in. See you on another thread.

Lexi.

Your personal attack on me as someone who will not be persuaded is most unfair and totally misrepresents my position: I am asking for policy based on evidence, not on emotional appeals and populism.

I also ask for robust and meaningful measures to be built into legislation to ensure the desired results are in fact obtained, to ensure that the administering agency isn't padding or extending its role and to test value for money. Again, that should be a given, not something to be avoided at all costs by decision-makers and bureaucrats.

John Howard blew a billion dollars that could have been expended on a worthwhile purpose and there are plenty of those. My examples of a good purpose would be mental health and national, co-ordinated, broad-ranging research into violence. Again, what is so wrong with those?

suzeonline,
So you cannot list 'mass' murders that would be prevented by John Howard's mountain of bureaucratic, redundant forms and paperwork (much hated by the police who would rather be catching crooks), or his 'buy-back' that resulted in new guns for old? No surprise there, but it did win him an election and he did appeal to your irrational fears.

suzeonline, "Can you name all the MASS murders that have occurred in this country from means other than guns?"
Sure, what about the Whiskey Au Go Go mass murder (petrol) in Brisbane on Thursday 8 March 1973 that killed 15 people? You didn't read your own link or earlier posts in this thread did you? Have you considered that you only see things that appeal to your prejudices?

That is why policy should be based on evidence not emotional rants.

Only evidence

Supporting gun ownership

Is acceptable

We have the evidence, Cornflower, but you continue to ignore it.

The US have around 300 million guns, 65 million of them pistols,
some with over 30 shot magazines, assault rifles and the rest.
They continue to shoot each other.

We don't.

The US has tens of thousands of shooting deaths, accidents,
suicides, as their gun culture continues.

We don't.

The billion $ that Howard spent was raised by a 1% tax levy,
specifically for that purpose. So he could not have spent it on
your other ingenious ideas. The public was clearly behind the
programme, no matter how many times you spit the dummy.

The evidence is all there for you.

Cornflower, I second Yabby's post above.

I doubt I am the most 'irrational' or 'emotional' person on this thread ... take a look at your own 'rants'.

At least the bulk of the Australian population believe the same as I do ... we never want the same gun regulations or trigger-happy lifestyle of the Americans.

Common sense and democracy will prevail, thank goodness.

Yabby

Horses' apples, that is not scientific 'proof' of anything, which is why policy must be evidence-based, as suggested.

In any event the US is irrelevant to Australia which has always had a low incidence of gun crime, the incidence of which was falling before Howard and continued to fall but without any appreciable effect from Howard's 'initiatives'.

The $billion Howard wasted came from taxpayers not from blue sky and yes, it could have been spent on more worthwhile purposes.

*Horses' apples, that is not scientific 'proof' of anything*

Cornflower, its proof enough for most sensible countries of the
world to restrict gun ownership and prevent their citizens from
walking around with pistols in their pocket.

Even a freedom loving publication as the Economist, concedes that
US gun laws are a disaster.

Its also clearly enough proof for most Australians, for most
supported the legislation at the time. But keep spitting your
dummy

Cornflower:

I regret that you viewed my last post as an "attack" on yourself. Dear me, It was not intended as such at all. I merely made an observation based on your own posts. I'm a firm believer that it is always best to argue in a logical manner. Sound reasoning will conquer unreasonable generalisations every time. However, from experience, I've learned that it's also best not to sound too dogmatic otherwise you may be deemed to be pig-headed and will subsequently be ignored - especially if statistics have been given backing the authenticity of a person's opinions - such as - Yabby's. Finally at all times it's best to remain calm. (No one likes or supports, an illogical or abusive debater - that I've also learned from experience).

Yabby,

Your offence is not accepted, rather it is you would be 'spitting the dummy' as you put it. Why you seem so determined to make a win/lose out of this, insisting that anyone who questions you or Howard is on the 'dark' side, goodness only knows. It is wrong and quite unnecessary.

With respect, you are unable to answer so many questions, for example why does Switzerland, which requires citizens to have automatic assault rifles and State supplied ammunition in the home have such low gun associated violence (and arguably less violence generally) than the US? Then there are other countries with high levels of gun ownership, but remarkably low gun crime.

Then we have the vexed problem of countries that have bans on private ownership of firearms but have excessive gun crime. Mexico was given as an example.

What is the case though is that in countries where gun crime is noticeable, it is only red flag indicating a high incidence of social problems, crime and violence generally, associated with drugs and drug running especially.

Now in view of all that and the lack of success of Howard's political fix, it seems very reasonable to suggest that violence warrants a holistic approach, a national program of coordinated, independent, professional research to isolate its causes, contributors and solutions.

You oppose research into violence and evidence-based policy, but why?

I see that the one

Mass shooter in Oz since 1996

Was in a gun club

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Monash_University_shootings

*You oppose research into violence and evidence-based policy, but why?*

Cornflower, where did I state that I oppose research into violence?
You are presuming things. But I think Suze clearly pointed out,
this was a thread about guns, so that is what I focussed on.

*for example why does Switzerland, which requires citizens to have automatic assault rifles and State supplied ammunition in the home have such low gun associated violence*

Cornflower, these are selected, trained military personell, who
hand their weapons back, when their military service ends. Now
its you comparing apples and oranges.

If you lived in a house, on one side was a trained SAS member,
on the other a rap singer who dealt in drugs, both had guns,
who would you trust?

I haven't even bothered to explain the difference in cultures.
People like Pericles, describe Switzerland as a boring place.
Why? Everything works, trains all run on time, everyone learns
a trade or profession, the place is full of bankers and rich people.
The Swiss are amongst the richest people on the planet. Politics
is boring, as everything happens by democratic vote. Yes, they
have a low crime rate too. Their tv is not dominated by American
cop shows, as people speak German, French or Italian. Its a
completely different world. I suggest that you go there one day,
on a holiday and see for yourself. The last time I was there,
the lakes looked so clear and blue, I wondered what the hell the
fish were going to eat.

America and Australia are far more similar, especially Australian
youth.

Before the gun buyback, I saw the dark side of guns here. Some
country people, who managed to get a farmer to give them a signature,
drunk on the back of utes, out to shoot whatever moved. Many of
those people simply don't have a need for guns. The buyback cleaned
up alot of them.

So my point is that the gun buyback and change in regulations was
a good thing and most Australians supported it

assault rifles and State supplied ammunition in the home ,
Cornflower,
they're swiss with a swiss mentality that's why.

the gun buyback and change in regulations was
a good thing .
yabby,
judging by Australians on the road would you also support a car buyback ? I don't have the exact figures but I'm pretty sure more people got killed by idiots on the road than desperate or deranged gun wielders. Also, the suicide rate in the bush due to economics is very high. Should we perhaps have an incompetent government buyback as well ?

Yabby,

You cast about as wildly and as unsuccessfully as anyone might for differences to explain apparent anomalies in gun associated crime between different countries.

At the end of the day numbers do matter and with the passage of years the simple, incontrovertible fact remains that there has been no noticeable improvement as a result of Howard's gun laws. The State Premiers Howard forced into going alone with his scheme told him that in 1996 and so did his own parliamentary colleagues. JWH had his eye on an election though.

For police the 'initiatives' brought bureaucratic redundancy in procedures and a mountain of paperwork for precious little (nil) results. To date the gun registries have not solved one crime, but like the hidebound ledgers of years past they have to be maintained anyhow. Overseas, the experience with gun registries confirms they are useless, white elephants.

As I have argued consistently, I don't mind governments spending my hard-earned taxes where evidence of results obtained - improvement and value for money - can be demonstrated. However, regardless of how anyone spins it that is not what the numbers say about Howard's gun buy-back and laws.

Whoops, second para, second sentence that should be "The State Premiers Howard forced into going along [not 'alone'] with his scheme.."

I tend to draft quickly between tasks otherwise I'd never get the time to contribute, so apologies too for the many typos and grammatical errors I don't correct.

*You cast about as wildly and as unsuccessfully as anyone might for differences to explain apparent anomalies in gun associated crime between different countries.*

So you claim, Cornflower. In this case it just so happens that
I know a great deal about the situation in Switzerland and why
things are as they are. I've also lived long enough in outback
Australia, to know about how the gun laws affected people right
here. You on the other hand, argue from a position of ignorance.
I can't help that.

The cost of gun registries is paid for by people who own guns, in
terms of fees for licences etc.

You, for whatever reason that you have not yet explained, clearly
have a bee in your bonnet about gun laws, unlike most Australians.
Most Australians are thankful, that despite rising drug use,
rising gangs, rising violent crimes in general, rising adoption of
US culture, our incidents with guns stay remarkably low.

Most of us think that is great news. Apart from the gun lobby of
course

Yabby,

Heh, heh, you only claim knowledge of the gun laws. Referring back to one of the anecdotes you tender in lieu of facts, would you care to explain for instance how Howard's gun buy-back "cleaned up" the whole lot of "country people" who in your "dark days" made a habit of getting drunk and "shooting off the back of utes"?

While you are at it you might care to explain why the laws at that time did not provide effective remedies? I can tell you straight that if such behaviour was seen in your lifetime and a complaint was made to police the offenders would have have had their firearms confiscated on the spot and they would been fronting a court.

Yabby, "The cost of gun registries is paid for by people who own guns, in terms of fees for licences etc."

So how does that justify the lack of results and the waste of trained police in weapons branches?

Yabby, "despite rising drug use, rising gangs, rising violent crimes in general, rising adoption of US culture, our incidents with guns stay remarkably low"

The numbers prove gun crime was always low and on a steady decline prior to and post Howard. In fact the criminals won, the public was disarmed, Howard's laws did not affect them and the police had more busywork to keep them off the street. Criminals do not apply for licences, buy their guns from reputable dealers, register their guns and they do carry them, regardless.

It is significant that Howard and other senior politicians of note and on both sides of the House, federal and State, were never keen on approving, funding or continuing the federal-state cooperative police teams that have been so effective from time to time in infiltrating organised crime and bringing prosecutions. So much for the concern about violence, drugs and crime. 'Gun control' is a diversion, attacking violence must be the goal.

Heh heh twists and turns

But no substitute for an

Honest argument

*Heh, heh, you only claim knowledge of the gun laws*

Nope Cornflower, I can claim a pretty good understanding of the
situation in Switzerland and why the Swiss argument, as parroted
out again and again by the gun lobby, is bollocks.

When the laws were tightened up, there were a whole lot of people
who decided that they wern't going to invest in a gun safe, then
another safe for bullets etc. They handed them in. We stopped
having assault rifles sold in places like Tasmania, another good
thing.

The weapons branch do indeed have a role to play. They have to
make the final decision, about who can have a gun, if it is really
required etc. You need a really good reason if you need a gun with
a 10 shot magazine. Records are checked on your background. All
done by the weapons branch. If guns are stolen, computer databases
can show if they are being smuggled in or were stolen. All valuable
police information. I am the first to knock Govt waste, but this
time you are targeting the wrong place.

*In fact the criminals won, the public was disarmed*

Rubbish. The criminals could no longer go to Tassie or Qld and
buy an assault rifle or pistol and smuggle it into WA. It was
simply too firgging easy before. If they are selling pistols
at your pub, I hope you have reported it and they are doing something
about it.

* and they do carry them, regardless.*

Yes they do and police keep raiding them, searching them and confiscating more guns. Its endless. Last year they destroyed
something like 120 meth labs in WA. I am sure that they found lots
of guns too. Next year there will no doubt be more meths labs, they
will shut them down and arrest those who run them.

That does not mean that Cornflower needs a pistol in her pocket
when she goes shopping at Coles, as she might do if she lived in
the US.

Yabby, "there were a whole lot of people who decided that they wern't going to invest in a gun safe, then another safe for bullets etc."

You are not familiar with the regulations and winging it. A safe is not required for ammunition, just a simple lockable container. It is unlikely that licensed gun owners would have sold their firearms over a cheap gun safe ($150) and a lockable box ($10). Most would have already made provision.

There always were restrictions on what could be imported into Australia. That is the effective and efficient way to control the firearms types. I think it was Keating who pointed that out in an interview at the time.

This was another gem, "If guns are stolen, computer databases
can show if they are being smuggled in or were stolen." Fair dinkum, where do you get this stuff? Let me lead you again:

-It is only law-abiding, licensed owners who register guns.

-If a gun is stolen from a licensed owner he will report it because the registry doesn't know it is stolen unless told. Criminals do not source their guns by such theft and I have already given you the stats proving that.

-The next bit will surprise you too: criminals smuggling guns or buying them do not fill out the forms and pay the fees to register the damn things. Equally criminals are hardly likely to register a stolen gun. They are criminals after all.

Yabby, "The criminals could no longer go to Tassie or Qld and buy an assault rifle or pistol and smuggle it into WA."

Your story but automatic firearms were banned in mainland Australia before Howard was born. Concealable firearms were restricted, subject to special approval. What WA criminal needed to travel to get a gun?

Yabby, "If they are selling pistols at your pub"

A police example, entertainment venues are awash with drugs and guns are part of that scene. It is interesting that some of the people who are so opposed to illegal guns don't accept that it is their drug money that is importing them.

*It is unlikely that licensed gun owners would have sold their firearms over a cheap gun safe ($150)*

Unlikely according to whom? At the time, my gun safe cost around
400$ here in WA. Fact is lots of people in the community had guns
in the back of cupboards. The buyback was an ideal time to get rid
of them. Those with semi automatics and automatics had to hand
them in and go back to a single shot.

The assault rifles that Bryant had, were legal in Tasmania at the
time. They are no more so.

Stolen guns are indeed used by criminals. What do you think happens
to them? Police find them all the time, when they stop people for
drugs or other offences.

You are not much of a sleuth, Cornflower. If a gun turns up in a raid,
it clearly comes from somewhere. If it was stolen from a legitimate
owner, the police can track the owner. If the number is unknown to
the police, perhaps it was smuggled in. Through interpol today,
police can track where that gun went.

*criminals smuggling guns or buying them do not fill out the forms and pay the fees to register the damn things. Equally criminals are hardly likely to register a stolen gun. They are criminals after all*

Er we know that, Cornflower. But where I live we actually have police
going around removing guns from criminals all the time. If you don't
have that where you live, then perhaps your police there arn't much
chop or corrupt. So fix it.

*What WA criminal needed to travel to get a gun?*

WA has always had strict gun laws. At the time of the buyback, there
was plenty of evidence that crinimals were sourcing their guns from
other states, which did not have the same. Keating was correct.
Keep them all from coming into the country.

*entertainment venues are awash with drugs and guns are part of that scene*

If you know that Cornflower, then perhaps you'd better get those
police of yours to go and remove those guns.

Yabby,

Entry level gun safes were never as dear as $400, but like your claim that a gun safe is also required for ammunition it is your anecdote, your story (but the regulations say different).

Similarly, referring to another of your anecdotal stories, you have yet to explain precisely why available law at the time couldn't deal with the "whole lot of 'country people'" who in your "dark days" made a habit of getting drunk and "shooting off the back of utes". Yet you would have us believe that Howard's buy-back "cleaned up a lot of them". How? As if a country cop wouldn't have snapped up all of their guns and bounced them into court, what a story.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4217&page=28

On our farm and the surrounding district there were never were problems like that (and a number plate to the police would have fixed it), more like town people dumping cats, letting their dogs loose at night to worry stock and tourists in hire campers filling the public toilets with their rubbish. I guess it takes all sorts and you can't blame the substantial majority who do the right thing by the few who will not, despite laws and penalties.

Years of research have failed to find any practical positive outcome from Howard's buy-back and regulations and it will stand as a monumental waste of public money. The regulations were poorly targeted and are are littered with weak, redundant controls, not surprising given the lack of a competent risk analysis. States like WA have been slow to develop computer systems (police probably have better things to do like chasing criminals). However, if Howard rocks your boat so be it I guess and it did win an election for him.

The public has a right to expect evidence-based policy, robust measurement of results proof that value for money is being obtained. That should apply to all legislation.

Reducing violence should be the goal, not political diversions like 'gun control'. The government should grasp the nettle by instituting a national study of violence, co-ordinated and conducted by properly trained professionals.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2011/01/18/ac.kids.guns.new.law.cnn?iref=allsearch

Cornflower, I watched this today, on CNN. Something like 5000
kids are injured or killed in the US, by guns in the home. Now
that fanatical gun lobby want to jail doctors who ask kids about
guns in the home. Gun fruitloops are seemingly never satisfied.
Its got to be bigger, longer, more dangerous. The Howard gun
buyback ended the discussion on guns here, we did not become another
US. Hooray to that.

If you bother to read my posts, you'll find that I was not even a
Howard fan. But I was overwhemingly for the gun buyback. All those
guns in homes are simply not required.

The gun cabinets that I am quoting, were the ones sold here, in this
town, by farm supplies stores. They were around the 375$ mark,
then you needed somewhere to lock up your bullets. Bogans with
guns would think twice, before paying that.

In the 10 years leading up to Port Arthur, 112 people were killed
in Australia in 11 mass shootings. There have been none since.

Removing all those automatics and semi automatics, clearly made
sense and the Australian public seemingly agrees with me.

Bad luck for you Cornflower :)

I'm no Howard fan

But he did the right thing in

Buying back the guns

Congrats Yabby, on the subject of gun ownership and control, I think you have made a very strong case :)

Thank you for explaining alot of things I didn't really know about regarding guns.

Now I can go on being an anti-gun advocate with much less 'emotional' ideas, and more informed ideas.

Shintaro, am loving your no-nonsense, minimalist style on OLO :)

Cheers,
Suze.

Yabby, "In the 10 years leading up to Port Arthur, 112 people were killed in Australia in 11 mass shootings. There have been none since."

We haven't had any Panthers in the back yard either.

But you are excluding for instance, multiple murders such as the more recent Melbourne gangland murders simply because all did not occur at once.

On the other hand arsonists murdered 170 people in Victoria just two years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7878106.stm

That and the examples given previously of murder-suicides involving families demonstrate the obvious limitations of blaming multiple killings on simplistic causes, for instance a "gun culture". Mass murder only takes an evil will and opportunity. Attempted risk avoidance through bans and restrictions doesn't work.

Government is always enthusiastic to accept a simplistic, convenient explanation rather than allow public inquiries and professional research, which can get out of hand. Howard moved smartly to block the public inquiry that should have been conducted into the Port Arthur slayings and ensured that buildings were quickly removed.

The limited research done overseas on multiple murderers has found multiple homicide isn't a recent development and offenders may share some shared characteristics. Further study is needed.

'Criminologist Fox speculates that the increasing popularity of workplace killings, and public shootings generally, may be partly due to decreasing economic security and increasing inequality. America increasingly rewards its winners with a disproportionate share of wealth and adoration, while treating its losers to a heaping helping of public shame.

“We ridicule them. We vote them off the island. We laugh at them on ‘American Idol,”’ Fox said.

But there has also been an erosion of community in America over the past half-century, and many scholars believe it has contributed to the rise in mass shootings.

“One would think that there’s some new component to alienation or isolation,” said Jeffrey S. Adler, a professor of history and criminology at the University of Florida.'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18249724/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

There is nothing to be lost and potentially a lot to be gained from funding nationally coordinated research into violence to advise future social policy.

Cornflower <"There is nothing to be lost and potentially a lot to be gained from funding nationally coordinated research into violence to advise future social policy."

I absolutely agree. However, I imagine there is already plenty of evidence and research from the police and government departments that violence happens in our society?

How much more 'research' do we actually need?

We could make a really good start in decreasing the violence, by reducing the number of unnecessary guns in the community though.

Suze:

There's an interesting study done by US criminologist Gary Kleck,
"Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America." The following website may be of interest:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/point-blank-summary.html
"Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field."

suzeonline, "I imagine there is already plenty of evidence and research from the police and government departments that violence happens in our society?"

Everybody knows there is violence although the amount might be poorly estimated by some. For example, in Australia criminologists wonder why people, especially women, have become so fearful and even restrict their activities and those of their children when crime rates have been falling.

"In Australia, studies have shown a substantial proportion of the population incorrectly believe crime rates are increasing when, in fact, they are stable or declining (Weatherburn & Indermaur 2004). Research has found that women, older people and more poorly educated people hold less accurate perceptions of actual crime rates than those who are male, younger and more highly educated (Indermaur & Roberts 2005)."
and
"The discrepancy between the crime rate and the public's perceived crime rate has been commonly attributed to the expansive media coverage of crime, especially violent and more sensationalised crime (Duffy et al. 2008)."
(Mis)perceptions of crime in Australia
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, July 2010

Also, understanding of the causes -the contributing factors- are not always known. That is why I posed the question of what is different between countries and jurisdictions that causes different amounts of crime. It has a bearing on social policy and planning. Better to know that (say) our social policies are breaking down our sense of belonging and creating feelings of isolation and alienation, in order that we can challenge and change those policies.

This is a call for proactivity to treat the causes, rather than the usual reactivity and knee-jerk populist fixes promoted by cynical, lazy, short-sighted politicians and a grubby, sensationalist media. It is easier to pass more laws where laws already exist than be seen to be challenging public perceptions, even if they are wrong.

*But you are excluding for instance, multiple murders such as the more recent Melbourne gangland murders simply because all did not occur at once.*

Cornflower, that was the whole idea of getting rid of automatics
and semi automatics. If somebody is going to go nuts with a gun,
with a single shot they will do a whole lot less damage.

We've had no mass shootings since.

Note that the Tucson gunman was overwhelmed, when his magazine
of 33 shots was empty and he had to reload. If he'd had a single
shot pistol, he would have done a whole lot less damage. Clearly
he had intentions of shooting more people, for he had more
ammunition, ready to reload.

They tried to ban those large magazines in the US, but the gun lobby
won. They tried to ban assault weapons, the gun lobby won.

So, let them shoot each other, see if I care. They clearly need
more pain to learn.

Just be glad that your kids and grandkids are going to school in
a school where kids are not bringing guns to school.

You can thank the change in thinking about guns in Australia, which
happened with the gun buyback and a change in laws, before we
became like America.

There is nothing to be gained from the broken record, 'We have had no mass killings since Howard'.

Plainly that inference is fallacious, it is a non-sequitur, a conclusion that cannot be logically drawn from the premises given. Its obvious flaw is demonstrated by the fact that the very killings that Howard made political capital out of would not have been prevented by his buy-back and laws. It is a matter of public record that Bryant was unlicensed and he bought an illegal gun for $5000 that had previously been surrendered to police. A Bryant could do that now from similar blackmarket sources.

As shown by recent events in Australia, examples being a mother who stabbed her two children and started a house fire that resulted in four deaths and arsonists in Victoria who were responsible for over 170 people dead along with massive losses of both farm and native animals, multiple killings are not explained so simply through the tools they use. Nor is prevention as simple as bans (laws, penalties and bans didn't stop Bryant and similarly they didn't prevent arsonists who kille over 170 people, or a mother who killed her children and herself).

Further, multiple killings go back through history, it is by no means a recent development that can be explained as easily as some with a secondary agenda (for example winning the next election) would have us believe (especially where they themselves might have been implicated in selling off [say] mental health facilities).

cont.,

contd.,

What is known is that we know little about what motivates multiple killers and for all we know the decisions made by Parliament (say) to increase population density or in town planning (high rise housing unit blocks with poor social amenity) could be adding to a problem. It is already known for example, that economic and family stresses restructuring that has been going on the country in recent decades has increased death through suicide.

This is a call for proactivity to treat the causes, rather than the usual reactivity and knee-jerk populist fixes promoted by cynical, lazy, short-sighted politicians and a grubby, sensationalist media. It is easier to pass more laws where laws already exist than be seen to be challenging public perceptions, even if they are wrong.

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a national, co-ordinated study of violence. It is overdue and crucial to advising social policy.

*We've had no mass shootings since.*

Ah Cornflower, that is what I actually wrote. And it happens to
be correct.

"Non sequitur" how?

No gun massacres followed

Howard's gun reforms

Yabby,

There have been multiple shootings and involving illegal guns since Howard. Examples,

2007, triple shooting in Melbourne's cbd
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/a-biker-a-strip-club-and-a-dead-hero/2007/06/18/1182019032653.html

Just considering university shootings, what about:

1999, La Trobe

2002, Monash

Of course Howard's wasted billion dollars of taxpayers' money didn't prevent multiple shootings. Howard prevented a public inquiry that could have been very embarrassing and turned the tragedy into an election winner.

The example of Martin Bryant remains relevant. Bryant, the "pathetic social misfit" (sentencing judge), a man with marginal IQ and a perceived grudge (treatment of father) and known to authorities and treating medical specialists for the better part of his life, acting illegally without a gun licence obtained an illegal firearm that had been turned in to police in an amnesty previously. He also obtained petrol which he also used, but fortunately not in a crowded area (cf Brisbane's Whiskey Au go Go).

J W Howard's later 'initiatives' would have done nothing, zilch, to stop Bryant. Multiple laws, restrictions, bans and penalties didn't stop Bryant. However, had Howard and Labor not stripped mental health of assets and income, forcing mental patients back onto families without adequate supports in place, maybe authorities might have been able to intervene proactively regarding Bryant.

The same is true today, just ask anyone who has tried to get real assistance - not just the kiss-off with a federal government brochure or a link to a website - for anyone suffering from a serious mental health condition and you will be told that there is absolutely nothing available. If the person suffering the condition is over 18, the message is don't bother.

Multiple killing, is not new or unusual and I have given many examples, including the 170 dead by arson in Victoria recently and family murder-suicides.

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a national, co-ordinated, professional study of violence. It is overdue and crucial to advising social policy.

Pew Forum has some interesting US information on this issue:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1858/gun-control-rights-division-demographics-party-ideology-religion-region-tea-party

That was a public opinion poll. More politics in lieu of proper research into the social problems that cause such drivers as social alienation and isolation. Do we know for example why some people see violence as the preferred means of resolving differences of opinion?

What about Australia where a student known to be suffering personal difficulties will inevitably fall through the cracks of a grossly inadequate, poorly directed and just plain broken help system? Fact is, politics is at the root of the problem and it is just as impossible to get the so-called helpers, counsellors and co-ordinators to eschew their territorial infighting to achieve improvement as it is to get cynical politicians to plan beyond the next poll.

What could government have banned to prevent arsonists killing over 170 people in Victoria recently, or the mother who stabbed her children and set fire to the house killing four?

As I said earlier, just ask anyone who has tried to get real assistance - not just the kiss-off with a federal government brochure or a link to a website - for anyone suffering from a serious mental health condition and you will be told that there is absolutely nothing available. If the person suffering the condition is over 18, the message is don't bother.

As for guns, most people killed by guns in Australia are shot by police and easily 80% of them are suffering from a mental condition at the time. The legal police automatic Smith & Wesson .40cal. solves the problem of lack of mental health resources,

"Most people shot dead by Victorian Police have been mentally ill, research has found.

The study of 48 police shootings found more than 87 per cent of victims had schizophrenia and other severe mental illnesses."
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-shootings-link-to-mentally-ill-20100513-v1rw.html

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a national, co-ordinated, professional study of violence. It is overdue and crucial to advising social policy.

Cornflower <"We have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a national, co-ordinated, professional study of violence. It is overdue and crucial to advising social policy."

I absolutely agree Cornflower.
We should start with tightening up the gun laws, and removing the bulk of them from ordinary citizens and making it almost impossible for anyone to obtain one, so that no mentally ill person can get their hands on a gun and go out and knock off multiple lives.

There is nothing to stop trigger-happy individuals who 'legally' own or go out to buy, a gun, one day becoming mentally ill is there?

We can't do a hell of a lot about matches or cigarette lighters (arsonists), or knives, or petrol, or cars, or any other potentially lethal 'weapon'.

We can, however, do something about the number of guns in our country, which after all, serve no useful purpose other than when used by military, police or farmers.

suzeonline and cornflower

I agree with cornflower that we need to pay attention to the myriad causes of violence and mental illness in our community, and I am not too sure anyone but scared politicians and uninterested 'public' would disagree.

However, if that were a serious enquiry, it would undo completely the current economic paradigm that causes so much angst, as Squeers likes to point out from time to time.

I also agree with suzeonline that the mere 'hankering' for ownership of lethal weapons is not a good enough excuse for vast numbers of Australian people holding them.

But I do not see the need to confuse the two hopes in this thread.

Just because no one wants to enquire into mental illness is no reason to continue allowing guns in the community.

Just because there are far too many guns around is no reason not to support a full scale enquiry into the dysfunctional nature of our economic and social model.

But, maybe part of the reason some people hanker for guns so much, is because they are mentally 'ill' and scared, to say nothing of being scarred, of, from and by, the economic and social system we have built?

I have just read the most entertaining, and pathetically sad, book about guns and America and I do suggest people try to read it, 'Deer hunting with Jesus':
http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/030733936X

I think Cornflower will revel in some of the interesting pro-gun 'facts' the author offers, but there are plenty of dark aspects to gun ownership raised therein too.

Howard's gun buy-back and gun laws had no effect on gun crime. It was a complete waste of taxpayers' money.

Just talking about crime, an interruption in the supply of heroin and better vehicle security are two of the probable causes for a dramatic fall in crime over the past ten years. This is an excerpt from an article by Dr Don Weatherburn, the Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research,

"What's happening to crime? Between 1975 and 2001, crime rates in Australia went through the roof. Burglary, vehicle theft, robbery, assault, sexual assault and fraud rose dramatically.

When the crime wave was at its peak, more than one in 10 NSW households had experienced some form of property crime in the past 12 months (break and enter, attempted break and enter or vehicle theft). More than one in 20 NSW residents aged 15 and over had been assaulted, sexually assaulted or robbed in the previous year.

In the past 10 years there has been a dramatic turnaround in crime.

Unarmed robbery and robberies with a firearm have fallen by 55 per cent, home burglary has fallen by 51 per cent, non-dwelling burglary has fallen by 65 per cent and vehicle thefts have fallen 61 per cent. Other theft offences, such as stealing from a vehicle, have also come down.

You won't read it in the tabloids but property crime in NSW is now at its lowest level in nearly 20 years.
....."

Research, evidence and numbers should advise and underpin policy, not emotional rhetoric.

Link for Don Weatherburn's article,

Half as many murders, and nobody knows why
Don Weatherburn
June 12, 2010

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/half-as-many-murders-and-nobody-knows-why-20100611-y3fo.html

Crime rates are lower

No gun massacres in Oz

Keep guns restricted

The New South Wales Greens misrepresent that legal gun ownership relates to firearm abuse, but legal firearms ownership is up while crime, including gun crime, is continuing to drop.

However the available evidence points to drugs being implicated in most crime, violence and ownership of illegal weapons.

That is interesting because the Greens are soft on drugs.

Cornflower

"the Greens are soft on drugs" you say, as if there was a Greens government anywhere in Australia and ignoring the fact that your 'hard on drugs' mates, who do run every government in the nation, have not 'solved' the problem of illegal drugs with their 1930s style prohibition laws.

If you were the least bit serious about this, you'd have your own thread calling for the end to widespread booze and gambling and getting up all those governments who were 'soft on booze' and 'soft on gambling', two elements of much crime in our society.

Heh, heh, the utter gall and hypocrisy of the Greens to be falsely blaming and scaremongering against the many thousands of respectable, law-abiding citizens who are licensed firearms owners, when the Greens themselves are soft on the drugs that are responsible for almost all crime, including gun crime in Australia.

Cornflower

Repeating your empty claims is no substitute for answering the questions.

No government in Australia is run by the Greens.

All states and territories are run by conservative ideologues, either in the ALP or Lib-Nat coalitions.

If there are 'gun problems' then they are the responsibility of those ALP-Coalition governments, all of whom are outbidding each other to be 'tough on drugs'.

So, how do you explain that?

And, how do you measure 'drug-crime' success rates, given that the current 'tough on drugs' paradigm has failed, and you reject the Greens approach?

First Johnny Howard

Now the Greens responsible

For no mass shootings

The Blue Cross,

You are right in that governments have been severe on individual users - a student with a reefer - while letting the big offenders off with a smack on the wrist.

Taking a recent example, after a police raid found more than 7kg of cannabis and $120,000 in cash his flat, this offender pleaded guilty to possessing and supplying a prohibited drug and dealing with the proceeds of crime.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/greens-mp-lee-rhiannon-stands-by-drug-charge-son/story-e6freuy9-1225910424145

For that the offender received a smack on the wrist - 15 months periodic detention. Periodic detention has been replaced with a system of community-based treatment and monitoring.

The New South Wales Greens misrepresent that legal gun ownership relates to firearm abuse, but legal firearms ownership is up while crime, including gun crime, is continuing to drop. However the available evidence points to drugs being implicated in most crime, violence and ownership of illegal weapons. Despite that, the NSW Greens have regularly demanded the decriminalisation of drug possession, even 'ice',

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/green-lees-never-met-ice-user/story-e6frf0a0-1111113149346

Soft on drugs and soft on criminals, but only too willing to become human headlines by sniping at the thousands of very respectable, law-abiding citizens, many ex-military, who legally compete in family recreations such as Service Match competitions at rifle ranges in NSW and pretending that they are responsible for the acts of drug dealers and organised crime.

What is needed is evidence-based policy and regular reporting to parliament of the effectiveness of policy initiatives against robust performance measures.

I remain pleased

That Aussies don't worship guns

Like Americans

Absolument! Shintaro.

From January's Time Magazine, here are some up to date stats on gun trauma in the U.S. These are for the time span of one year.

. More than 100,000 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides, accidents of by police.

. 31,224 people die from gun violence.

. 12,632 people are murdered.

. 3.067 children and teens die from gun violence. - 2,161 of those children and teens are murdered.

. 17,352 people kill themselves.

. 351 people are killed by police intervention.

You are of course quite correct, Poirot.

But methinks that Cornflower is like a dog with a bone on this
one and no matter what, she is not going to let go :)

Sometimes it pays to just let them happily chew away.

There is no correlation whatsoever between the legal ownership of firearms and gun associated crime in Australia. In fact the opposite seems to apply.

Historically, gun crime has always been very low in Australia and the trend was downwards before Howard's spend and after.

There is no correlation whosoever between the incidence of crime in any other country and Australia.

Crime in Australia is continuing to drop and dropped substantially after the trade in drugs was interrupted and with simple changes to make cars more thief proof.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/half-as-many-murders-and-nobody-knows-why-20100611-y3fo.html

In this and in all other areas of regulation, government should base policy on evidence and rigorously measure the results. It is a fact that Howard's buy-back and gun laws were a complete waste of taxpayers' money and a continuing waste of police resources.

Policy makers should be concentrating on reducing violence, which ought be advised by a coordinated, national study of violence by professionals with appropriate training and skills.

The politics of the Greens are laughable: soft on drugs and criminals while pretending that the thousands of respectable, licensed, firearms owners - farmers, international competitors in shooting events and the like - are responsible for gun crime.

Shorter Cornflower:

"I like playing with firearms

And I hate the Greens"

*In this and in all other areas of regulation, government should base policy on evidence*

We did that, Cornflower. We took one look at the Americans and their
problems with guns. We decided that we didn't want to land up
like them. That was a wise decision by the Australian public,
despite the constant bickering by a the gun lobby.

Those who need guns in Australia, can obtain them. Those who don't,
well they don't.

End of story.

But keep bickering, if it keeps you occupied and the rest of us
amused.

Yabby,

Yet you still cannot provide evidence of any reduction in gun associated crime from Howard's buy-back and gun laws. No surprising really because no-one else can either.

It was and remains the most cynical political stunt in the history of Australia and the largest single wastage of public money and all for zilch return.

I have no interest in taking sides. My concern as I have shown here and in other threads is for evidence-based policy and the measurement of outcomes to ensure value for money is obtained from public expenditure. As I said earlier, this is a call for proactivity to treat the causes, rather than the usual reactivity and knee-jerk populist fixes promoted by cynical, lazy, short-sighted politicians and a grubby, sensationalist media. It is easier to pass more laws where laws already exist than be seen to be challenging public perceptions, even if they are wrong.

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a national, co-ordinated study of violence. It is overdue and crucial to advising social policy.

Cornflower, the evidence has been presented, of the drop in mass
shootings in Australia. You eventually sctratched together a
a single one, compared to quite a few beforehand.

Luckily we always had strict gun laws, especially in WA. The
Howard laws tightend things up Australia wide, as it should be.

The evidence is clear Cornflower. Nobody wants another US disaster
here. Looks like we nipped it in the bud, before it became a problem.
That might not have been the case otherwise.

Of course you take sides. You are hardly unbiased on this.

Yabby, "the evidence has been presented, of the drop in mass
shootings in Australia."

What absolute rubbish, that is an absurd conclusion given the infrequency of the crime.

First you foolishly claim there have been no multiple killings with guns after Howard's expensive political stunt, then completely unabashed by immediately being proved wrong you arrive at that childishly naive, unsupportable conclusion.

I have no interest in taking sides. My concern as I have shown here and in other threads is for evidence-based policy and the measurement of outcomes to ensure value for money is obtained from public expenditure.

@Shintaro

Astute, entertaining and pertinent.

Much appreciated.

@Cornflower

>>I have no interest in taking sides.<<

Then please supply evidence of above claim. I was planning on giving you a Glock 17 9mm for Christmas - should I rethink?

J Parker, "..should I rethink?"

You should think beyond the tool, or being one, yes.

*First you foolishly claim there have been no multiple killings with guns after Howard's expensive political stunt*

Ah Cornflower, that came from a critic of your "gun lobby associates
claimed experts". I did not even bother to post the link. At the time
of his writing, there had indeed been no more mass shootings. But
since he wrote that, you found a solitary single one. Big deal lol.

I think his point was, that in the 10 years or so before that,
there had been something like 11

Yabby,

Statistics is not your long suit, unlike your bluster.

Ah Cornflower, I am surprisingly good at understanding the statistics
which matter.

I actually thought of you, when I read this:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/mum-shoots-kids-for-mouthy-talk-20110129-1a8z9.html

There you go, a well behaved citizen, hubby in the military, she
snaps and shoots the kids. Its what tends to happen, when people
live in a gun culture.

Its actually my understanding of neuroscience which convinces me
that my opinion is on the right track on this subject.

Just take a look at the domestic violence statistics. Nope its not
just lower class crims, bashing their partners.

Fact is, if there is a gun handy, emotions are high and turn to rage,
people don't think clearly and do silly things. Guns are just too
easy to use, so people use them, as US data shows.

We do actually have an Australian Institute for Criminology, with
a whole squad of research managers, research analysts and research
officers. It should be quite within their capability, to give you
the answers that you seek. Last time I checked, there were over
35 of them on the payroll. How many more do you want?

Yabby, "I am surprisingly good at understanding the statistics which matter."

Not statistics of the mathematical variety however.

Having failed to provide any evidence at all to back up your opinions, you now claim an "understanding of neuroscience".

Then you claim that the US 'gun culture' was responsible for a US mother killing her children.

Applying your logic the recent Australian case where a mother used a knife and house fire to kill four was attributable to a knife and matches culture and the arson murder in Victoria of 170+ people was caused by a matches culture. The Whiskey Au Go Go arson multiple murders in Brisbane? Matches or petrol culture, take your pick.

Criminologists in Australia
You need to read earlier post and refer to the link I gave.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4217&page=34
29 January 2011 4:53:12 PM

To repeat the obvious, it is a fact that Howard's buy-back and gun laws were a complete waste of taxpayers' money and a continuing waste of police resources. In this and in all other areas of regulation, government should base policy on evidence and rigorously measure the results.

Policy makers should be concentrating on reducing violence, which ought be advised by a coordinated, national study of violence by professionals with appropriate training and skills.

Yes indeed Cornflower, neuroscience is one of my hobbies, I have
mentioned it many times on OLO. You have buckleys of figuring
out human behaviour, if you have no understanding about the how
the mind works. And the how mind works, is what the brain does.

You could always start here:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/neurok.html

Your article made some valid points. Heroin, which was hugely
expensive, is less the drug of choice these days. Dope, Speed
or Ekkies seem to be the popular ones and they are cheap. So less
crime due to less heroin addiction makes sense.

But it sounds to me like the NSW bureaucrats would like some more
money to do their study.

It seems we have a Federal agency already funded for the job.
Perhaps you could write to them.

There is no need for NSW to reinvent the wheel.

Quite droll to observe

Cornflower's ambivalence

About this issue

JParker to Cornflower <" I was planning on giving you a Glock 17 9mm for Christmas - should I rethink?"

Lol! I must say I thought this thread had hit a brick wall ages ago.
Obviously I was wrong.

Shintaro and Yabby are still taking pot shots at Cornflower :)
I doubt if anything we say will change his mind really.

At the end of the day, the previous gun buyback scheme, and the current situation of gun ownership laws in this country seem to have kept USA-type gun deaths and 'shoot-em-up' lifestyles out of our country so far.
Imagine how much more good we could achieve if we got rid of ALL non-essential gun ownership?

I don't care if money was wasted (at least in your eyes) Cornflower, as long as we keep the vast number of average households from keeping guns in their houses.
They are far too easy to steal, and far too easy to just pick up and shoot someone if anything goes wrong- and ask questions later.

By then it is too late.

Gee, I think I am being emotional again... :)

suzeonline, "Gee, I think I am being emotional again"

I will agree if you add clueless, making it 'emotional and clueless'.

Because you obviously haven't even bothered to read the replies to your own thread. At least read this,

<Everybody knows there is violence although the amount might be poorly estimated by some. For example, in Australia criminologists wonder why people, especially women, have become so fearful and even restrict their activities and those of their children when crime rates have been falling.

"In Australia, studies have shown a substantial proportion of the population incorrectly believe crime rates are increasing when, in fact, they are stable or declining (Weatherburn & Indermaur 2004). Research has found that women, older people and more poorly educated people hold less accurate perceptions of actual crime rates than those who are male, younger and more highly educated (Indermaur & Roberts 2005)."
and
"The discrepancy between the crime rate and the public's perceived crime rate has been commonly attributed to the expansive media coverage of crime, especially violent and more sensationalised crime (Duffy et al. 2008)."
(Mis)perceptions of crime in Australia
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, July 2010>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4217&page=30

and this,

"There is no correlation whatsoever between the legal ownership of firearms and gun associated crime in Australia. In fact the opposite seems to apply.

Historically, gun crime has always been very low in Australia and the trend was downwards before Howard's spend and after.

There is no correlation whosoever between the incidence of crime in any other country and Australia.

Crime in Australia is continuing to drop and dropped substantially after the trade in drugs was interrupted and with simple changes to make cars more thief proof.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/half-as-many-murders-and-nobody-knows-why-20100611-y3fo.html

In this and in all other areas of regulation, government should base policy on evidence and rigorously measure the results. It is a fact that Howard's buy-back and gun laws were a complete waste of taxpayers' money and a continuing waste of police resources.>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4217&page=34

But no-one could change your mind once it is made up now could they? Whoops, back into that rut you go.

Cornflower <"But no-one could change your mind once it is made up now could they? Whoops, back into that rut you go."

Ditto...