So Fox, what are Professor Alpers' relevant qualifications?

Maybe if any of the dear readers with a Doctorate or Higher Doctorate from the University of Sydney or another university could advise what qualification and quality of individual research they would expect?

Similarly, they might comment on what scholastic and research contribution (published in the peer reviewed journals of note) they would expect of a senior fellow at Harvard?

Foxy,

"2004–present Adjunct Associate Professor, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney" from one of your links and your other links are just as worthless.

But. maybe, Paul will enlighten us about Alper's elusive qualifications?

Thanks Foxy, Associate Professor Philip Alpers is certainly eminently qualified to speak on matters of gun control. His opinions will not go down well with the gun happy brigade such as Is Mise and OTB.

With Beach all in favor of a well armed para military citizens militia under the control of his like minded friends. and with Is Mise calling for armed citizens to right any perceived wrong doings. Society would certainly be different with these two in control.

Is Mise, could you please explain how you would foresee the ordinary good citizenry being armed for self protection. Would their guns be loaded and concealed as they went about their daily business, one would never known when one would feel the urge to defend oneself. Under what circumstance would a good citizen be free to open fire? What would be the consequences should one good citizen inadvertently shoot dead another good citizen. Would that simply be a case of "tough titties" or could there be some ramifications for the perpetrator?. PLEASE EXPLAIN!

"Paul will enlighten us about Alper's elusive qualifications?"

And who peer reviews his 'research'. Cringeworthy. See here,

<“Mr Alpers’ unfounded concerns that firearms stolen from licensed owners are somehow leaking to into the black market and threatening public safety are a stretch, given that research by the Australian Institute of Criminology shows that only 3 per cent of firearms stolen from licensed owners are subsequently used to commit a crime.

“The finding that restrictions on self-loading longarms has had no impact on suicides should come as no surprise to anyone because of the very mechanics of these firearms.

“Suggestions that our gun laws have been watered down or weakened are also questionable with no clear example given demonstrating that the public is somehow at risk because of any changes to regulations surrounding law-abiding firearm owners.”>

http://ssaa.org.au/media/press-releases/ssaa-refutes-alpers-latest-dubious-research-concerning-firearms-and-port-arthur/

Partisan opinions offered by the likes of the SSAA are of no value. This organisation supports an open slather approach to gun ownership, "arm the citizens" they say. When unpalatable research is brought forward the gun happy brigade simply ridicules the findings, and attempts to "shoot the messenger". This is the case with the work done by Philip Alpers and others, ridicule the research and do your best to blacken the good name of the reporter. Do not offer any worthwhile alternate research, just open fire!
Beach you are big on qualifications, what are the qualifications of the gun happy Geoff Jones to speak on matters of gun control.

Paul,

Partisan opinions offered by the likes of The Greens, Gun Control Australia, Alpers et al are of no value.

However instead of making unfounded and un-referenced assertions, just shew us where the claims of the SSAA are in error.

Regarding self defence, all of your suppositions are covered by law.

The Law also allows that a person in fear of their life or serious injury unlawful attack has the right to defend themselves; do you disagree with the law?
We all have the right to defend ourselves.