Not bothered about parliamentary friends of AFL, if there is such a group. The issue is guns and shooting, there's a head of steam behind the incessant demands to reverse the Howard reforms curbing gun anarchy. It is because of this that when the gunnies edge their finger under the door as "Parliamentary Friends of Shooting" it is wise to jump on it. Every time.

Is Mise, did you know Heinrich Himmler was very concerned about German soldiers shooting Jews during WWII. He was also a friend of shooting, not a friend of the shot, but concerned about the shooters and the physiological effect all that killing was having on them, so they invented gas chambers instead. A true humanitarian, was he not?

Senator Penny Wright is now bleating because her Green's Senate Inquiry was undermined by shooters using their democratic rights and making submissions to the inquiry, which did not turn out as was expected.

Senator Bridget McKenzie used the low underhand tactic of asking the anti gun/shooting advocates to back up their submissions with verifiable data, she had the temerity to ask for factual references.

What is the world coming to when a Green is asked for proof?

Julian,

You say "....the incessant demands to reverse the Howard reforms curbing gun anarchy...."

What gun anarchy?
Gun crime etc., has been in steady decline since well before John Howard stuck his ineffectual bid in, "Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07.

*rate per 100,000 population."
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

The highest rate in the period mentioned occurred after Howard's efforts, so, Julian, as you have asserted that Howard curbed gun violence will you now subscribe to the theory that he in fact increased it?

In the 19 years before Howard stood up to the gunnies there had been more than a dozen multiple gun homicides. In the 19 years since, the gun massacres had all but stopped. The fact that there have been any at all is because those who committed them were able to get hold of guns - the Howard laws, though a watershed that the gunnies clamour to reverse, have made it a lot harder for them to get hold of firearms, especially the deadly assault weapons that the gunnies crave. The data shown in Is Mise’s Institute of Criminology reference relate to total homicide, not gun homicides. Howard was targeting gun homicides which reached a crescendo at Port Arthur. The massacres have all but petered out.

But yes, bad guys can still get hold of guns in Australia. The Howard laws are not yet nearly draconic enough, and have been weakened by gunnie pressure. The laws preventing people carrying firearms on to airliners, for example, mean you can travel on them secure in the knowledge that no-one on board can shoot you. Those standards, both in legislation and in enforcement, are something to which we should aspire. The right to live free of bullet holes is a basic human right. The power to inflict them is not.

Julian,

You are on the ball, even if a little biased.

You could have saved time and space however if you had quoted
"The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968."

Note the year of commencement '1969', as I said a downward trend that commenced well before Howard's push for posterial recognition.
John Howard's laws had no effect on the downward trend.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

You should have read the whole article.