I see your point aobut shooting things, countrygal, though I tend to think for use on the land, rifles are a more practical option - plus you can't really conceal one which goes a long way to reducing the likelihood they will be used for crimes.

Yes, people have the right to defend themselves - but that's much easier when you don't have to defend against guns...

TRTL, you seem to be implying that removing guns from ordinary people is the same as making sure ordinary people don't have to defend themselves against attackers with guns. Is that right?

The same logic might work with chainsaws or cars; take them from the ordinary people so they can't cause deaths and injuries with them.

Yet when I cross the road to avoid a tree lopper at work, I trust the drivers to not try and hit me and the chainsaw user to manage his desires to saw off my extremities. What is it that is different to the same person having a gun in the safe at home? Is it possible that the reason for concern over guns is something to do with a flawed model of human behaviour compared with the model you use for other 'dangerous' objects in your neighbors' hands?

Is Mise, agreed for an actual attack but not for the fear of attack (and there is a middle ground in there that is difficult).

The trouble with that is that once the attack has started it's generally to late to go for a gun (unless the attacker is using a gun as well they are probably close enough to take yours away from you).

The temptation then comes to use the gun while you've still got time, to use it as an alternative to other options because you are not sure that the other options will protect you.

As for disarming the police and army (what about security guards).
I've not seen the arguments for and against but I think that the police wear guns in a lot of places where they are extremely unlikely to be required. I'd rather not have people (trained or otherwise) carrying a loaded gun in a crowded mall, on my suburban train etc.

I've not noticed millitary people carrying guns around the streets often (except in special parades).

I'm certainly not convinced of a desire to have security guards wearing sidearms to protect money - I don't want those guns used on a street I'm walking on at the time.

If the law does not allow a normal person to keep a gun for the purpose of protecting their family then I fail to see why protecting cash is more important.

R0bert

Country Gal,
That is just the point. We don't live in a lawless society so why shouldn't the citizens be trusted to have arms to protect themselves if necessary.
Up until 1996 a citizen in NSW could get a 'possess, use and carry' licence for a pistol and many business men and others carried pistols for self protection...that is one of the reasons that they were issued.
There was not mayhem and slaughter in the streets.
Why should a soldier or a policeman be considered any more trustworthy than the ordinary citizen?
If it is something in their training then it would surely be desireable to extend such raining to others in society.

The PM is on record as saying that he hates guns, how much of the draconian legislation that we now have to live with stems from his aversion?
There have been no news items about him forbiding his bodyguards to carry pistols.
Something that he ought to do if he is 'fair dinkum'.

Dick Cheney will be graceing our shores this week; he will, no doubt, be attended by American bodyguards, well armed and ready to shoot to defend his life.
Will these agents have to have licences in NSW?
Will they have to have background checks?
Will they be subject to a 28 day waiting period?

No they won't. They're not Australian citizens and subjecting them to the Law would be an intolerable waste of time, as well as being an un-Matey thing to do.

You're not worth protecting if you're a local and just an ordinary citizen.

In response to the last few posts:

ChrisPer: My argument is simply: less guns = less shooting deaths. Pretty simple I think. The additional complexities you raise are addressed in my next point.

Is Mise, you said: "That is just the point. We don't live in a lawless society so why shouldn't the citizens be trusted to have arms to protect themselves if necessary"

Okay, so the point you envision, is that presumably the responsible people carry guns. In the event they are threatened, their hand can go to the gun holster, and they can protect themselves.

Crime isn't as bad as you seem to think it is. There are a couple of hotspots in the country perhaps, in the larger cities. But it isn't the chaotic wild west that needs guns for people to defend themselves.

Why is this point so often ignored: Our streets are safer than those of America, or any gun-lax nation you care to name. The reason why I consistently bring up the guns are only needed to defend against guns, is because on a simpler, broader level, you need guns to defend against crime. Crime thrives on firearms. Once you introduce guns, the mantra then is justified, because you need to defend against the guns you've introduced.

When it comes to police having guns:

The thing is - this is a profession. In the case of police, they must first have a tertiary education, then they are trained in a form of schooling for police. Their weapons are registered with them as police, and I dare say few police wear their guns in everyday life.
Private citizens with guns wouldn't end up going through this much training. They wouldn't have the same workplace oversight which is present in a profession which uses guns.

The entire argument for guns (not rifles for primary producers) hinges on this idea, that we need a gun to defend ourselves, and it should be a right.
This is predicated on the notion that the society outside your front door is constantly out to get you, and you need this gun or SHOCK HORROR! You'll be attacked!

I don't deny that crime occurs, and sure, when it does we think it'd be nice to have a gun. But it really isn't that bad out there, and when you look at the US and the shooting deaths, it will be much, much, much worse if there are more guns out there.

It really is quite simple: more guns = more people being shot, and as much as you may want to believe otherwise, not all of them are going to be baddies.
Whatever argument you can mount, has to be good enough to get beyond that fact.