Hey! all I did was ask the question.
OK so it's a bad thing to enable people to have the means of self defence.

But if they can't defend themselves who is going to do it for them?

The police?

Is Mise, I guess the answer to that is that no-one really defends us. We need to not put ourselves in danger, as much as is reasonable (given that you still have to live your life). The police arent for protection - their for rounding up the perpetrators. Oh, and I think they are supposed to be a deterrant (supposed to).

But I just dont see the self defence argument for guns. Not in the home or on the street (or any where else). Yes this will leave people vunerable, but we are better off trying to build a society that respects the individual and doesnt create a need for crime (wow, just re-read and must be feeling quite deep today!).

That said, I did see a good sign once "This house is patrolled by Winchester security three nights a week - you guess which ones"

The problem, Is Mise, is that guns aren't just a means for self defence - pretending that that is all they are, isn't being up front about the situation. If they were, then all would be bright and rosy.

Guns are a device designed to shoot people. They can be used for much more than just defence.

Answer me this - how do you defend against someone with a gun? With another gun?

All having guns has done, is ratchet up the situation and increased the likelihood of a fatality. More death.

Right now, not many Australians are mugged with firearms - a knife is more common. The idea of a mugger with a gun scares me more than the idea of being able to buy one myself reassures me.

If anyone has some stats here that indicate otherwise feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the vast majority of shooting deaths in the US each year aren't in self defence. I'll wager most are caused by crime.

Which kind of leaves the self defence argument looking a little hollow.

Turn Right then Left.

In answer to your question. The only defence against a gun is another gun, preferably more powerfuf, more accurate and with more shots.
That is why policemen and soldiers have firearms.

You are quite right to say that the majority of shootings in America are by criminals.
Most defensive use of guns by ordinary citizens goes unreported simply because they aren't fired, their appearance is usually enough to resolve the situation.
Hence no headlines.

One of the best examples of the efficacy of an armed society was NSW prior to the 1960s. Crime was low and massacres were unheard of except for those perpetrated upon Original Australians in the earlier years of settlement.
These were not done predominantly with firearms, after the initial firing the wounded, the children and the older women were dispatched with the sword or the axe. The younger women weren't killed till later, if at all. The most successful of these mass killings didn't involve firearms at all, poison was less messy, more efficient and didn't leave much trace after nature and the dingoes had done their work.

Country Girl,

We can't avoid going out and even if we stay at home, there are such things as home invasions. Moving towards your perfect society we are going to see a lot of innocents die.

We could make a start though,
Who's for disarming the police and the military?

Ahh but Is Mise, the validity of disarming police and military automatically assumes they are without checks and balances.

I rather suspect if Howard tried to instruct the army or police to round up some of his enemies, he'd land himself in a spot of water.

There is I suppose, a degree of risk that their responsibility will erode over time. There is still a high degree of corruption in our police forces, but perhaps not as much as many think.

This is again, a separate issue, motivated largely by self interest rather than a grab for control.

Institutions such as police and the military have a way of swaying like a pendulum. Every know and then something occurs which sparks an enquiry, and it is up to the public to make their voice heard and ensure that the system is reformed when necessary.

I tend to think guns aren't really the issue in these cases - they're simply a tool. The idea of the government seizing control is a throwback to the old colonial days, particularly in the US, where there was paranoia the crown would again take control. In my humble opinion, not particularly applicable today.

That being said - some of country gal's comments are spot on as well. Firearms such as rifles as a tool in country areas are a necessity - wild dogs are a very real problem, certainly in my area.

But that is essentially what we have at the moment, and I tend to think it works pretty well.

TurnRightThenLeft, you are right about the US homicide rate. In fact, Washington DC, with some of the strictest American gun laws, has a high rate of gun crime. Compare that with some states where concealed carry is legal. In these states, muggings are virtually non-existent, as the potential mugger doesn’t know if an intended victim is armed. Kind of knocks your “flimsy arguments used by the gun lobby” statement on the head. In all these years, I’ve managed not to shoot a family member, even if said member is being annoying. As for “so what's the gun lobby solution? Make em easier to get”, I never advocated that. Just don’t make it harder. As it is, a new shooter has to apply for a licence, then attend a TAFE safety course to obtain a licence for rifle and shotgun, classes A and B. To have class C and D (self loading rifles and shotguns) requires being involved in primary industry, so this is not an option for a sporting shooter. To have a pistol licence, class H, first the shooter has to attain A and B as above, then join a pistol club. The senior club captain will coach and instruct the new shooter until happy that he/she is safe and competent. Then an H licence can be obtained. After six months, the shooter can buy his/her own pistol. On top of all this, every time a shooter applies to purchase a gun, there is a 28 day wait for the permit while police conduct background checks. On licence renewal, each year, the same background checks are carried out. I’m sure that you will agree that there are enough checks and balances as it is.

Later, you wrote “Right now, not many Australians are mugged with firearms - a knife is more common.” In a nation with countless thousands of unlicensed guns and other items that evaded destruction post-buy-back, doesn’t that tell you that we are not in danger from guns? Four wheel drives are more dangerous. Many more people are killed by 4WDs than by guns.