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.