Yabby,

Your offence is not accepted, rather it is you would be 'spitting the dummy' as you put it. Why you seem so determined to make a win/lose out of this, insisting that anyone who questions you or Howard is on the 'dark' side, goodness only knows. It is wrong and quite unnecessary.

With respect, you are unable to answer so many questions, for example why does Switzerland, which requires citizens to have automatic assault rifles and State supplied ammunition in the home have such low gun associated violence (and arguably less violence generally) than the US? Then there are other countries with high levels of gun ownership, but remarkably low gun crime.

Then we have the vexed problem of countries that have bans on private ownership of firearms but have excessive gun crime. Mexico was given as an example.

What is the case though is that in countries where gun crime is noticeable, it is only red flag indicating a high incidence of social problems, crime and violence generally, associated with drugs and drug running especially.

Now in view of all that and the lack of success of Howard's political fix, it seems very reasonable to suggest that violence warrants a holistic approach, a national program of coordinated, independent, professional research to isolate its causes, contributors and solutions.

You oppose research into violence and evidence-based policy, but why?

I see that the one

Mass shooter in Oz since 1996

Was in a gun club

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Monash_University_shootings

*You oppose research into violence and evidence-based policy, but why?*

Cornflower, where did I state that I oppose research into violence?
You are presuming things. But I think Suze clearly pointed out,
this was a thread about guns, so that is what I focussed on.

*for example why does Switzerland, which requires citizens to have automatic assault rifles and State supplied ammunition in the home have such low gun associated violence*

Cornflower, these are selected, trained military personell, who
hand their weapons back, when their military service ends. Now
its you comparing apples and oranges.

If you lived in a house, on one side was a trained SAS member,
on the other a rap singer who dealt in drugs, both had guns,
who would you trust?

I haven't even bothered to explain the difference in cultures.
People like Pericles, describe Switzerland as a boring place.
Why? Everything works, trains all run on time, everyone learns
a trade or profession, the place is full of bankers and rich people.
The Swiss are amongst the richest people on the planet. Politics
is boring, as everything happens by democratic vote. Yes, they
have a low crime rate too. Their tv is not dominated by American
cop shows, as people speak German, French or Italian. Its a
completely different world. I suggest that you go there one day,
on a holiday and see for yourself. The last time I was there,
the lakes looked so clear and blue, I wondered what the hell the
fish were going to eat.

America and Australia are far more similar, especially Australian
youth.

Before the gun buyback, I saw the dark side of guns here. Some
country people, who managed to get a farmer to give them a signature,
drunk on the back of utes, out to shoot whatever moved. Many of
those people simply don't have a need for guns. The buyback cleaned
up alot of them.

So my point is that the gun buyback and change in regulations was
a good thing and most Australians supported it

assault rifles and State supplied ammunition in the home ,
Cornflower,
they're swiss with a swiss mentality that's why.

the gun buyback and change in regulations was
a good thing .
yabby,
judging by Australians on the road would you also support a car buyback ? I don't have the exact figures but I'm pretty sure more people got killed by idiots on the road than desperate or deranged gun wielders. Also, the suicide rate in the bush due to economics is very high. Should we perhaps have an incompetent government buyback as well ?

Yabby,

You cast about as wildly and as unsuccessfully as anyone might for differences to explain apparent anomalies in gun associated crime between different countries.

At the end of the day numbers do matter and with the passage of years the simple, incontrovertible fact remains that there has been no noticeable improvement as a result of Howard's gun laws. The State Premiers Howard forced into going alone with his scheme told him that in 1996 and so did his own parliamentary colleagues. JWH had his eye on an election though.

For police the 'initiatives' brought bureaucratic redundancy in procedures and a mountain of paperwork for precious little (nil) results. To date the gun registries have not solved one crime, but like the hidebound ledgers of years past they have to be maintained anyhow. Overseas, the experience with gun registries confirms they are useless, white elephants.

As I have argued consistently, I don't mind governments spending my hard-earned taxes where evidence of results obtained - improvement and value for money - can be demonstrated. However, regardless of how anyone spins it that is not what the numbers say about Howard's gun buy-back and laws.

Whoops, second para, second sentence that should be "The State Premiers Howard forced into going along [not 'alone'] with his scheme.."

I tend to draft quickly between tasks otherwise I'd never get the time to contribute, so apologies too for the many typos and grammatical errors I don't correct.