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).