Bugsy,
Taking a gentle poke at someone is not an attack, in fact, in the appropriate circumstances it can be quite pleasant.

There has been one positive from the GGBB, shooters now have a positive means of identification, their Firearms Licence, which being issued by the Commissioner of Police has much more standing and authority that a Driver's Licence. It shows that they are a person in whom the Commissioner and the Government have trust.

I use mine whenever I need to do so. Once when I needed to show a policeman my drivers' licence and I couldn't find it he accepted my shoters licence as positive proof of identity. His words were "That'll do me, Sir.". It is, of course, linked to the drivers licence via the police computer, but he didn't bother.

On the few occassions when it was initially refused, such as once to collect registered mail, I simply gave the option of recognising it as valid ID or explaining to the Commissioner why they would not accept a photo card issued under his authority, they accepted.

Having a Firearms License shows that one is a responsible person, held in due esteem by both Government and Police and that one can be trusted in ways that the ordinary members of society are not.
It even works overseas, especially in countries that have repressive firearms laws.

So you weren't really trying to actually make a point with that quote, you were just pleasantly poking the Coalition? Nice one.

Ah! Bugsy, I don't know what we're going to do with you; I've read some of your posts on other subjects so you're not really as thick as you make out. Are you trying to lead us all into a false sense of security before you unleash a reply of devestating accuraccy and logic?

In the meantime think on this, the Government brought in Aprehended Violence Orders (AVOs) which are issued to protect those who seek them from a person(s) whom it is thought may do them harm.
Any firearms or other weapons that the person named in the AVO possesses are confiscated because the Government is aprehensive that the named person may attempt to kill the person seeking protection.

Is it not a fair qestion to ask why the potential victim is not allowed to have a firearm for protection, especially when the Government is so apprehensive of violence to them?
They ought at least be given 24/7 police protection, after all they are perceived to be at risk of death.

Actually I don’t think that giving a battered wife the means to kill her husband is the best solution or even the most morally defensible one, no matter what you think the Catholic Church says about it.

I think now may be a good time to restate the case on gun crime, for the sake of clarity. The equation I am arguing for is not less guns=less crime, more guns=more crime, or even against less guns=more crime or more guns=less crime. In fact each of these posits assert a either a direct or inverse relationship with only 2 variables. This is actually a bit silly as we all know the relationship is a bit more complex than this, especially since it removes criminals from the relationship.

I would like to present a simple equation that I think is closer to reality:

Gun crime= criminals X guns.

Simple enough, but it does help explain seemingly anomalous examples like Switzerland (many guns, low crime), Japan (few guns, low crime), Washington, (many guns, harsh gun laws, high crime) etc.

It should be increasing obvious by now that if you reduce one of the variables on the right hand side of the equation, you can reduce the one on the left (gun crime). Notice I am not talking about crime generally, but it stands to reason that if you reduce the number of criminals, then you would reduce the amount of crime generally and so that relationship is actually independent of gun availability.

The question should really be asked, what are the factors that countries like Switzerland and Japan have in common that produce citizens with less criminal behaviour? It’s likely to be cultural rather than legal. Are they considered diverse multicultural countries or do they have a strong national identity and history that embodies values like duty and responsibility or individualism? Are they rich or poor countries? Do they have high education standards?

cont'd....

Now lets look at Washington, with a high crime rate, how is it similar or different to these other countries? Recently released news that it has the worst literacy rate in the USA (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/183792/more_than_onethird_of_washington_dc.html) suggests why the crime rate may be high, and gun availability is actually still quite high also by virtue of being quite accessible to states with lax firearms laws, no matter what the city’s own laws have to say about it.

Now, in regions like Washington, would it be desirable to increase or decrease gun availability, considering that increasing that variable will likely increase the ‘Gun crime’ variable as more criminals have access to those weapons as well?

For Australia though, since our crime rates are moderate to low, it makes sense to keep gun availability reasonably low, or at least in the hands of trained shooters or people with legitimate reasons to own them. The current laws allow for that and attempt to ensure that these firearms are registered and in the hands of people with memberships to legitimate organizations that provide training and support for those gun owners. I have absolutely no problem with this. However I do believe that ‘self defence’ is not a legitimate reason for firearm ownership because it is too open for abuse (ie nearly anyone could get one) and would probably not be easy to legislate that owners are required to be a part of proper clubs and get the required training etc. Severely restricting the sales of automatic assault weapons and concealable handguns in a country like Australia I believe would help to reduce the amount of gun crime and severity of the incidents when it happens, but maybe not overall crime. Because Australia is not like Switzerland and probably never will be. Successful or not, the gun buyback attempted to do this, and I think was worth a try. But for overall crime we need to reduce the number of criminals and so the best strategy would be to address both issues (ie criminals & guns) simultaneously. Anything else would be just pissing in the wind.

And just an addendum...

To be very clear on where I stand, I subscribe to a Machiavellian principle in that if you treat people as fundamentally wicked and make your laws and plan accordingly, then you will never be disappointed. Ironically he got into some trouble with the Catholic Church, which thought that people are fundamentally good and should be treated as such (at least officially).

I notice in many of your posts, Is Mise, that you want gun owners to be treated as fundamentally good and responsible, however not all gun owners are like you. I wish they were.