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.