Continued.....

It all just doesn't fit, and the stats don't fit an objective argument. But I can understand a subjective argument for firearm ownership. I suspect that gun owners generally derive a great deal of pleasure out of owning guns. This is borne out by the rate of ownership of various weapons for each individual (eg. yourself, Is Mise). If it was a strictly objective utilitarian exercise, such as "self-defence" there wouldn't be much need to own more than one firearm at a time. And so, shooters like yourself feel "put upon" and victimised once the source of that pleasure is severely restricted. This I can understand, it is a similar situation with smoking. However, the laws are not there for your own personal inconvenience I am certain of that.

As for the situation with Dick's "bodyguards", they are not normal citizens or private contractors, they are Secret Service and are very likely to have had a great deal more training than most of our law enforcement officers. They are also an ally in a time of war and he is the second to the most powerful office on the globe. Comparing him and the U.S. Secret Service to "ordinary citizens" is ridiculous, as they are most certainly a very temporary situation.

What I have not seen yet is an outline of how it could have been handled better, what would have been more effective, or what could be more effective in the future after the lessons have been learned. All I have seen is a load of whinging.

Outline of how it could have been handled better.

The Federal Government and JW (I Hate Guns)Howard could have left the law as it was.
Canada is a glaring example of Registration and it's lack of any tangible benefits. Canada was trumpeted as the way to go by the anti-gun advocates.
They have been remarkably silent since the new Canadian Government has started to roll back the laws and do away with the registration of long arms.

As I said what rankles for most people is not to be trusted by one's own Government. How are we to know that Cheney's bodyguards were well trained? Does America always tell the truth?

However, if I were to buy a grazing property, not a big one just enough to be a primary producer, I could be trusted.

On the number of longarms owners there are no really reliable figures available but there have been many disused rifle ranges brought back into operation since 1996 and the demand is so high that Sport and Rec has decreed that they must be shared by various clubs.
Locally the pistol club has had to share its sacred ground with the Hunting & Target club and an extra 50 metre range has been built.

The shooting complex at Hilltop NSW is well under way and is NSW Govt. funded.
There is to be a new round of grants under the Ministerial Advisory Council on Shooting Clubs (MACOSC);this after a period of a couple of years when funds dried up. Previous to the dry up more than $4-million had been distributed to clubs in NSW. Then there is the opening up of Crown Land etc to hunting. Another positive is that some schools are encouraging target shooting as a sport for their senior pupils.

More and more people are using their Shooter's Licence for identity purposes, they are sometimes refused and asked for a Driver's Licence but when it's pointed out that a Shooter's Licence is much more secure etc they are usually accepted.

Now we are getting somewhere....

So the historical figures on numbers of longarms owners(a pretty serious class of firearms I'm sure) are not reliable, and so you are relying on the memberships of various shooters clubs for figures on ownership. But don't the present gun laws have a clause that says membership of a gun club contitutes a sufficient reason to own a firearm? That would make gun club membership pretty damn attractive to gun owners that were previously not members, and hence not actually counted. So what you are ACTUALLY counting is the number of gun club members that have joined since the new laws were enacted, presumably this is closer to the actual figure of gun ownership these days. But I still don't get where you got the figures for gun ownership during or just after WW2. And I also wonder (if ownership figures are unreliable) where reliable figures on the number of guns in circulation come from?

As far as I can see it, the gun clubs have actually benefitted from the new laws, since their membership has obviously increased because of them. By default, it is virtually required to be a member to own a gun if you are in an urban area. I have no problem with this, as it actually gives us a much better idea of how many legitimate gun owners there are rather than estimates.

As for the anti-American jibe, I don't think I will bother with that as it has been covered ad nauseum on this site. But I will say this, I'm pretty sure it doesn't "rankle" most gun owners, it just rankles those with a barrow to push.

Dear Bugsy,

I'm resisting the temptation to be sarcastic but it follows that if there was no issuance of licences for target shooting and there were no clubs prior to 1956 then the number of pistol shooters today is a vast increase since WW II.
Previous to this licences were only issued for defence. As a member of Sydney Pistol Club in 1959 I had the honour of representing NSW against the ACT. I was a State Representative Pistol Shooter, the distinction wasn't hard to attain as the only club in NSW we shot against the only club in the ACT. Still that's statistics for you ! !

The '50 cents worth of plastic' for storage of, what one presumes would be unlicenced semi-automatic firearms and ammunition, were in fact Government surplus EPIRB canisters; resistant to salt water etc etc. When these ran out 6 inch diametre poly pipe became the substitute of choice.

Sure the shooting sports have done well out of the various Governments attempting to buy back votes, but that's not the point.

The point is that so many felt betrayed by their Governments.

Its good to talk about your feelings more, let it all out. But what we see is that all of this is based on your (and many others I'm sure) feelings of betrayal.

Compare these two statements:

“When NSW was awash with guns, comparitively, our crime rate, as far as holdups went was far less. Home invasions weren't heard of.
During WW II when there were far more guns than cars the crime rate was low.”

“it follows that if there was no issuance of licences for target shooting and there were no clubs prior to 1956 then the number of pistol shooters today is a vast increase since WW II.”

Aren’t these statements contradictory? It seems to me that you have pulled the figures for gun ownership around WW II from somewhere approximating your rear end.

The 50 cents worth of plastic was of course for the minors licence, but one wonders how you could also laminate a rifle?.

Feeling betrayed is a natural reaction, and a subjective one. All the real arguments you have are subjective, as evidenced by your "moral imperative" reasoning. Statistics and figures are not your friend, especially if you just make them up.

As for your outline of how to handle it better: do nothing? Thats a good one.

Bugsy,

Play the game , old chap,we don't bowl bodyline around here.

NSW was awash with guns during WW II, nations at war usually are. There were guns everywhere, the armed forces had them as well as civilians still having their shotguns and rabbit rifles (semi-automatics included), civilians had mostly handed in their military rifles and military pistols. Civilian target rifles were our main source, at the time, of snipers' rifles.
Criminals fearing armed people didn't go in for holdups and home invasions, there was a good chance of getting shot.

The ref. to pistol clubs is to a time commencing 11 years after the war, so I don't see any contradiction.
I assume that you have come to grips with the fact that as there was only one pistol club in NSW in the 1950s and they are now all over the state there are now more pistol shooters and hence more pistols than there were in the past. I miscounted my old licences I had eight pistols. There is nothing unusual in having numerous pistols, there are a number of disciplines in which one may compete. Example,if one aspires to reaching Olympic standard in rapid fire, which requires a modern pistol, then the replica flintlock duelling pistol which one uses in historical events is unsuitable.

The minor's permit is, as I said, merely a minor illustration (no pun intended). There should be no need for the recipient to need to protect it, at the very least if it falls to pieces it ought to be replaced free of charge.

'...but one wonders how you could also laminate a rifle.".
The metal work is a bit difficult and the Americans had trouble during WW I with laminations in some rifle barrels. Laminated rifle woodwork has been in use for some 70 years (refined sarcasm based on the play on words that English allows us).