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?