Bugsy, are you going with the cheap shots the whole way? It seems to me you dodge the real issues by falsely imputing idiotic ideas which are unrelated to Is Mise's real views.

Yes, we clearly have drugs here, and just as many guns in drug dealers hands as they want - and yet somehow we don't have all that eeeevil American history you blame for the American drug dealers having guns. Why do Australian drug dealers have so many guns if those are the causes?

Actually Chris, those reasons are why the Americans will never get rid of their firearms problems. If the drug dealers have so many weapons, as you say, does it not make sense to try limit the legal availability of those weapons? Advocacy of relaxing the lax gun laws will not make that problem go away.

Since we do not manufacture weapons and so have to import them, the major source of weapons would be legal importation, especially with a relaxing of the laws. Increase the demand and you will increase supply, simple. But what happens when those weapons are stolen and filter into the criminal community? More guns to the criminals.

If you are so so concerned about the drug dealers, why do you advocate greater access to weapons? Since we can't tattoo a big C on the foreheads of criminals, the end result of easier access for everyone would be easier access to guns for criminals as well.

Cheap shots, cheap shots. Who says I want to make weapons easier to get? I have lived under hard gun laws most of my life, here in Western Australia. If they just organised rationally instead of combined fantasists' wish-lists of attacks on good people, I wouldn't mind them being strictly enforced.

What I dislike is the general ignorance of those who like tighter gun laws, and their nasty assumptions about decent people who own guns. In general they believe themselves better people BECAUSE they speak against gun owners. The political system results in moral auctioneering from ignorance and disregard of facts. Thats what results in the kind of laws we have.

Hey, I feel for ya Chris, I really do. You're not a criminal. But I guess it's your choice to own weapons and have a legitimate reason for doing so. If someone else makes assumptions about you because of that it's not your problem, it's theirs.

Personally, I make no assumptions about firearms owners, many people own them for different reasons, most of them legitimate. As a sporting shooter I would suggest that it would be a much more productive use of your time lobbying for changes that would actually make a real difference to gun crime in this country instead of having a big whinge about how ostracised you feel because of your lifestyle choice. Greater punishment for gun crime offenders would be a start, I believe the Shooters Party in NSW even advocates that.

Bugsy et al
Have a look at Gun Facts
http://www.gunfacts.info/
and refute away to your heart's content.

There are two things that won't change
1. The gun buy back was a failure and didn't achieve any of its objectives.

2. Allowing people to have the means of self defence cuts crime and saves lives.

And why anyone would want citizens not to be able to protect themselves or their loved ones is beyond me.

Perhaps they get their 'jollies' reading about the murder of the innocent or of rapes or just plain old bashings.

It seems to me that the "overblown rhetoric" that chris was complaining about is not confined to the gun-restriction camp. Any propoganda from the USA that supports gun ownership, may or may not be correct, but one thing seems to be for sure, what applies to America usually stays with America. Is Mise has already pointed out problems that America has that we apparently dont have, that contribute to their higher crime rate. What seems to be the general trend though is that the pro-gun lobby will borrow from anywhere to support their case. Any pro-restriction arguments need not apply to them because they are obviously false in their philosophy. But thats OK, I understand, gun ownership is an emotional experience on a fundamental level. Chris's analogy witrh wedding photos highlighted this deep attachment with weapons that gun owners have. I also understand the idea behind protecting the weak, if not innocent, of our society. This is also a fundamental emotional idea. But when presented with the reality of what happens when these unfortunates are attacked, the gun ownership arguments do not add up in the culture that we aspire to. Honestly, Is Mise, you argue that old and "weak' people should have better access to "self-defence" firearms, but how many of them would, given the chance, actaully take up that option? In Australia, how many ordinary citizens compared to citizens with possible criminal intent do you think would be attracted to the prospect of gun ownership?

I would also suggest that 60 years ago, many people owned guns and shot various animals for survival purposes. Those practices are superfluous today for the vast majority of our citizens. Should not our laws reflect this necessity or not? Should we continue to argue, as the US does, about our "freedom" to carry weapons? The very same weapons that our attackers may use against us? The prevailing idea about it all is one of attitude. I take heart in the fact that your attitude is not the majority view. The prevailing attitude is that guns are not necessary for civilised society.