The horrifying reports of 20 children and 7 adults being murdered by one lone gunman in the US, before he shot himself dead, really cemented my views about Australia standing firm on our current gun laws.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1720811/US-shooting-reopens-guns-debate

In fact, I would like to see all guns banned in Australia except for law and order or military purposes, and for farming.

I would like to see gun 'sporting' clubs closed down, and all political parties that are campaigning for even looser gun laws to be disbanded.

Shoot-em-up good ol' boys like Bob Katter and his ilk should learn to grow up and stop playing cowboys and Indians at their age.

Australia doesn't have the dreadful gun mass murders that plague the US, because we don't have 'the right to bear arms' in the same way as the Americans do, thank goodness.

Maybe some good will come out of this murder of 20 young children, in that finally America will take some action and revamp their archaic gun laws.

Yes restrict gun availability by all means. But the politicians keep asking why these insane events happen. However there is never a genuine attempt, no holds barred, to find the truth. Like Air Crash investigations. It seems its OK because most men are bad, mad or both.
If you dare to look at many of the tradgeties eg Tasmania, Denmark and now this one, the men involved were dominated and/or abused by their mothers.The men were robbed of their manhood.
Testoserone was placed in men for a reason. To protect and pocreate the family. THe "never before occuring changes " to sex and society since WW2 must be understood or many more of these tradgeties will occur I believe.
.

This is indeed a terrible tragedy that should never have happened.

This action by one crazy individual plays right into the hands of Governments insofar as it is now a few steps closer to getting all the guns out of the hands of citizens. Once that happens the only people will be Police, military and the criminals with guns.

Ultimately they would also like the criminals to not have guns but that is as wishful a reality of the police catching the big players in the drug trade instead of always the little fish.

Personally I would like NO guns full stop that won't happen.
So the next alternative is person should be able to own a gun to defend themselves and family but I believe a citizen has no real need for AK47 and other military style weapons.

If this lunatic did not have any guns would this tragedy have been averted I would say no because he would have got them or used some other method possible a bomb.

Regrettably with these lunatics it seem like the trend is to outdo what others have done. See who can be the most infamous.

suseonline, "I would like to see all guns banned in Australia"

What would you do about China, suseonline? See here,

"Three children have been killed and more than a dozen injured in an axe attack at a primary school in southern China.

A man attacked a group of children gathered in a primary school classroom, killing three and injuring 13, state-run news agency Xinhua said.

Authorities arrested the man, surnamed Wu, after the attack in Pingnan county in Guangxi autonomous region, the report said, adding that he was mentally ill.

China has seen several violent attacks against children over the past two years, including a spate of five incidents in 2010 which killed 15 children and two adults and wounded more than 80.

The attacks have forced authorities to increase security around schools and led to calls for more research into the root causes of such acts."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/children-murdered-by-mad-axeman-in-china/story-fnd134gw-1226479175491

America has its problems.
Australia,s gun problems are different.
Lawless people useing guns we do not allow in, a lawless group kill here.
Mainstream Americans, killing with legal but unneeded weapons is a different thing.
America must fix its culture.
Australia just needs to enforce existing laws.

Belly, that pretty much sums it up.

Well said!

Belly, "America has its problems.
Australia,s gun problems are different."

What has China got? [my post to Suseonline above refers]

Switzerland has the lowest gun-related crime rate of any civilised country. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and young men are armed with assault rifles to take home. But gun related crime is rare.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

Has Switzerland got a 'gun culture'? If so, how does its 'gun culture' differ from that of the US and why?

There doesn't seem to be much evidence to support Suseonline's inference that the inanimate object causes crime, or even that the availability of the inanimate object facilitates crime.

In Australia there never has been a gun crime 'problem'. However there is a lucrative drug trade and police say that the corruption from that extends through all levels of society and in all professions. Maybe it is safer to talk about a 'gun problem' instead.

It's all well and good to say these things but the U.S.a is a very different society to ours there are powerful vested interests at play in this debate, and I'm not talking about the NRA or the arms manufacturers.
Say you could remove most of the guns from private hands (personally I think it's impossible) what then? What happens to the militarised Police forces, the tens of thousands of public servants involved in the BATF, Homeland Security and the FBI ? What about the Police and Prison services unions, they also have a vested interest in high crime rates and would lose millions of dollars if crime rates dropped.
What will happen if Obama does move on gun control is that there will be a phoney war on guns just like the phoney war on drugs, the prison population will skyrocket, a whole new bureaucracy will be formed to deal with the problem. The consultants, lawyers, cops, politicians and unions will all want to cash in and like the drug "problem" the trade in illegal guns will explode and the whole thing will stabilise and become a sustainable, self sufficient economy just like the narcotics trade.
It's clearly a Left vs Right issue, the nominally Left leaning "abolitionists" don't want to eradicate guns or lower crime rates beyond the present levels, they only want their people to control the gun economy, the "problem" from their point of view is not that the guns are in the wrong hands it's that the PROFIT from the arms and security economy is in the wrong hands.

OTB:”There doesn't seem to be much evidence to support Suseonline's inference that the inanimate object causes crime, or even that the availability of the inanimate object facilitates crime.”

I thought accessibility to weapons would definitely facilitate the use of them.

Laz:”If you dare to look at many of the tradgeties eg Tasmania, Denmark and now this one, the men involved were dominated and/or abused by their mothers.The men were robbed of their manhood.”

Ugh why? First post out of the gates after the subject is introduced and there is the classic response here.

I would like to express my gratitude publically to all the mums out there who have not robbed their sons of their manhood; you have saved billions and billions of lives throughout history.

Looking at some rough stats those African women have certainly been busy with their sons, also the mums of Colombia and Thailand need a stern talking to.

I’ve got a boy rabbiting on at me about some lego he wants for Christmas that comes with a gun and a sword. Help me men, what should I do?

Suse, I know the following statement is obvious but it is pertinent.

Guns do not kill...people do....particularly Americans.

As a cultural and social comparison I offer Canada as an example. Canada has a firearm ownership rate that is almost exactly half of that of America, yet America has 5 times the homicide rate by firearm than Canada has per 100,000 residents.

I could offer many other first world countries that example the same disparity re gun ownership and death by firearm. Suse America is a sick society, and once again I offer Canada as comparison when it comes to social media and other supposed violence engendering inputs. Canada has the same violent media as America, but not the murder rate.

In Australia we have always had a fringe gun culture that did not impact on the rate of gun crime. But we now have drive by shootings every second day in Sydney…….and the vast vast majority are carried out by Australians of Middle Eastern background…..once again a cultural aberration.

There are reports that this bloke had mental problems.

All of these mass killers have mental problems, obviously, & just about all of them were known to have mental problems, but they were still wandering around the streets.

The do gooders strike again. They have managed to get all the mildly insane out in the community, instead of in an institution, where they can do no harm to the innocent.

We must first sit on the bleeding hearts/do gooders, then spend enough money on getting the nut cases off the street, before the catastrophe occurs.

Still, it is only a few killed in each instance. This is going to be a mere pin prick, compared to the problems we will inherit from letting in the boat people, & even the legal refugees. Come out of the leafy green suburbs & see how many people are game to walk, at night, down the street in neighbourhoods where these people are settled.

They don't need guns either, but maybe we do.

You only have to look at the posts of many pro boat people, to see the hate for the average oz citizen. The ratbags are winning.

Hasbeen,
The (speculative) reports I've seen suggest Lanza was mildly autistic, just like the Virginia Tech shooter but in coming days we'll learn that he was on SSRI medication or under the supervision of a psychiatrist, I'll lay money on it. All these guys seem to come from working/middle class backgrounds, have access to psychiatric care and have been medicated with powerful mind altering drugs at a young age, off the top of my head I can't think think of a school spree killer who was poor or disadvantaged.
If it's now beyond doubt that there is no safe limit for people under 25 for even milder psychoactive substances such as weed and alchohol we have to accept that these more powerful mind altering drugs can cause lasting brain damage as well,

This is not the first thread on this subject.
It will not be the last, America sadly, will make headlines like these in the new year.
Gun Culture,both words play a roll.
But we would never consider Florida's shoot first policy.
We never would let hand guns be in just any ones hands.
The ARA Americas gun Lobbyist group, funded by ? the very gun industry! would not sway us as it does in America.
I am not anti American, America is anti American!
To find an answer first fix, American justice system.
Honesty from those who police,is not currently there.
Consider the costs of prison, in a country that says life is 60 or even 80 years, costs lets many gun criminals out .
Fix what ever it is the makes Americans think they need a gun.
They may well, to protect them selves from? someone like them.
IF Obama ACTS TO LIMIT WHO OWNS A GUN? HE RISKS ASSASSINATION!
What a strange fear filled country.

Yes I read in today's paper that the killer had Asperger's syndrome . They don't usually have medications for that. I agree that mental health problems are probably to blame for at least some of the gun-related atrocities in the US, but there are others that are just plain evil!

The point remains however, that guns allow for mass killings, are portable and easily concealed, and are easy to obtain in the US- especially those guns that are capable of killing many people quickly.

I hope our gun laws are never relaxed any further. I don't care about other countries, but Australia often seems to follow the US in some areas of Government.

I agree with most of the comments on this thread, except for the bizarre testosterone drivel...

This latest tragedy in the United States must
surely confirm, even to the most ardent gun holders,
that there needs to be some kind of measurable change
to reform the way in which guns and gun violence is
handled in their country.

Surely some of the guns that are so easily available,
don't belong on the streets of cities.
Banning certain types of weapons, as well as doing
background checks on people, should be mandatory.

However, it seems that nothing much will probably change
in the United States. As New York's Mayor Bloomberg
stated:

"Calling for 'meaningful action' is not enough. We need
immediate action. We've heard this rhetoric before...
what we haven't seen is leadership - not from the
White House and not from Congress."

Firstly, I find this story extremely hard to deal with. I saw the first reports early yesterday morning online - and I chose not to pursue the story on TV. I've only just gone back to the story online....

Suze,

Regarding medicating those with Aspergers or those at the high end of the autistic spectrum in general....you may be surprise to note that a great many parents are encouraged to medicate their (high-functioning) children at school - so they will sit down and shut up - and to assist in general those independent minds to imbibe information while at the institution. I've heard parents brag that they only dose up their kids for the school term, taking them off medication during the holidays. That it often takes a child up to six weeks to adjust to the changes, doesn't seem to occur to them.

In any case, the principal problem with the US is their entrenched gun culture:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/09/usa.usgunviolence

"On an average day, eight Americans aged 19 or under are killed by firearms..."

That's eight a day - 365 days in the year - Americans "19 years and younger".

31,000 deaths a year, many more woundings - more deaths from firearms in a year than all the deaths during the entire Vietnam war...so this is civilisation?

While not arguing one way or another for what the US should do, here is a different view some may wish to consider.

There are some who argue that the massive buyback of firearms by the Howard government certainly made the workplace safer for criminals, as they are less likely to find home owners with access to firearms.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com.au/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html

Yes Poirot, I'm sure you are right about possible over-medication of some children/adults with Asperger's , but I only know a few of them personally and none have medications for this disorder. I'm not if I wouldn't be one parent that did give them pills if I had an Asperger's afflicted child though!

Today's paper states the killer had been upset that his parents had divorced.
Luckily, we don't have rampant killings perpetrated by all those with Asperger's or all those with divorced parents.
So, as already stated, it is the lax gun laws in the US that allow the few people who are prone to mass murder the means to kill as many as they can, in a short period of time.

As for the comment about the tragedy involving a Chinese madman who knifed all those people recently in China, hands up all those who feel they would rather be in a crowd of people dealing with one knife-wielding man, or one gunman with a machine gun? Yes.

Yes, Jay, I'm not suggesting that children with Aspergers are medicated as a matter of course. The medication becomes an option particularly in an institutional setting where an individual is required to "behave just like everyone else". As you know, many people with Aspergers are highly intelligent, yet have a rather individual outlook and individual interests, sensitivities and behaviours -something which is not compatible with generic-brand classroom requirements.

Sorry, Suze - the above post was to you.

Yeah, but, when you look at America's "gun culture" it's always portrayed as a White Redneck,NRA, Republican and Southern issue when nothing could be further from the truth, the "gun culture" and gun death toll is a non White minority issue, If you're honestly proposing solutions you have to take race into account, statistics for Black offenders and victims throw the whole picture out of whack and can lead to the conclusion that there is a problem across the whole society when around 42% of homicides have a Black perpetrator and Black victims, despite the fact that they are only 13% of the population.
See for yourselves and bear in mind that "White" in FBI and Bureau Of Justice statistics now also includes Mexicans and other South Americans, so the true picture is even further obscured since Latinos commit homicide at three times the rate of Caucasians.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~roos/Courses/grstat502/phillipssp802.pdf
Interactive map of gun crime in the U.S:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics

So a move on "gun culture" is also going to be resisted on the grounds that it's "Racist" since the really dangerous people running around causing mayhem are overwhelmingly Black and South American, their victims are almost exclusively of their own race and any attempt to disarm them is going to lead to an explosion of the Black and South American prison population.
There's no way the Left and minority advocates will go for that and the continual blaming and calls for disarmament of Whites will have little impact on crime overall.

Jay, you always manage to find a racist slant on all topics!

I could be wrong, but I believe all the recent mass gun murders in the US have been committed by young white males?
So, by my reckoning, we should start by disarming all the young white males first then?

No, seriously, The US has finally had enough of these school killings.
I'm very sure real positive changes in their gun laws are soon to come.

Poirot, to my mind, mass murders could only ever be perpetrated by people who have a mental illness.
Most people with mental illnesses have been or are taking anti-anxiety, anti-depressant or anti-psychotic medications.

What comes first then.... the mental illness caused murderous intentions, or the medication-induced murderous intentions?
Why do some severely mentally ill people kill, and others don't then?

Obviously there are other unknown factors involved .
I hope the answer is found soon...

Aspergers and high-fuctioning autism aren't necessarily "mental disorders"....they are principally behavioural and sensory in nature.

That's not to dismiss the notion that a person with Aspergers may also have an accompanying mental disorder.

In the same way that a person diagnosed mid-way or lower on the spectrum may have an accompanying diagnosis of some type of retardation or learning disability.

The diagnosis for Aspergers and autism is calculated on social behaviours and sensory behaviours, communication behaviours and on repetitive behaviours.

It's a hugely broad spectrum - for instance, in the repetitive category, it might range from repetitive switching on and off of light switches of the profoundly autistic individual, to the special interest/obsession for the mathematical Aspergers genius who otherwise copes appropriately with the world. Both are repetitive behaviours or obsessive behaviours, but they're displayed at totally opposite ends of the spectrum.

Fascinating - actually

It is fascinating indeed Poirot! You have to feel bad for all the people with Asperger's though... the papers are virtually saying that this was the 'cause' of the latest mass murderers crimes!

The 2 people I know with Asperger's won't even allow themselves to step on an ant, let alone kill a human being. The main problem they have is the poor ability to socialize with others, and a terrible hatred of loud noises.

We must confront a truth.
Men and womens brains are hard wired very differently.
Themes such as this prove it.
Australia does not have a lawfully held gun - problem.
We do not all live in city,s.
My country village, no more than 35 klm away by road from a coast that brings thousands of Holiday makers has a King Brown snake problem.
A snake that, without real reason will chase you, ask a victim here.
I want those who want to inflict unneeded gun reform on AUSTRALIA, to remember this.
On a thread I started , about Sydney gun crime.
I was branded if not racist , selective, for pointing to who was behind the terror on Sydney,s streets.
Now close to country wide, there is our gun problem, ILLEGAL GUNS.
Australia need not pay for Americas wrongs.

http://www.news.com.au/news/obama-has-nothing-to-lose/story-fnepjsb4-1226537773223
Sadly the link tells of man vs woman in this matter.
But has much to say about why.
One thing is not different, both sex,s cry in relation to this tragic event.
And the next and the one after that.
Until humanity is willing to put profits second, stop making fear drive lawmakers.
And focus on the victims not the perpetrators, in handing down sentences.

Suse,
Facts can't be racist,
The gun homicide problem in America is clearly concentrated in minority communities, White spree killers are an aberration, but you'll just see what you want to see as always.
That's the problem with Leftists, they see the world through a drinking straw,how many people have died at the hands of White spree killers this year in the U.S, it's about 45 as far as I can tell.
In Chicago alone,on an average weekend this past summer the death toll was running at about 10 with 40 wounded by shootings, 75% of whom were Black, let's not even talk about Philadelphia or D.C.
So demonising or even disarming White people isn't going to do much to lower the gun homicide rate in the U.S, is it? I mean from those figures you couldn't possibly come to the conclusion that gun crime is primarily a White problem, the reason the authorities, from about 2005 started classing Latinos as "White" was to reassure people that minority crime wasn't as out of control as it seemed. If Latinos murder at three times the rate of Whites then doesn't that mean that Whites, at 65% of the population must commit only about 20-25% of the homicides attributed to that grouping? If you put all the adjusted figures together 25% of 50% of the crime attributed to "Whites" is 12.5% right? So 65% of the population commits 12.5% of the murders, 86% of which are intra-racial and you say that they are the problem? Do you see why I have to bring this up all the time, you promote a set of beliefs about White people, but reality and beliefs are two different things.

Suseonline, Poirot and other hoplophobes are naturally reluctant to define what they mean by 'gun culture' and describe what sets alleged US 'gun culture' apart from (say) Switzerland, or closer to home, New Zealand.

Suseonline ducks discussion of mass killings of school children in China by saying that it is better to be confronted by a knife than a gun. But those deaths are a fact, and what if other more indiscriminate and more catastrophic methods are used such as arson? Remember the Whiskey Au Go Go mass homicide in Brisbane? It left fifteen dead. What about the Victorian bush fires?

Australia's mentally OK but marginal IQ Martin Bryant used petrol as well. But what if he had chosen petrol and the AFL grand final? Or a school, knowing it would be in 'lock down', with vastly increased opportunity for greater chaos and death?

As for Howard's gun laws, the only effects were to burden police with monitoring law-abiding citizens, paying random visits to their homes to inspect and maintaining a white elephant gun registry. Besides, Martin Bryant was able to circumvent the laws affecting him and obtain a gun that had been surrendered to police previously. Bryant was also well known to authorities and medical professionals.

Why hoplophobes and political opportunists would want to disregard rigorous study of such criminals or even the broader subject of violence is obvious. It doesn't suit their pitch or agenda.

But what if we are making very basic mistakes as a society in promoting social changes that develop or foster violence? What if we are squandering millions and wasting police resources on populist 'solutions' that are irrelevant to the causes of the violence?

Get a grip Susan.Govt is the biggest murderer of people.Hitler 6 Million Jews and millions more due to war.Pol Pot total 3 million.Chairman Mao 60 million and Starlin 20 million.

The USA has 800 FEMA camps supposedly built for illegal immigrants but they are empty.The USA has the Patriot Act ,Preventative Detention,legalised assassination of suspected terrorists and now the NDAA which gives the military absolute power.

The last thing the US people have to protect them from their Govt is their guns.The USA Constitution has been trashed and that no longer protects them.

I bet the people of Germany never thought that fascism would come to their country either.

Belly,
See there's the problem in a nutshell, if European and European descended populations outside the U.S have the lowest gun homicide rates logic dictates that European Americans would have a similar if not identical relationship with firearms.
Again, this is Leftist PC religious dogma running up against reality or the world as we know it.
The idea of the Redneck "Bubba" running around shooting up the countryside and lynching negroes doesn't fit the world as we know it, to accept that view of White America requires suspension of disbelief on the part of people like Suse and in doing so they are simply moving from the real world to a the fantasy world of FAITH rather than facts.
So, OK. let the American security state crack down on gun control and hear the shrieks of "RACISM" as the Black and Latin prison populations double, then triple, then quadruple...as I said earlier, this debate isn't about guns it's about who gets to control and prosper from the security state and given the fact that the U.S is now a single party state with no hope of ever seeing another conservative administration "Big Brother" is the Democrats and the Left.
But aint it the way of things, "The One", if he acts will get away with jailing possibly hundreds of thousands more of "his people" just because of the colour of his skin, the idea of a gun crackdown on minorities going ahed under Romney is laughable, it's never happen.

What the bloody hell is a "hoplophobe"?

(only joking - I don't really want to know. The reality is that I don't care what a hoplophobe is:)

Anyway thanks, Suze.... but judging by the last few posts, I think this thread might have run its course for me.

Obama could look decisive by adopting ex-PM Howard's politically correct, populist 'initiatives': gun buy-back and gun control that only affected respectable law-abiding citizens such as clay pigeon shooters and farmers. After all, criminals don't apply for licences nor do they register their tools of trade.

Surrender their 'gangster' and ferocious looking guns specially imported to order thanks to that wide-open customs inspection? Not *bleep* likely!

Only the Left could applaud laws that require police to record the personal information of ordinary law abiding citizens as 'persons of interest' on police computers and enabled police to make any number of random inspections in an ordinary citizen's home.

What a way to humiliate an a citizen who is obeying the law and at the same time make it public that s/he has a (licensed) firearm on the premises? Not something the libertarians would accept for known or suspected criminals though. Nope, if done to the local drug trafficker it would always be a shocking invasion of privacy by police.

I wonder if any police have ever been caused to ruminate on the public relations consequences of the costly, intrusive and heavy handed Howard 'initiatives'? Those licensed firearms owners have passed the good character tests to be permitted a licence. So one would imagine that police should be interested in positive public relations with them

In Israel, almost every man aged about 18-40 and most women aged 18-25 is REQUIRED to take an automatic gun home when they are on leave from the army (including reserves).

Now that's disgusting: relatively speaking, it is better not to be allowed to have a gun than to be forced to have one, but the point is that in Israel, despite the large number of guns, we almost don't see such massacres as in the USA (except for the one case of Ami Popper, who in 1990 killed 7 Arabs on nationalist/racist grounds). One helping factor, is that the army screens and rejects potential soldiers with mental issues, however Popper was using his brother's gun.

Now lets face it: police in Australia are unable to protect the elderly in their homes and unlikely to be able to provide them with safety in the near future.

We do find that nearly, if not all, mass-indiscriminate-murderers are young men in their 20's. Why should the elderly suffer because of them?

Those vulnerable demographic groups that are likely to be victims of crime rather than the perpetrators of crime, should be allowed to have a gun to protect their homes. That includes the disabled (though NOT the mentally-disabled!) and those above a certain age, with the stupidity of youth behind them. Naturally, a due checking is necessary (no criminal or mental-illness history, no bad drinking habits, etc.) and those guns must be kept secure and only at home (GPS technology can even ensure that). So long as police is unable to provide safety, vulnerable people should, if a burglar attacks them in their home, be able to shoot them in self-defence.

banning guns might be useless but its a breath of fresh air to those who think education and more money is the answer to the evil heart of man. The more we ignore, shut our eyes to God and believe evolutionary fantasies and moral relativism the more death, evil and lawlessness. I laughed in hysterics one day when a Professor tried to tell me that we are more moral creatures now than a predecessors. He actually believed that nonsense believing man becoming more moral and good is part of the 'evolutionary 'process. Would be funny if it was not so sad. Godlessness unfortunately will continue to increase and no amount of laws will change man's heart.

Dear Poirot,

The term hoplophobe doesn't quite equate in the
instance it's being used in this thread. It
refers to someone who has an irrational fear of
firearms - and nobody from the posts I've
read thus far seems to fit into that category.
I feel that it's meant to be derogatory. And you're
right not to be interested. But
then again - one may ask - what's worse -
hoplophobe or gun-nut?

Thank you, Lexi.....(it's great to have your good self back here regularly once more:)

You last reminded of CJ and his wonderful description "wing-nut".

Yuyitsu , I would hate to see all our elderly people 'armed'. Many have poor hearing and eyesight and may well shoot innocent people who they mistakenly think are threats!.
We need to ensure our gun laws remain strict so it remains difficult to obtain guns in Australia.
If that makes me a 'hoplophobe' then I am comfortable with that.
Far better to have an 'irrational' fear of guns than to worship them as a means to take the law into your own hands...

It's all too easy to predict what will happen next.

1. The media will milk it for all it's worth.
2. Commentators will express outrage.
3. Another big news event will come along
4. It will be all forgotten - until next time.

This cycle will continue as long as Americans confuse "freedom" with guns.

They appear to love their guns more than they care about each other.

Quite sad, really.

The problem in America is immense and perhaps unsolvable.
If laws could be enforced first on hand guns, it would be a a very
dangerous exercise as Jay of Melb hinted.
He is right about the black gun culture, in their gang structure it is
close to standard equipment.
We also have seen what goes on in Mexico.
There is a lesson there if we can see it.

It would take a couple of generations to change the attitude of most Americans.
The collapse of civilisation movement in the US would never willingly
give up their guns because they are preparing for the collapse and
need weapons to ward off the hungry hordes from the cities that will have to be shot.
However it is time to make a start.
The alternative is to make schools like prisons.

Yuyutsu,
The group most vulnerable to acts of violence is young males, the elderly are quite safe in their homes, they're statistically more likely to be abused by a relative or carer.
Suse,
And again, nobody takes the law into their own hands in the U.S, that's a myth, how can the people on your side claim that private gun ownership does nothing to prevent crime and then talk about supposedly widespread vigilantism? Surely if armed vigilante action paid off it really would be widespread, but the truth is that majority White communities don't need such groups because there's little serious crime to police and minority communities have armed gangs who will defend their turf, or their block with deadly force.
You seem to be under the spell of Hollywood, perhaps it's because I never watch movies and actually read that I long ago realised that the "Wild West" on which the myth of the White vigilante gunman is based was really not so wild after all, that places such as Tombstone and Deadwood were actually pretty peaceful communities which would go years without a murder. All this wildness which has captured your imagination, the shootouts, the posses, the lynchings and all were compressed into a period of about 20 years building in the 1870's, peaking in the 1880's and then tapering off into the 20th century, Bonnie and Clyde and Dillinger were really the last of the outlaws and the old America was well and truly gone by the mid 1930's.

From media reports, getting illegal guns is a walk in the park. But getting a firearm legally is difficult.

Suseonline and her forum buddies who obviously like to cheer one another on think that all makes sense and more redundant laws and bans might help.

However most people would prefer that police put their resources into collaring criminals, instead of being forced to constantly maintain records on and look over the shoulder of properly licensed citizens. The firearms registry is a joke, a white elephant.

But why treat respectable law-abiding citizens as likely criminals anyhow? Where is the justification for random police inspections in licensed firearms owners' homes? Have these Aussies lost their rights?

The expensive bureaucratic paper-shuffling nightmare that Howard caused to be introduced did nothing to deter wrongdoers.

As well, we are years down the track from Howard without any independent national university research on the causes of violence. Who knows what could be contributing. However there is evidence that some of the changes in society are likely contributors.

Onthebeach, I don't care about people who want to have a gun 'just in case' in their possession. I don't believe any civilian has a 'right' to have a gun.

Who declared this 'right' anyway? Maybe some bloke who never grew up from enjoying his cowboy and Indian games ?

We don't want to be like America and their 'shoot first and ask questions later' mentality.
I am happy we don't have their trigger happy lifestyle , and hope we never will.
Luckily, I am far from alone in that hope...

Suseonline,

If you read my post you will see that I was actually referring to citizens' rights in a more general sense.

No problems though, most would totally 'get' your ferocious prejudice against men, firearms and the US, and your totalitarian solutions. Bans. Your way or the highway.

Why put up the original post though if it is all non-negotiable and you have nothing to discuss and learn?

For you it is an irrelevancy, but most people would be interested to know the incidence of violence and what is driving it. The Chinese authorities are wondering about the effect of social change (my link provided earlier refers). They were not so obtuse and politically correct to leap to the conclusion that the weapons used, examples being an axe and knives, revealed a 'knife culture' and registering or banning sharp implements was the solution.

Dear Suse,

<<I would hate to see all our elderly people 'armed'.>>

Who ever mentioned 'all'?

There may be many things I could hate seeing in you, perhaps you pull your nose, or your dress is too long or too short? or the inflection of your tone? nevertheless, that doesn't give me a right to make your behaviour illegal.

The only basis for making certain behaviours illegal should be that they harm others or place them under risk.

<<Many have poor hearing and eyesight and may well shoot innocent people who they mistakenly think are threats!.>>

And many are not, hence the necessary tests.

The reason for banning guns in Australia in the first place was to prevent events such as the Port-Arthur massacre. As I skim through the reports, I find all the perpetrators of such massacres to be men in their 20's. Give it a margin into the 30's perhaps even 40's, but as a group, older people have never posed a similar risk, so why restrict their freedom to defend themselves, especially as the police is unable to protect us?

Further, with GPS technology, such massacres can be prevented by constantly tracking all guns and having an alarm set if they ever leave the owner's property.

<<We need to ensure our gun laws remain strict so it remains difficult to obtain guns in Australia.>>

Who is 'We', and why?

<<Far better to have an 'irrational' fear of guns than to worship them as a means to take the law into your own hands...>>

Whoever suggested to worship them?
You USE a fork and knife to eat, a bucket to wash and similarly you may use a gun to protect yourself and your home, if you worship any of these, then indeed your mental-stability is in question and you should not have a gun-license.

As for "taking the law into one's own hands", what gives the 'law' a right to take away one's freedoms in the first place? The only legitimate answer is if you use, or are likely to use your freedom to harm or risk others.

I heard an interesting statistic today.

Every year 48 000 Americans are killed with guns, more than was lost in the entire Vietnam war. The notion that guns are needed for self defence is hugely outdated considering that more people are killed with their own guns than are ever in the position to defend themselves.

Guns used for sport should be just for that, non automatic rifles that can be kept at home, secured in a safe, and pistols that are kept at the shooting range. At no point should anyone be found in possession of a firearm in public without a special license.

I remember a quote from Mad Magazine that actually says it all:

"Guns don't kill children, Children kill children."

Do the reports prove that a similar number would not die if guns were magically removed from the planet? Does violence suddenly cease to exist?

BTW, the number killed in law enforcement was?

I went to Wikipedia for some quick numbers on crime in the US. Contrary to what is being implied here (that the crime rate grows with the number of guns), the crime rate peaked in the early 90's and has been falling since.

See here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Then I remembered this 2010 report concerning the UK,
"England and Wales has one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes, burglaries and robberies, a major report has found."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html

Nothing said about the UK murder rate to compare withe the US, but this report was available (scroll down),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Yes, the murder rate in the US was higher than the UK, but not so shabby compared with many other countries.

Going back to the US numbers it was said that the murder rate is much higher for young African Americans and for certain districts.

What all of this easy and quick research proves is that it is simplistic and misleading to blame crime, violence and murder on a particular weapon. It is highly likely that there are other economic and social factors at work. So China is right not to blame its school murders on knives and a 'knife culture'. It will not be pre-judging what appears to be a problem rooted in social and economic changes.causes

OTB,

Funny how the countries with high homicide rates were either very poor or swamped with guns.

The EU countries and others with strict gun control measures recorded homicide rates of about 1/4 of that of the US.

Thank you Shadow Minister. A voice of reason at last.
I think I am probably too passionate about banning all personal use guns... but there is nothing wrong with wishing for less injury and death by guns in an increasingly violent world.

'"Guns don't kill children, Children kill children."

and in the womb butchers kill children.

Shadow Minister,

Once again, stereotyping in lieu of argument. You cherry pick and generalise to arrive at your glib conclusion.

You do not explain for example, why the higher US numbers are attributable to vastly higher crimes rates in the young male African American population and in some poorer districts.

Is it so important to you to defend ex-PM John Howard's failed gun buy-back and white elephant gun registries? Obviously so! Here is Howard's score card,

- A billion dollars plus of taxpayers' money squandered to win and election.
- A smorgasbord of new taxes for legal owners and the ideal environment for unfair trading practices and monopoly in supply and distribution.
- Police commissioners using very broad and poorly drafted delegations to make interpretations and extend regulations without scrutiny.
- Destruction of Australia's small arms manufacturing capacity, including loss of gunsmith skills.
- Wasteful busywork for police handling the mountain of bureaucratic procedures, redundant paper and duplicated weak controls.
- Police recording ordinary citizens as 'persons of interest' on police records.
- Police continuously monitoring ordinary citizens and the power to search the person and vehicle, and the power to conduct random flying inspections within ordinary citizens' homes.

cont..

contd..

Howard's initiatives only affected the 'soft touch', which was ordinary respectable citizens known to be of good character and without criminal convictions. That is, people who can always be expected to comply with laws and get licences, buy legal firearms from legal sources and register them.

It was and it remains political window dressing.

Besides, had Howard done anything to challenge criminals and organised crime with provisions like police inspections in criminals' homes, the Progressive Left and Greens would have been outraged. Howard was strongly opposed to a Royal Commission into the Port Arthur tragedy and his precipitous 'gun control' proposals achieved his purpose of avoiding a review.

The OP proposes a ban on legal firearm ownership in Australia. No argument was put forward outside of the poster's emotional appeal. Like yourself, she has no interest in any national independent university research into violence.

Speaking of which, Howard's wasted billion dollars (well, not wasted for him, it helped him win an election) would have provided for such a study to advise policy, and it would have reinstated some of the mental health facilities that his government and Labor sold off.

OTB,

Bollocks!

I used the link you gave, and compared the homicide rate with countries at similar levels of development, and the contrast was stark. The homicide rate is 4x that of counties in the EU and OECD.

There nothing anywhere that shows that a ready availability of guns reduces crime. While violent crime is predominately higher in countries with guns.

Before using "Wikipedia" as the gospel of truth understand that anyone can go on there and post the most outlandish statistics.

Also the internet is full of absolutely ridiculous so called facts and statistics.

Shadow Minister,

No, what you are demonstrating is reporter bias, or fudging it, where you choose selectively to arrive at your desired position.

The evidence is not there. That is why Australia should fund a national independent university study into violence.

I can understand but never support your insistence in defending John Howard. He does hold the record for the highest amount of taxpayers' money every squandered for no practical (and measurable) return.

Imagine if some of that very considerable wad of money and the resources wasted thereafter had gone into a national study of violence to advise policy.

But wait a bit, might such a study also identify the callous stupidity of selling off mental health and rehabilitation facilities? What about the policy of returning people with mental health problems to the community? Some cannot cope and some carers cannot cope.

Now if the marginal IQ Martin Bryant had had a sheltered workshop with counselling facilities to attend.. Or if police and medical authorities had had some way of referring him.. After all, authorities were aware of him and as a person with marginal intelligence he would have been suffering all sorts of stresses in daily living.

But apart from that, why wouldn't you support national research into violence?

We drift like a lost ball on the sea at times.
The American tragedy is just that.
A heart breaking event America has to deal with.
And not ours, but in a way, we, all of humanity play a role.
We hunt around the edges asking why.
But do not let the answers breath.
Gun control has to play a roll, but so too the very culture of America must .
Any one see an idiot calling him self the joker killing in a theater here?
And what has current or past Australian gun laws got to do with this.
Power to Obama, Republicans, clearly part of the problem, will fight him but America needs Obama to win.

Switerland has the highest gun ownership % on the planet and the lowest crime rate.

In Sydney with strict gun control we have daily driveby shootings by the criminals.If someone wants a gun it is not hard to find.

My point that most ignore to their peril is that under the lies of terrorism,our rights and constitutions have been stripped away.Anyone of us can be defined as a terrorist and imprisoned Bradly Manning is one such victim who fed info to Julian Assange.They currently want to do the same to Assange.

At this stage in our history we need to give back the power to the people.History tells us that we cannot trust Govt that has too much power.

You are all fools if you think that the Third Reich will not rise again.Both Bush and Obama are controlled by the banking military industrial complex.

Belly,

The bodies were still warm and the relatives and friends of the victims very raw with loss and bewildered when the usual suspects stepped in to make political capital out of the carnage. Where there is death the vultures gather. Only vultures do not have a secondary agenda.

The media, which must be considered part of the problem for creating copy cat multiple killings around the world, did the usual thing of making a production out of it, a series of exposes and whipped up public hysteria to gather extra audience for days. Weeks when you count the calculated tweaks the editors and TV directors will give the show, returning to relatives and friends to probe the nerves for tears and trembling voices. What editor doesn't prefer blood?

The media seeking an audience and politicians out to score political points out of misery with their simplistic solutions have made multiple murders the gold standard means for sad individuals and evil monsters to go out in a blaze of glory. Living or dead the offenders know they have a lasting memorial. They are celebrities. In some ways there are parallels with the terrorist bombers and some multiple murders use bombs, or arson.

If sympathy, ethics, principle and good sense don't constrain the media and self-promoting politicians from making hay out of a mass murder, the public should be demanding better. The public can choose not to be part of the manipulated mob. Politicians can choose not to take advantage to get their names on front pages.

There is a difference between reporting this truly dreadful event and sensationalising the offence and offender. But no, $$ is being made out of it. Or in the case of politicians, huge political points from pat 'solutions' that never allow for independent study of violence, not just the single event.

Dear onthebeach,

I usually go fairly easy on new members to the forum but when you come in here with rhetoric like your last post I think we can dispense with the niceties.

Firstly who in the hell would post a link to a story about a madman knifing 16 children in a school in China to defend guns? There were 3 killed but 13 SURVIVED!

In the tragedy in the US all the victims had multiple gunshot wounds and of all the people who were shot only ONE survived!

How does this not register with people like you? What do you think the outcome would have been in China if the man had been armed with assault weapons with 100 round magazines?

How absolutely clueless do you have to be, not only to post the link in the first place but to then refer to it twice more?

The other poster child of the my-guns/my-rights crowd which you so predictably put up was Switzerland - “Switzerland has the lowest gun-related crime rate of any civilised country. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, and young men are armed with assault rifles to take home. But gun related crime is rare.”

My God when will your lot just go and check the figures?

Switzerland has by far the highest per capita figure in Europe for suicide by firearm. Around a quarter of victims use weapons to do the deed as opposed to less than 3% in England., a method which is 90% effective.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_for_the_record/european_records/Switzerland_s_troubling_record_of_suicide.html?cid=8301804

In fact Switzerland has over three times the firearm related death rate per 100,000 that Australia has. 3.5 compared to 1.05.

'Oh wait' you will probably say 'What about homicides? They can't be very high because I know for a fact that “Switzerland has the lowest gun-related crime rate of any civilised country.”'

Australia's homicide involving a firearm rate per 100,000 is .09 yet Switzerland's figure is .52, more than five times as high.

Cont..

Cont..

But the one I found most egregious was this; “Where is the justification for random police inspections in licensed firearms owners' homes? Have these Aussies lost their rights?”

Let me tell you about rights my friend. For a little inconvenience to your lot, who represented less than 5% of the Australian Adult population at the time of the buyback, the rest of us gained the right to visit a tourist attraction like Port Arthur without running the risk of being blown away and we got to walk down a Melbourne street like Hoddle Street and not wonder if another Julian Knight was waiting. We got the right to see 11 mass shootings in a decade reduce to none.

We now get to look at what has occurred in America and thank God we didn't follow that path. How many parents across that country will now feel a twinge of fear in the simple act of sending their primary age children to school? If you are so determined to live that kind of a life then I'm sure the rest of us can scrape up a one way ticket.

Or we could both dial the rhetoric back a little,

csteele,

Goodness that was a lot of huffing and puffing. The only thing you went 'light' on was providing facts and evidence to support your claims. For someone who eschews rhetoric you certainly spout a lot of it.

The point I have been laboring to make is that the populist political solutions to date have not been properly advised by national independent research and evidence. Howard's 'initiatives' were wasteful and have not produced any measurable positive outcomes. For example, it was found that the incidence of suicide by gunshot, never the preferred nor common method of suicide, was reduced slightly. But then it was realised that victims were chosing other methods instead. Time to ban rope, abolitionists such as yourself might say? Likewise the gun crime numbers that were already low in Australia and were already trending down before Howard's 'initiatives', continued to trend down showing no appreciable change post Howard.

Yet while the cool billion $ wasted by Howard achieved no appreciable change, it was found with great astonishment that making cars more thief proof with better steering locks for example, had an immediate and marked effect in reducing other serious crime as well as car theft. That example points to the conclusion that independent study is warranted not more redundant laws, buy-backs and the like, based on emotional knee-jerk reactions and political opportunism.

Here is your chance, specifically what is there to prevent someone encouraged by media reports to do a copy cat in Australia?

You can limit it to firearms if you like, although an offender's choice isn't limited to that, as shown by the Brisbane Whisky A Go Go arson, which is Australia's second highest multiple murder (and Bryant, who was responsible for the highest death count chose petrol as well).

On the other hand, if you want to reduce violence you should be discussing and supporting what I suggest, an independent national university study into violence, with the cooperation of all governments.

OTB,

I grew up with guns, I went hunting with my .22 rifle, and spent a lot of time target shooting. My disillusionment with guns came when a child in a family known to us unintentionally killed his brother. It became patently clear how easy it is to snuff out a life. Not having guns does not stop all crime, but makes the outcome less likely to be fatal.

More people are killed in accidents with guns than are saved by being able to defend themselves.

I again want to underline the trouble is in America.
Many reasons can be found for that.
But one thing stands out,Republicans are against control, any control.
Words smiths are not always right,*we are free because of guns*
Is a foolish thought.
Guns, in such numbers, and in such hands kill.

G'day Susi, You ravaged my post pointing to lone mothers and sons being a factor in the slaughter of about 200 innocent prople. You weren't the only one to challenge these facts. But here are some more unproven "facts".
About 10% of guys will not have any sexual relationships with the opposite sex. Reason-- girls, once they leave high school are always aiming up market.
About another 30% of males will have unsatisfactory heterosexual relationships. The modern woman has reverted to herd mentality and doesn't really need males.
Change is hard to understand or actknowledge. eg climate change.Woman used to go to the market years ago and buy food to nourish the family. Nowadays the market is more like a temple for the glorification of the Goddess Woman. We can't sustain this change.

I suspect strongly that far more young girls in US top themselves due to not being able to match porn stars than are killed by guns. Not as messy I suppose but the arguement seems to be you can't take a peoples right away to be perverts even if it costs many lives. The same arguement seems prevelant in the gun debate.

Shadow Minister,

I am sorry to hear your story about an accidental death in your family. That is reason enough for young people to receive training in firearms safety. Obey the cardinal rules and accidents are impossible.

That is the same in all walks of life, we cannot remove all risks. However we can manage risks. Speaking of which, as Cadets thousands of students carried their Lee Enfield .303 to and from school, bolt in but action always cleared, on foot, on bikes and on public transport. Of all of the countless trips, public parades and countless hours in training, some live round firing on the range, others using live blanks on exercises, no-one was injured.
No-one was revulsed by students with a rifle of defence, or judgemental and critical of his sense of responsibility and service to Australia. The same rifle had done much to regain freedom and protect the homeland.

The OP demands bans. But there are no parallels between the US and Australia, or NZ. Our experience and laws are different. Australia and NZ never ever had a 'gun problem'.

You say that "Not having guns does not stop all crime, but makes the outcome less likely to be fatal". You conveniently forget the rather obvious facts being reported, that offenders can easily obtain the nasty tools they need on the black market, which is well supplied by importing, or by theft from police and other government bodies (eg rangers issued with semi-automatics). The agriculturalist, low tech firearms owned legally privately, even the small capacity pistols, are not attractive to criminals. They don't have the gansta street cred.

However what the public should be concerned about and politicians like Howard are most unwilling to allow a public inquiry into, is what sets youth of (say) the Seventies and before (when school Cadets carried rifles freely without harm befalling them or anyone else) apart from youth of today

contd..

What is going wrong in public policy and planning that we, the Australian public, are now supposed to be fearful of our own neighbours and especially our youth? Or are governments working the hysteria button? Is the feckless media actually encouraging multiple homicide by making celebrities of offenders?

In short we need independent university research funded and conducted at a national level to advise us and the government on violence and suitable informed policy based on evidence to reduce it. We have all had enough of politicians adding more laws that duplicate laws already in existence.

I don't like guns and don't own one but until we in the West have a proper constitution that gives us true democracy, then we don't have a means to stop this oligarchical oppression of debt and loss of rights, which the planet is currently being strangled by.

None on this topic will address the Patriot Act, Preventative Dentntion, NDAA or Obama's edict of legalised assassination of suspected terrorists. We have John Howard's Sedition Laws which do likewise.

Govts have always murdered far more people than a lone lunatic with a gun.

Hi laz91. Where on earth did you find the proof and statistics to prove all your 'facts' for your post?
Are you suggesting this crazed US gunman shot all those kids because the 'modern' women of today wouldn't have sex with him?
How bizarre!

Csteele's post was another voice of reason on this thread, with some very pertinent questions and opinions. I too am thankful we haven't followed America's path with gun laws.
The fact remains that America has had many of these awful mass gun killings and Australia hasn't , so we must be doing something right.
We must never allow trigger-happy politicians like Bob Katter have his way and loosen our gun laws....

G'day Suse No I'm not suggesting that whatever it was. Some "facts" are hard to get for various reasons. But a lifetime of experience must tell you something. You can either accept or reject. That's a forum.

I reject :)
Exactly what were you suggesting then laz91?
Just wondering...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTyCD2n6HAQ

Nuff said!

OTB,

The tragedy was not in my family. But it did open my eyes to the risks.

With regard training, what training would you offer a 7 year old who was curious enough to find the keys to the gun safe, remove a gun and "play with it"?

Having a gun is a risk, the question is the risk worth it and can it be managed. Wearing a seat belt is not necessary if you are careful enough never to crash.

Shadow Minister,

You are obsessed with hounding the respectable, law abiding citizens who get a licence, buy legally and register.

What is it about gun 'control' (read as 'ban') activists that they are uninterested in unlicensed offenders with their illegal firearms, ie criminals? Your question is better directed to them. London to a brick there would be no compliance with safekeeping either. Drug money is responsible for the lion's share of illegal guns held, for violent offences committed and for home burglaries too.

So according to you even a safe is not enough? Maybe a safe inside a safe? It is easy to sere that you do not have a clue about the regulations. Perhaps if Qld's are used as a guide.

It is not enough for the child to be able to get into the specially designed firearms safe. The law states that guns also have to be disassembled or bolts removed. On top of that, any ammunition has to be in separate safekeeping.

Where a licensed person neglects any of those conditions, s/he is likely to lose the licence, have expensive firearms confiscated and receive a severe penalty on top of that. Remember too that the disassembled parts of a firearm are also regarded as separate firearms in their own right, and even empty fired cartridge cases are still regarded as 'bullets', so the licensed person suffers many penalties.

Even where a house is broken into and the safe is attacked the police are first concerned with how to charge the licensed owner. It must be the only area of life where the victim can be held responsible for the crime committed against him/her.

Home burglary is common and many (most?) cases remain on the books unsolved. It is rare that a private firearm is stolen and very rare for any stolen firearm to be used to commit an offence. None noted in recent police reports to my knowledge.

"""
What is it about gun 'control' (read as 'ban') activists that they are uninterested in unlicensed offenders with their illegal firearms, ie criminals?
"""

They're uninterested because there's nothing they can do about it.
Innocent, law abiding citizens that value their rights however are an easy target to extend their agenda.

They're from the left and want complete control of your rights. The only thing standing between them and complete control of your rights are guns.

These people don't fear guns, they fear your ability to use them when they push too far. That time has come in many countries of late and will most likely come here as well.

Where I live, zero hour is almost here. The illegals are running a muck and no one wants to talk about it for fear of being labeled a racist. Behind closed doors however; the conversation is quite heated. They're not happy, Jan!

If these people were truly concerned with saving lives, they'd ban governments first and left leaning governments firstly! it is these entities that have mass killed more people around the world than any crazy with a gun and they're still at it!

I fear these people much more than guns. Guns are the equalizer and they know it!

Watch them attack anyone that defends their rights like they're some uncivilized, crazy loon. To me, people that try to impose their world view on others without their consent are the ones that have failed to mature. They want control over something that doesn't belong to them. It's these types that perpetuate the violence in humanity.

It's all a pointless argument anyway. If you really want a gun, you can get one easier than a job. Just ask Bryant where he got his? Or just print off a working plastic one at home anytime you like. The plans are on the net and the g-codes to make it are free to download also! As technology advances, it won't be long before you can print off your own a-bomb at home.

cont..

And while you're all in the typical Australian ban everything mode, you should ban mobile phones. They can be used to kill thousands and you don't even have to be there to get caught.

Onthebeach "You are obsessed with hounding the respectable, law abiding citizens who get a licence, buy legally and register. "

I'm sorry, but unless you are a farmer, police personnel , or military personnel then WHY on earth would a respectable, law abiding citizen buy a gun in Australia?

If, as many on this thread suggest, society is becoming so violent that the 'average ' citizen must arm themselves, then obviously they would plan to shoot someone else if the need arose?
There's nothing 'respectable' or law abiding about taking matters into your own hands.

One in four people own or carry a gun in the US, yet it is one of the most violent places to live.
Obviously, all those respectable, law abiding citizens arming themselves with all manner of firearms designed to kill more than one person at once, do not appear to be making that country any safer to live in do they?

Suseonline,

So if you don't personally approve of something it must not be allowed? Before anyone engages in an activity or interest they should be obliged to justify their choices and get State approval?

Many of our migrants have fled countries like that where where governments regularly curtail freedom and rights, and approval and necessary papers may be required for the most basic 'privileges' that Aussies take for granted.

I am pleased you picked up on the need to research violence. Various criminologists and police statistics say the trend is down. What if it is like the US where country areas and greatest majority of urban areas have quite a low crime rate (including gun related), and crime and weapon/gun use is high for cultural groups such as African-Americans, and in low socioeconomic areas?

Regarding the shooting presently in the news, the article linked to below by Brendan O'Neill is quite interesting. It is always good to get a different slant on things.

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13179

OTB,

The biggest problem with illegal guns is that many of them started as legal guns owned by home owners. If a burglar robs a home and steals a weapon, then without doubt the owner should be held responsible. I have seen people with gun safes, and the keys kept above the safe.

Secondly why do you need a gun? Pistols are not for hunting, and certainly don't need to be kept at home. A non automatic rifle with 5 rounds is all that required for hunting.

People go through licensing and training for more than a year to drive a car, guns should be treated similarly.

Onthebeach "So if you don't personally approve of something it must not be allowed? Before anyone engages in an activity or interest they should be obliged to justify their choices and get State approval? "

Is that right? Are you seriously placing gun shooting and ownership in the same basket as other 'activities' or 'interests'?
Oh yeah I can see that .... "Come on little Johnny, after we finish playing with Lego, lets go out and shoot our guns.. I'm in the mood for killing something".

No, shooting should be banned as a 'sport' and so called gun clubs disbanded.
It is not an 'activity', it is a means to kill something or someone...

Sorry Suseonline, but that is uninformed comment.
Very uninformed and quite wrong.
What would we do if a brown snake crawled up our steps.
What if an aged bloke saw thieves bashing his door in armed with machetes?
We do not need a gun?
What if you best mate, dog was run over in real pain and you owed it to him to put him out of his pain.
Do we take up a hammer and bash the cow to death we are about to kill.
Feeling nice about things as women do, and thinking nice thoughts about such as not having guns?
More harm than good comes from such, HIPPYS once put flowers in gun barrels and felt so good about it.
Foolishly forgetting enemy do not even care, protection is a reason some must have guns.

Last night I attended Christmas carols in the public hall of the small country town where we live. About 25 of the local primary school kids sang a number of songs throughout the evening. Their first song was Silent Night. It struck a deep emotional chord. Earlier in the week I had watched the opening scene of the first episode of Saturday Night Live after the shootings. The link is here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTbhVlHuONo

It was a very moving tribute to the young victims of the Sandy Hook shootings.

As I watched the faces of our local kids I could only think of the deep unbearable sorrow that has befallen the families of the slain. How empty and cold their Christmas will be this year and probably for years to come.

I am not a believer nor the praying type but I found myself offering up a prayer that the leaders in America can find the strength to do what we managed to do in this country and enact laws that will help prevent the incidence of mass shooting that have so blighted that nation.

I know in some quarters in the US Australia's example has been raised.

http://youtu.be/Aclnzv_QD3Q

“Because they actually care about their citizens”. Too right.

I also feel anger about what had happened, the senselessness of the act and the dribble coming from American politicians like Mike Huckabee who is claiming that 'taking God out of schools' caused the tragedy.

Cont..

cont..

Excuse me while I vent some of that here.

OTB accuses me with; “The only thing you went 'light' on was providing facts and evidence to support your claims.”. My figures came from here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#cite_note-GunPolicy-1

OTB has made no effort to challenge the figures I gave leaving the conclusion that he accepts them. If so he should immediately retract the totally ludicrous and unsubstantiated claim that “Switzerland has the lowest gun-related crime rate of any civilised country”. To leave it stand must either mean he doesn't see Australia as a civilised country or he has no intent in letting facts get in the way of his rhetoric.

This is what Switzerland faces on a constant basis.

“Military weapons have been used in the fatal shootings of two people in western Switzerland since the beginning of the month, news service ATS reports. On November 4th, a man shot his 21-year-old girlfriend with his assault rifle in Saint Léonard, in the south of the country. The alleged murderer, a 23-year-old man, had several previous convictions for threatening behaviour and property damage. A week later, a 37-year-old man died from injuries sustained in a shooting incident at a Geneva shopping centre. Sunday, November 13th, a young woman in Boudry killed a 23-year-old man with a military gun which she had believed to be a toy gun.”
http://www.thelocal.ch/page/view/1844#.UNJrvW_qnN0

Of course OTB's rubbish is understandable if we remember he probably has his head buried deep in a NRA magazine. From the US perspective the Swiss figure would look quite good. Not from an Australian one though.

Next we get sidekick Rawmustard linking to more rubbish. A youtube clip posted late last year titled “English Warning "Our Gun Ban caused 40% jump in Gun Crime" DONT GIVE UP YOUR GUNS!”

Cont..

Cont..

What rot. Here is the actual figures.

Britain has enacted a series of legislations banning various classes of weaponry. The most significant were the 1997 Firearms Act and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, both targeting firearms. Britain has seen a significant drop in gun related crime every year for the last seven years.

“The number of offences generally rose from the late 1990s to a peak of 24,094 offences in 2003/04. The number of firearm offences has fallen in each year since then with 11,227 offences recorded in 2010/11, 13% lower than the previous year and 53% below the peak of 2003/04.”
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

Rawmustard should disown the clip immediately or produce alternative statistics.

OTB might sit here and claim all he wants is some studies done on violence in Australia but the fact he sees the money spent by John Howard during the Buyback as 'wasted' shows his true leanings.

At least the NRA, that highly right-wing, powerful lobby group in the US had the good grace to recognise it is time to do something to stop the carnage.

While in some ways this discussion appears unseemly I recognise that people are understandably seeking answers to a bewildering event and that points should be allowed to made from each side of the issue. But please have the decency not to post propaganda. It is an affront to those in grief

csteele,

I am sorry if you are getting angry. All I am asking for is an independent national university research into violence, with all governments and police forces cooperating.

I am an ordinary taxpayer participating in a public forum. It reflects on you and your lack of facts that you feel obliged to stereotype and label me to 'win' your argument.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask for measures of success and evidence of positive outcomes for any policy. Government does not have any of its own money. It all comes from taxes.

This is a democracy and we are entitled to ask for proof of outcomes. However despite direct government funding to find some positive, practical outcome somewhere for the cool billion dollars (and counting!) wasted by (ex-)PM Howard, the results are zilch. The public is constantly being fed spin by hordes of public relations professionals also paid for by tax dollars.

Around the same time governments both Howard's LNP and Labor closed and sold off mental health and rehabilitation facilities. A billion dollars and the continuing wastage of resources on police busy-work minding the affairs of licensed citizens could have gone to mental health and rehabilitation, and more support for carers.

I replied to you earlier, clearly stating my position and why.

I also put this to you, which you consistently refuse to answer,

"Here is your chance, specifically what is there [from Howard's spend of a billion $$] to prevent someone encouraged by media reports to do a copy cat in Australia?"

Petrol and other means have also been used in mass killings in Australia. I shudder to think of the possibilities for a disaffected, alienated person (that IS the likely problem isn't it?) who uses a basic knowledge of chemistry or information freely available from public sources.

That is why we all should be demanding independent national research into violence in all of its categories and dimensions. Policy is not well rooted in the populist knee-jerks of politicians teased or blackmailed by the media, and by small but noisy lobby groups.

Belly, didn't I say that farmers should have guns?

How many Australians that don't live on farms or stations have snakes climbing all about their homes? Even if they did, we don't always need a gun to kill them.

As for the old guy needing to kill people breaking into his home, the law these days says we can only use reasonable force in these situations.
Should all house break - ins result in the death penalty by firing squad after no trial?

Of course not...

Onthebeach is still on about "...an independent national university research into violence" .
What other research do we need other than statistics on injuries and deaths caused by violence, and the circumstances involved. This can all be ascertained by court documents.
We already know about the violence and the fact that guns are only one form of violence.
We also know that they are a major violent weapon in America, and that we don't want to go there too...

<<Should all house break - ins result in the death penalty by firing squad after no trial?

Of course not...>>

Of course not ALL: if someone breaks into YOUR home, you are under no obligation to shoot them, but if some of your neighbours would shoot burglars and if burglars had no prior knowledge in which houses they will be shot and in which they wouldn't, then they wouldn't dare to try their luck and so, Suse, you too will be safer.

In the words of the Israeli Dromi Law (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/new-law-absolves-property-owners-of-liability-for-defending-their-homes-1.248502), "a person shall not be held criminally responsible for an action that was immediately necessary to repel someone breaking into or entering a residence, place of business or fenced farm with the intent to commit a crime."

I wish to counter Y and the rather obscure references in that post.
I strongly think America needs gun control.
But harking back to a theme H introduced early this year.
It is just so simple to criticize ,but what would you do?
Look at SYDNEY birth place of our country.
Nearly daily shootings.
With ileagle hand guns.
Maybe the answer to this threads starting point, repeated mass killings is in the way we handle it AFTER.
Meade should not be able to release the vermin's name, by doing so they grant immortality to a murder.
never to be released on every living ones papers.
BAN military guns, 20 years in prison for having one.
Look for the answers in law.
And those opposed? what rights did those loverly kids have?
Sydney? 10 years in prison for owners or users of hand guns not legally owned, confiscation cash and property to make them pay for time in prison.
We MUST take victims rightsBEFORE offenders, in law

There are some who believe that the Gold Standard way of getting attention is to strap explosives to themselves and kill and maim dozens of innocents.

There are some who believe that the Gold Standard way of getting attention is to fly planes into office blocks.

There are some who believe that the Gold Standard way of getting attention is to use frightful poisons and bacteria.

Still others planned to break into an Aussie military base and kill.

We could go on. But authorities generally understand how those criminals became convinced in their beliefs and who did the convincing, ie that it was the 'solution' to alleged problems and it was the recognised Gold Standard way of getting attention.

What we the public need to understand are the whats, whys and hows behind the awful slaughter the world has just witnessed in the US. It isn't just the US, it has happened elsewhere and can happen again.

How the hell did this young man come to believe that his problems were unsolvable and the way he needed to get attention was to inflict the most horrific punishment possible on society, by killing the young. He knew it guaranteed enormous personal publicity and ensured an everlasting memorial to him and his grievance and pain. Or was it anger? He knew from previous well publicised incidents that the offence guaranteed instant celebrity and the media and others would be certain to personalise reports in detail and to re-play and re-tell ad infinitum.

What if we find out the what is behind these choices and do something about it before the trend changes to a more disastrous tool, particularly one that is easily concealed, damned difficult to detect and the offender can be elsewhere at the time? Of course there needs to be broad independent national research into violence. Even if it turns up some unpleasant facts about social changes.

onthebeach,

Whatever sociopathic psychological debacle unfolded in that young man's mind, the fact remains that he was able to inflict great calamity on that school community in a very very short time with much ease...due to the ready availability of automatic assault weapons.

That these weapons are regularly chosen as the ones of choice for people who go off the deep end in the US, should send a clear message.

Bazz,

Re your comment about making american schools like prisons.
They already are!
While in New York city, I remarked to an american aquaintance that I'd noticed many schools were fenced with chain link, and had security guards at the entrance literally frisking children. Was told it was necessary to prevent children from taking weapons into school.

If we don't have similar problems here, why is it that in recent years I have noticed more and more properties being fenced or walled in? Security screens or shutters were virtually unheard of years ago, even on commercial premises. Now it is rare to see one that hasn't installed these against the mindless violence of today's louts.

The floodgates on weapons in America are wide open, and can never be closed. Even if buy back or other schemes were implemented, criminals will always be able to obtain weapons.

Cell phones have become equally dangerous in the hands of suicide bombers, and even tasers can kill.

The main difference between us and our ancestors is that we have more sophisticated weaponry at our disposal to inflict harm, and a greater population on which to use it. Evolution? What evolution? The mindset is the same after thousands of years.

worldwatcher,

Here's an article by Joe Bageant on the American condition, where he muses on "Tasering the tots" (scroll down a little way and you'll find that part - although the whole article is relevant):

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/12/america-y-ur-peeps-b-so-dum.html

"...For instance, one of the questions asked regarding tasering sschool kids is: What is the allowable weight range of a child to be tasered? (Taser manufacturers say 60 pounds) Somehow by this geezer's prehistoric reasoning, that sounds like the wrong question...The truth is that we live in a society that sanctions the semi-electrocution of its own children on the grounds that it is not fatal..."What kind of community comes up with the idea of tasering its own children?"

G'day Suseonline Your comment that "do I think the perp wanted sex with the victim" only illustates how hopelessly different people can be. Open ,truthful discussion seems impossible. You must be a dreamboat to suggest that a man would want sex or a massacre.

laz91 I beg to differ.
You may have seen me in print differing with our well respected Suseonline.
And yes, yes indeed some can not sustain debate, some we can not talk to.
But as I get nearer to becoming a refugee from this my only site,I under stand the basic of debate.
Our own views are just that,others may be right us wrong.
We have egos, all of us, some miss placed self assurance too.
We prove that int his thread.
It I would think, came about because of Americas BIZARRE love of guns.
But we make it an issue in places it is not.
All of our fine words, come to nothing, IF we fail to understand, America is different.
Achievable CHANGE is different than wanted change.
IF Americas great leader fixes this problem, that strange and different country, will see him assassinated in office.
We the informed of us, look in horror at the sadness, but we are outsiders, America in the end must fix it not us.

Poirot

You must assume that anyone who asks questions contrary to the prevailing political correctness of the mob must by definition be in favour of 'assault' weapons.

The OP was directed at Australian policy and made a number of assumptions. One being that the Howard inspired gun control initiatives, which were directed solely at already law-abiding citizens, have reduced gun crime and multiple killings. They do neither, but John Howard's clever political populism and wedge politics did get him re-elected in a landslide. Both sides of politics heaved a sigh of relief though when John Howard was adamant there was not going to be a public inquiry. Wise where mental health facilities had been sold off.

It is important to move on from the silly, convenient, politically correct mantra that the 'US gun culture' (clever stereotyping from a clever politician), or availability of a firearm is THE cause. The presence of a potential weapon does not corrupt ordinary law-abiding citizens. It does not send the good bad.

Nor are these multiple homicides crimes of opportunity. Previous crimes and across all countries show meticulous long-range planning and attention to detail. All aimed at getting the maximum publicity from sensationalist media. As with Port Arthur's Bryant, the offenders are prepared to go to extreme lengths breaking available laws (of course) in the process to source their preferred weapons.

From comments responding to the usual deluge of ready-made 'gun culture' stories from media hacks, Australians are showing disquiet with the simplistic political spin that multiple killings are caused by a 'US gun culture', "Fix that with bans and she'll be apples". No, there is something more complex and sinister going on than that. The public needs to know how the multiple killing of innocents became the gold standard way for socially outcast, alienated and wronged men (if that is what they are) to get attention and go out in a blaze of publicity.

Meanwhile, surely the media has some way of reporting that could smother the personal limelight sought by these offenders? Or must the sensationalism and advertising profits always come first?

Laz91, yes you are right, I AM a dreamboat :)

Belly, thanks for your nice post above.
I'm glad we can differ in opinion and yet still respect one another, as I do you.

I think I have said all I have to say on this subject for now.

I guess I will never be a fan of any gun , and nothing anyone can say will change my mind.
Thanks to all contributors for a robust response!

Suseonline if some thing bad about a person is said, it grows wings and speeds to them.
We do not reward with the truth and respect we hold others in often enough.
As Christmas nears and we think of different things, threads like this will continue.
You posed a question that we all have answers for.
Wrong and right ones.
In the reality that is America, I am a fan of that country,achieving ANY CHANGE WILL BE HARD.
We, in our deliberations should take that in to consideration.
Private army,s, folk convinced the government is about to place have its citizens in concentration camps a host of very different problems
We may, and should look at what can be achieved and why America, a country most of us love is so troubled.
And why it is so splintered, before our love of them taints us.
Lets hope changes come without the death of folk who push new laws.

So true Belly.
Have a wonderful Christmas :)

Thanks Suse you too and every one.
America land of the too free!
NRA,how awful! no group I know of seems to hate its own country more.
Put a*GUN MAN* in every school.
Based on the ability to think so lacking in that right wing group, that gun man may well kill the next lot of kids.
No Absolutes, no single answer, but fighting these fools would be a start.
I had a real life debate! here in my home! with Christmas visitors, who said we should have the right to own a gun.
I agreed, pointed out we do.
But too that kids in this country loved and cherished sons and daughters, have killed them selves with dads gun.
No Absolutes, but we can hope.
America can hope, but this strange freedom they cherish may stall action, freedom to murder children.

While copy-cat offenders are attracted to schools signed as no gun zones to 'win' the tsunami of sensationalist media attention, surely it makes sense for security to be present. Choose a yardman trained appropriately.

If parents and the principal want to make a political statement with their own children and, advertise a target for the one in every million offender who desires celebrity status courtesy of irresponsible media,they could at least add the deterrent of a security officer.

In that case why should the security officer be armed solely with a speech of welcome and his battery torch? Assuming he is allowed to carry the possible weapon of a heavy torch.

I dispare.
A long time I have been here using this site.
I am told over 10.000 posts to my credit, or is it discredit?
I see the post above mine and dispare.
I am unsure why I still post.
Unsure just what has taken place here.
Can anyone tell me the costs of an armed man in every school.
And just think with me, if you intended to MURDER kids would you not shoot the Gard first? gain another loaded gun?
What if the every day Gard went mad?
No ABSOLUTES, no clear and easy answers.
But as a pro gun ownership poster even I KNOW AMERICA MUST CHANGE.
I LEARNED MUCH HERE, FOR A BLOKE WITHOUT THE FORMAL EDUCATION WASTED ON some.
Even how to cut and paste,thanks OUG.
Well I am afraid this section of our site is no longer a place of learning.
Debate open and fair has gone.
Can SOME NOT SEE no easy answers exist.
to even think the answer is in MORE GUNS is in my view childish.
I will cut my contributions to just a few threads.
I may be disliked even sent to Coventry for my views, but this end of the forum is in trouble.

Engage thinking, Belly. Something has to be done now to reduce the likelihood of copy-cats.

You don't need armed security in every school.

Simply remove the 'gun free zone' signage and a small number of plain clothes police or security guards with concealed carry (example being plain clothes detectives) at random schools at random times would deter these media attention-seeking criminals.

As well, encourage the feckless media to report responsibly on multiple killings so as not to give the perpetrators their much sought personal celebrity.

BTW, the airlines use the same tactic of having armed plain clothes security randomly on flights to deter publicity seeking hijackers and terrorists.

Poirot,

Have just got around to reading the colouful Joe Bageant link which you posted.

While living in the States I met many different people from all walks of life. If I had to guess, I would say Joe is a dyed in the wool southerner.
It was almost like being in a foreign country to travel there, particularly on the east coast. Their thoughts and attitudes on the whole are very different from the northerners. Don't think the civil war ever ended for them. After California and New York, I found them refreshing, outspoken and down to earth - more like we are. And oh boy, their food was so good! Makes my mouth water just remembering some of the meals I ate 'down south'.

OTB,

I think that for people ready to take their own lives at the end of a shooting spree that the deterrent factor of an armed security guard is pretty feeble.

Most of these outrages are committed by head cases wanting to make a statement. Guns make these statements lethal.

Anyone got any ideas on how the shooter could have been stopped after he entered the school?
A sort of a First Response that someone could have used?

the difference between an Australian Police Officer, a UK Police Officer and an American Police Officer

You're on duty by yourself walking on a deserted street late at night.
Suddenly, an armed man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knifeand lunges at you.You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot, however you have only a split second to react before he reaches you. What do you do?

AUSTRALIAN POLICE OFFICER:
Firstly the officer must consider the man's Human Rights.
1) Does the man look poor or oppressed?
2) Is he newly arrived in this country and does not yet understand the law?
3) Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
4) Am I dressed provocatively?
5) Could I run away?
6) Could I possibly swing my gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
7) Should I try and negotiate with him to discuss his wrong doings?
8) Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
9) Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society?
10) Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
11) If I were to grab his knees and hold on, would he still want to stab and kill me?
12) If I raise my gun and he turns and runs away, do I get blamed if he falls over, knocks his head and kills himself? .
13) If I shoot and wound him, and lose the subsequent court case, does he have the opportunity to sue me, cost me my job, my credibility and the loss of my family home?


UK POLICE OFFICER:
BANG!


AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! 'click'...
(Sergeant arrives at scene later and remarks: 'Nice grouping

Oh, come on you lot ? Surely someone must find this post untrue or at least offensive ?

Yes, I find it doubtful that an English policeman would have been able to fire one shot.

Individual G'day I don't know about untrue or offensive, but you should realise that not many people could respond to your post, given that they have never fired a shot in anger in their lives.

given that they have never fired a shot in anger in their lives.
laz91,
exactly, yet they perpetually fire off at those of us who have experience in unpleasant facts.