This whole discussion strikes me as a bit surreal.

Some people seem to be responding to the idea of gun ownership as though we were trying to give guns out to everyone, or laying rows of them down on the street for anyone to take. Pardon me, but that is not the case. You misrepresent us, then argue against that strawman belief.

There is little rational reason to prohibit issuing licences for self-defense. Those licenses were not a problem before the 'Buyback', and they would not be now. The evidence is that they make little or no difference to overall stats of violence, and have saved many lives. There are many Australians murdered every year; were their lives not worth protecting? Some have even died under the eye of police cameras because the police knew they were in danger. If it was that provably serious why is that innocent person dead?

Note too that the Government prohibits non-lethal means for self-defense such as tasers, tear gas pistols and bulletproof vests. It is evident that in weighing whether to ban a thing, it is assumed that good, ordinary people have not the mental capacity to use them wisely. Is that true? Is it true for electricity, or chainsaws or aircraft? Why would it by true for arms?

Essentially, it is just moral posturing. By being 'against' these things, a person pays nothing, except by taking away from others , and gets an addictive belief in moral superiority as a reward. By creating a hate against these others, the taking is itself richly rewarding to the self-righteous advocate. That is why the media cheerfully print sexual slanders against shooters, denigrate them as uncultured or rednecks or violent or white males or lying to their wives or spouse beaters or alcohol abusers. Truth doesn't matter in that universe; just tar them all for 'the good of the community'.

Moral posturing. Its one of the nastiest human behaviours, but it is so very rewarding.

It's all well and good to dismiss arguments as moral posturing, but there's a bit of posturing on the other end of the argument as well - the salt of the earth type practical know-how sort, who knows that he or she can handle a gun, who is simply holding out against the hysterics of a wild society, determined to prevent them from their birthright.

That about right?... no, that wasn't constructive, but I couldn't help but return serve. The beauty of your argument is that you can just as easily apply it to anyone with any opinion about anything. How delightful.

You claim the anti-gun people concoct figures, while the anti-gun people say the same about the pro-gun lobby. We're probably not going to get anywhere citing these over and over, so I'll just point back and Bugsy's last post, with the grim acknowledgement that you're probably just waiting to find some other reports that suit your view.

I've pretty simply stated the logic behind my position, and I refute your logic that says guns won't harm society.
Put simply, I just don't think they're going to all end up in the hands of responsible people, and I don't see how you can argue against the point that more people will be shot if more guns are out there.

I'm not saying there isn't room for change - there's always room to review screening processes, and as I've said earlier, I don't have an issue with primary producers who require firearms to deal with pests.

I do have an issue with handgun ownership, and self defence as a justification for firearm ownership.

Mace, tasers, the things you mention - they're non fatal. Can you tell me why, for self defence reasons, these items aren't an acceptable replacement for a gun? Once your attacker is incapacitated, isn't that enough?

Why does the method of self defence have to be fatal, unless it is to counter another gun?

Worth a look
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiTWwcfhrNI

Quote.
Is Mise: "We don't need statistics to build a case for allowing firearms for self defence.
There exists a natural right to protect our lives and the lives of our families and others."

No offence, but that is among the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.
Unquote.

I see my trouble, I use English, and here was I thinking that 'ludicrous things' applied to the two sentences that you quoted.
My most insincere apologies.

Statistics have absolutely nothing to do with a natural right, and self defence against unlawful attack is a basic natural right, a right enjoyed by all creatures.

The wallaby ,in the clip above, would have been absolutely justified if it had killed the fox.
Bit hard for a little wallaby I'll grant. Had the fox succeeded he would possibly have got more confident and attacked a kangaroo who wouldn't have hesitated in killing. Ask anyone who has lost a good but incautious dog to an angry 'roo.

Think of the fox as a criminal preying on the weak.

Oh man, you get funnier every day Is Mise. I didn't know that wallabies have a natural right to own firearms and would be perfectly justified using them to defend themselves. You learn something new every day.

Combine that with the post describing the way the Australian government trained you to kill people 8 ways from Sunday, castrate feral pigs with your teeth and pick up chicks with swords and I would nominate your posts for the most bizarre and irrelevant this year. You wouldn't win of course, as nobody can beat the religious nutbags for bizarre.
Thanks for a good laugh man.

Bugsy,
The idea is to bowl at the wicket not at the batsman.

Now the topic is the Gun Buyback and if it was/was not a success, so:

Quote:
The Liberals loss in Victoria was the twentieth loss for Coalition parties, in State/Territory elections, since 1996. It is clear that State Coalitions have been “on the nose”, with many believing their decline can be traced back directly to the 1996 anti-gun laws.

When John Howard forced the States to accept his ill-conceived gun bans, he said, “I know many Australians will not agree with these laws, but you can show your contempt at the ballot box.” That was following the Australian Police Ministers Conference in
Canberra on May 10th 1996. At each post-1996 State election, Coalition Governments were voted out. Because Gun Laws are a State responsibility, under the Australian Constitution, voters showed their contempt at State level. The NSW Labor Government even increased its majority, but later retired the Police Minister Paul Whelan, who had been present at the fateful APMC meeting on May 10th, 1996.Efforts are being made, by both Peter Debnam ( NSW Liberal Leader) and Adrian Piccoli, (Nationals firearms spokesman) to come up with a policy statement in support of sports shooting and private ownership of firearms; they both addressed the AGM of Sydney Branch of Sporting Shooters Association along the lines of “…getting rid of Labor’s illogical and unreasonable gun laws…” It is well known how Queensland National Party membership dropped by 30% and funding dropped by 60%, after the 1996 gun laws. A similar result had also occurred in other States which had been held by Liberals. Queensland Senator Barnaby Joyce made the observation on ABC Radio that “The Nationals should never have given in on gun laws”. This was further supported during an interview (also on ABC Radio) when Russell Cooper (former Queensland Police Minister) confirmed that “…the Howard gun laws were so unpopular that the Nationals were wiped out…” Unquote.

from a quote on PrimerPocket

Ok, lets have a go at the wicket then shall we?

Politically it could be argued that the gun buyback has been less than popular for the coalition parties, not unexpected given their "traditional" voter base. However, when put into a historical perspective, the issue remained of how to remove firearms that were either unnecessary (ie currently unused) or becoming illegal, ie automatics, handguns etc. Now, has the result been a total failure for most people concerned?

If anything, the most concrete conclusion that can be made from this whole thing is that once firearms are distributed with the population, it is extremely difficult to recall them. That is, if the guns laws are relaxed to point where most people can get a handgun or other weapon for "self-defence" or whatever, and the gun death rate increases, you cannot then say "whoops, my mistake" and take them back. The damage is virtually irrevocable.

One thing any failure of the gun buyback cannot be used to argue for is an increase in the total number of firearms in a civilian population, which it seems is what many are trying to say. Logically, it just doesn't make sense.

In other words the logic goes like this: Measure A didn't work, so lets try the opposite of Measure A. Insanity.

But really, what isn't clear is the extent to which the buyback didn't work. What result has occurred to convince anyone that it didn't work overall? There are no statistics which support this idea, no matter what someone is quoted as saying in the newspaper.