Suseonline,
You're a moron & do not qualify to receive any more replies to your idiotic posts. Period!

Yes that's right Individual, you take up your dummie and run along then : )

Dear Suse,

I can understand your concern about guns.
For you to be pro guns, would be like
expecting Jesus to be pro nails.
(my apologies for this lame example -
it's the best I can do on short notice
to get the message across).

Why does a country like the United States
permit such a widespread access to handguns?
One reason is the persistent belief that, since
criminals have guns, law-abiding people need them
for self-protection. Actually, gun-owning households
are much more likely to suffer fatalities from their
own weapons than from those of outsiders.

One study found that only 2 per cent of all slayings
in gun-owning households were for self-protection;
the remainder were suicides, homicides, or
accidental deaths, almost all involving family members,
friends or acquaintances. A second reason for the
proliferation of handguns in the US is of course the
belief, deeply held by many Americans, that gun
ownership is an individual right.

For granting this liberty to the individual, American
society pays the price in the deviance of those who
abuse it. Guns will always be an emotive issue - and
politicians are not keen to impose restrictions.
Excellent as it was -
even John Howard implemented the "buy-back guns" initative
only after the Port Arthur massacre.

Suseonline (and your echo, Lexi)

BTT

Obviously you are determined to keep ducking the fundamental questions arising from the OP.

Forgetting guns so as to not provoke your hoplophobia, it is apparent you would impose limits on the law-abiding citizen's right to defend herself and loved ones. Where the offender is hurt you believe the victim (who defended herself or her child) should be charged with some offence, and murder or manslaughter if the offender dies through the defensive act of the victim. As well, you could include injury to the offender through his victim not providing a safe workplace for him to commit his crime.

What limits do you imagine you can impose on the home invader you find in your bedroom? If the homeowner cannot defend herself through fear of herself or her pooch hurting the criminal, how then is she to convince the criminal that he should impose limits on his behaviour too?

Suseonline
How the hell do you wander into someones backyard by mistake?
Do you really believe Martin Bryant wasn't a patsy?
Sure he was there but so were other people.
I've used a AR15 and I can assure you their accuracy rating over a distance outside 30 metres is woeful and he is credited with 28 (I think) kill shots out of 31 rounds and over some incredible distances. No one ever tested the cartridge cases to see if they all came from the same weapon. The man was a nutter true so he made the perfect patsy.
In all my years as a copper I never came across one case of murder where there wasn't a motive.
Martin Bryant had no motive.
No I don't think that type of weapon should be available to the general public.
John Howard had a different agenda when he took the guns out of society and it wasn't protecting the citizens. It was to protect the government.
Are you people so naive as to honestly believe that the government doesn't have "black ops" type people on the payroll. These are the 'make it happen' people.

Onthebeach , I don't mind having Lexi as a online friend. At least she doesn't try to put words in my mouth like you do.
"...it is apparent you would impose limits on the law-abiding citizen's right to defend herself and loved ones. Where the offender is hurt you believe the victim (who defended herself or her child) should be charged with some offence, and murder or manslaughter if the offender dies through the defensive act of the victim..."

Where on earth have I ever said anything like that?
I don't believe a woman defending her child from an intruder would be found guilty of a crime, unless she dragged out a bazooka and blasted the intruder and half the house next door into oblivion!

I believe the wording is 'reasonable force'?
I'm sure our friendly local policeman can tell us, hey ChrisGaffs ?

If we look at a country like the US for example, where there are guns owned by many private citizens, do you think there is less violence and assaults and murders in that country per capita because there are more guns?

No, there is MORE violence,and I don't want to see that happen here.
I think the current gun ownership laws should be tightened even further in Australia.

If any people want to go out and play shoot-ups like the old movies of cowboys and Indians, take up playing violent war video games, or move to the US...