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.