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