Is anyone else but me interested in the Weapons Act Review currently being conducted by the Qld Government?

God help us if I am!

It would seem that the only ones so far, pushing to encourage a change in the Gun Laws, are the people belonging to Pro Gun organisations.

And is it any wonder!

These Pro-Gun organisations, acting under the guise of a 'Return to Fairer Gun Laws' for gun owners and sporting shooters, are trying to make easier again, for people to obtain and operate a gun.

Sadly, they stand a good chance of doing just that, if the complacency attributed by the general public to this review is anything to go by. These Pro Gun organisations stand to undo a lot of the good work already achieved by the Federal and State Governments on Gun Control issues.

So if anyone reading this cares about the Weapons Act Review, I strongly suggest you follow up it up on the Qld Police web site, and give these Pro Gun organisations a run for their money!

Rock.

Would be interested to hear why you are concerned?

Just in your own few words if thats ok?

I must be honest I had not heard. Can you perhaps post the link.
It was rather interesting to watch throughout the buy back laws.
These guys would go into their gun shop or pistrol club and take all their old weapons that they couldnt even use anymore.
Then they would receive a nice big fat cheque which enabled them to rush off and by far better and new guns.
Did you know they did not have to change the law to have the buy back?
True. It was a political stunt that cost the tax payers heaps for nothing.
They already had the powers.
Anyway- That aside why are you concerned about people having guns.
Just curious.

PAEL/IF

Firstly, I'm not against people owning guns. I'm against people trying to make it easy to get one. If someone has a legitimate reason to own a gun, I agree they should retain the right to do so, but that shouldn't include the right to have it made easy.

The new gun laws which were introduced 10 years ago, managed to bring some sanity back into the way guns, (in particular, automatic and semi-automatic rifles) were obtained. The previous system was abysmal.
Despite the majority of people approving the introduction of the new laws, the pro gun lobby would like to wind these laws back, so that once again these weapons are easier to obtain, hence back on the street in greater numbers.

I agree with your comments about the buy-back system not working as effectively as it should have. It was rushed through too quickly.
A person I know bought a semi-automatic .22 rifle for thirty dollars second hand, then received $540 for the same gun in the buy-back scheme. He promptly went out and purchased a brand new rifle with the money received, and as you stated this possibly happened many, many times.

Did the buy-back make a difference? I think it did. A lot of guns, (possibly thousands) sitting in cupboards only gathering dust, would have been taken out of circulation, this, despite the failings of some parts of the buy-back scheme.
Whilst I realise there has been people injured and murdered from shooting since the new laws were introduced, I know I rest a little more easily knowing that some crazy person, (and who can tell what will turn a normal person into a crazy person) has a little more time to reflect upon their intended unlawful actions, before obtaining a firearm.

In some areas, the law needs a bit more work. Some aspects need re-examining to tidy up the edges, but in the end, perhaps soon, we'll have a set of laws, everyone can live with - provided they don't get shot!

Try www.police.qld.gov.au/Forms/weaponsActReview.asp for the link.

As always, the problem is very rarely the legal, registered guns. The real problem is the guns that no-one knows exists. If the right controls were in place, it would be very hard to get a registered gun to disappear outside the legal framework (eg annual inspections of said registered firearm). Licencing of owners restricts the number of guns, and the types of guns that they are able to hold. For example, guns with certain capacities are restricted to those with a genuine need (farmers).

The real danger, is those guns that are sold in the black market. And believe me, it is very easy to get your hands on pretty much anything you want (including uzi's and bren guns). You've just got to know the right people, know how to ask without getting yourself bumped off for your efforts, and be prepared to pay the price. A brand new pistol will cost around $1500. Not much if you want something easy to handle and conceal. I worry far more about this type of weapon, as they are near impossible to track.

Guns laws (particularly in relation to ownership of numbers and types) could be loosened up significantly without putting the public in danger, if only tighter restrictions were placed around reporting and inspection. But that would take too much time and money, so the govt (of any state) isnt interested in what would be a win-win situation.

Hi Country Gal

Treading on dangerous ground to relax any part of the current laws I would suggest.
I'd argue that point about only unlicensed and illegal gun owners being at fault too.
How much does it take to turn a legitimate gun owner into an illegal one. Not a lot I would suggest.

"How much does it take to turn a legitimate gun owner into an illegal one. Not a lot I would suggest."

Fair question Rock Collector, but I could ask this of you.... "What does it take to turn a legitimate knife owner into an illegal one?" We could ask the same of owners of cricket bats, iron bars and the biggie... car owners who maim and kill many times more people a year than do legitimate firearm owners.

As Country Gal said, illegal firearms are relatively easy to obtain if you ask the right questions of the right people. I'm of the opinion that all Howard's firearm laws did was to create a black market for unregistered firearms including pistols. I've always remained deeply suspicious of Howard's interest in attempting to disarm the Australian population.

I've been a gun owner most my life. I still don't see why someone in the city needs an assault rifle, but I also don't see how targeting law abiding gun owners with legislation will stop criminal activity using guns. Has incidents of criminal activity slowed up since the buy back?.

Many of the weapons in criminal circulation are from legit owners having lost them in burgularies...but what percentage IS that?.

Ownership of high performance vehicles by young people should be in your line of sight 'rock'. How come people like you are more concerned about guns than cars. Cars that kill VASTLY more people?.

Rock Collector, I didnt say that only non-licenced gun owners were at fault. Dont twist words. What I am more worried about is guns that cant be tracked, of which there are many thousands.

I ahve no problem with allowing licenced owners to own more guns if they like. Most simply see it as a hobby, and admire the machines. I would suggest that there are plenty that would rarely be fired (and some never).

What I do think is in order is tighter controls on gun inspection, and on ammunition sales. Currently, you dont need to even sign a declaration that you have all your guns, let alone have the weapons inspected to verify that you still have them. Easy way for guns to slip into the blackmarket. Better to require an annual declaration, and then have random inspections, or inspections every 5 years or the like.

Then, have tighter controls on ammo sales (including reloading supplies, although this is harder of course). Ammo kills when it hits, simply firing a gun doesnt. A licence number should be recorded with every sale, and cross-checked against calibres owned - easy way to pick up if you are buying ammo for an unregistered weapon. Also, if a national database were kept, usage patterns could be cross-checked against ownership, and significant alternations in activity targeted for inquiry. oh, and while we are on ammo, why not make it illegal to mail-order? That's a no-brainer for me.

Simply making it harder to get a legal gun, will drive the activity underground (which is what has happened). It needs more monitoring, not banning.

Quite right Country Girl. I believe I took your words out of context. I apologise profusely. What you said was 'rarely was the problem the legal and registered guns'. Cheez, I hope I got right this time! I'd still dispute that fact. Sorry.

Your comments on having a more rigorous form of annual registration proceedure makes a lot of sense and I meant to comment on this before. Good thinking and don't see why it shouldn't happen, but I'll bet it doesn't!

Aime. I accept there will always be arguments which try to compare the ownership of guns to something else where incidences of death are concerned.
Car accidents relating to deaths overall, has also been compared to the number of soldiers killed in the various World wars.

I'd like to pose a question. Are cars specifically designed to kill things? Therein lies the big difference, would you agree.

It probably doesn't matter what each is designed to do when adding the numbers, but personally, with all due respect, I would rather have the next door neighbour I'd just had a row with, driving around uncontrollably on their property shouting abuse at me from their car, than have them shooting a rifle. If they choose to hold a knife or cricket bat in one hand and an iron bar in another, I'd still consider myself in with a chance.
But this isn't the problem from my perspective.

Legislation will certainly not stop any determined criminal from acquiring a gun, but it should certainly go a long way to help slow down those legal gun owners, whom although they are not criminals at present, perhaps through some form of aggrieved process, could easily become one.

rock collector,
GREAT to see you raise this. Also good to see the moderate tone of all participants, which is not common in this topic.

This is where I am coming from:

1) I support shooter licensing, firearm registration and accountability of legal firearm owners for their behaviour, safe storage compliance and chain of custody records for firearms.

2) Also support limits on certain types such as automatic weapons, heavy-calibre arms and destructive weapons of war.

In my opinion these restrictions are effective in managing legitimate use of firearms to minimise irresponsibles and 'feeding' the criminal market.

Are we together so far?

There are legitimate and illegitimate uses of the argument that 'cars kill many more people'.

It might be legitimate to point out that every day many of us walk into the street trusting that no-one will be aiming to run us down and kill us when they are hypothetically overwhelmed with blind fury for some reason. If you wouldn't go in the road because of such a view of strangers you would be regarded as mentally ill, or at least irrationally phobic.

This is proof that people in general are willing to put their lives directly in the hands of strangers, who are overwhelmingly going to be worthy of that trust. (This is the exact opposite of the model of human nature implied by activists when talking about legitimate gun owners though.)

IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE as a moral argument to imply that an anti-gun activist, or any person, should leave one genuine problem alone because another is more pressing, or more dangerous. Just because they have their priorities different to mine doesn't invalidate any argument they make

rock collector, your first post seems rather panicky that the laws will be thrown out. "God help us all" you said. Do you think that the shooting clubs have much chance of getting any change at all?

It is my opinion that the most that is POSSIBLE is a few administrative changes. The State has signed on to the National Agreement on Firearms, and there is not much scope in that for "God Help Us" even if the politicians were not completely on board with the media and 'general public' stakeholders.

"Legislation will certainly not stop any determined criminal from acquiring a gun, but it should certainly go a long way to help slow down those legal gun owners, whom although they are not criminals at present, perhaps through some form of aggrieved process, could easily become one."

Rock Collector, the post I should have opened with should not have been about cars, bats or iron bars. I should have instead asked you the question.......What makes you so sure that legitimate firearm owners are going to become criminals in the first place?
It's seems almost as though someone who holds a legitimate license and firearm has threatened you for whatever reason, or perhaps you have a tale of personal tragedy to tell?

In relation to cars, yeah, I'll admit they were not intentionally designed to kill, but look how much road rage we read about in newspapers, look at the two tragic deaths in Sydney last night in which two elderly people were killed. In my associating with farmers and sporting shooters, it's more likely you'll see someone driving a car in an erratic manner who suddenly finds themselves before a criminal court than a legitimate firearm owner. The big difference is that the owner of the firearm is very aware that their gun/rifle WAS designed to kill, but the idiot joy riding, hooning, drunk, speeding or talking on a mobile phone whilst driving doesn't realise that the weapon they're driving is fully loaded.

"Legislation will certainly not stop any determined criminal from acquiring a gun, but it should certainly go a long way to help slow down those legal gun owners, whom although they are not criminals at present, perhaps through some form of aggrieved process, could easily become one."

According to the stats, only one shooting out of all the past incidents was committed by a licenced gun owner, so it seems that the vast majority (ie all other licensed shooters) would not pose a threat through any "aggrieved process".
The so-called "buy-backs" were knee-jerks that punished legal shooters while leaving criminals unaffected. How can anyone think that that has improved safety?

If anyone here on this blog is old enough to have lived thru the ww2,they could tell you that before any war happened (was made) the general public was disarmed first.Simple truth! Pollies are scared when people are armed. Like in an other post it was mentioned about Switzerland's neutrality and peacefull existence, where btw every man capable of firing a rifle (self/country defence) posesses an firearm of some sort.
As far as criminals is concerned, they would think twice if not thrice about entering your premises or abusing any of your rights.
Don't forget the past rulers who abused their people,if those people had a firearm, would these rulers have had a chance to abuse their freedoms and rights? Don't think so! Revolutions would have been created and justly so.

rock collector, If that is what you do for hobby (rock collecting) how would you feel if you staked a claim somewhere in the bush and someone comes along and cleans your claim whilst carrying a firearm,would you produce a permit for him to do so? or would you show a sign at the front fence near your claim-pegs with the words,"Trespassers risk being shot at" Or a bit closer to home: You find your daughter being raped at gunpoint or (now) knifepoint, you think you have the right under the old "Magna Carta" to defend your own Family,Freedom,house and belongings?
I am sorry if I am offending you, but please get a grip and try not to make pussies out of decent law abiding people who know what to do when the sh.. hits the fan.

Rock Collector,

Knives are used in the majority of murders and robberies in this country.
Why don't you, as a public spirited citizen, attack this great problem first.
You could start 'Knife Control Australia' and demand a Knife Buyback, import resrictions, registration of all knives and the licensing of all knife owners.
Not to mention strict safekeeping laws and the prohibition of keeping any knife for self-protection.

Think how safe you could make Australia. You would go down in history as a Great Australian.

Thanks to everyone so far for their input to my original post and it's clear to me, if no-one else, why politicians have been reluctant to involve themselves with gun laws in the past.

Unfortunately it's impossible to respond to every contributor on a singular level, due to to time constraints and restrictions placed upon each of us, concerning this site.

There's no doubt the arguments for or against suitable gun laws could go on forever, but I would in particular like to thank ChrisPer for their input. Well balanced comments put far more eloquently than I.

Aime -- Relax. I didn't mean to imply that legal gun owners would become criminals. I suggested only, that the opportunity to become one, is a lot easier if one owns a rifle. I hope from the comments I've submitted on the various issues surrounding this blog, I've never given the impression that I might tempted to use any weapon, at any time, to help solve a problem. Do you see that applying to everyone on this blog? I don't.
Can I tell you a tale? Yes I can, but here's another. There are many more legal gun owners out there who should not be allowed possession of a firearm, than we could ever know or give credit for.

On another note. I must confess I don't see a connection with the suspicion that politicians are wanting to disarm the nation. Why?Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

aftfnc. Your query about my 'rock collector' handle. Easy if you think about it.
I've collected a few wouldn't you agree? Probably collect a few more.

Sorry ChrisPer...... 'God help us' not the best choice. 'God forbid' should do it. Frustration, not panic, at the apathy and complacency of the general public not getting involved. Well we deserve what we'll get I suppose.

You seem to have a little more faith in our politicians than I have. I hope you're right, but Mr Beattie needs every vote he can muster on this one!

rock collector wrote "There are many more legal gun owners out there than we could ever know or give credit for."
Where does this delusion come from? Can he/she back it up with facts, not "tales"?
To have a licence (requirement for a legal gun owner), one has to pass police background checks. A pistol licence has to be renewed once per year, so checks are ongoing. Also, a doctor can recommend cancellation of a licence if he thinks that the holder is a risk. A licence and any firearms will be confiscated if the holder is involved in any dispute that involves restraining orders etc. In view of all this, it's virtually impossible to believe rc's statement.

Yep! JSP1488 Completely dilusional.......Must be the answer to everything!

You see eftfnc! There goes another one.

rc...great comeback. There goes another what?

You still haven't backed up your statement, "There are many more legal gun owners out there than we could ever know or give credit for." with facts. I bet that you can't.

Or maybe you think that avoiding the question makes you right.

I think I know where you keep your rocks.

Just reviewing past posts and read Country Girl's "Currently, you dont need to even sign a declaration that you have all your guns, let alone have the weapons inspected to verify that you still have them.". I must have missed it previously. CG, I don't know where you are writing from but I thought that the gun laws were universal across Australia. Here, in SA, the police can arrive at your door without warning and inspect your guns, ammo, reloading consumables and safe storage arrangements. If you don't have all your guns that are on the register, you are in deep s---. This also applies if you have ammo of a calibre different from those of your guns. I thought that this was the case in all states.

Steady on JSP1488. I've got feelings.
Got a lot more demands on my time than this thread don't you know. But you had your chance.

'There goes another one' refers to one of my previous posts. It means 'rock' and if you care to go back and read them you'd have made yourself aware of what I meant. My particular brand of humour I expect.
Not surprised you didn't get it though, and if you'd continue to read my posts a little more thoroughly you'd also be aware that what you stated I'd written is incorrect. Have a look at it and you'll see what I mean. There is a little more attached to it.

Smarten yourself up JSP1488.
Damn, I spelt the the word delusional wrong in my last post.
No wonder you're confused JSP1488.

Sorry JSP1488. My last comments to you were a little facetious and it's something better left to others.

I use the handle 'rock collector' because I knew I'd be having a few rocks thrown at me when I began the thread. That's why I wrote - "here comes another one", referring to the posts doing their best to knock me down.

You left out an important part of the comment I made about legal gun owners, twice. You quoted me incorrectly and it changes the context of my statement quite significantly wouldn't you agree.

JSP1488. On the other point of avoiding the question and not presenting the facts.
It doesn't matter to me whether you, or anyone, thinks it's a cop out, delusional rantings or anything else, does anybody honestly believe I'd write down the things I know, then put them on the inter-net? C'mon! Seriously!

JSP1488 I've stated my case and everyone's had a go at me. I now think it's time for me to retire gracefully and leave it to others who may wish to carry on. Well done everyone and good luck to those who contributed to the thread, it's been extremely entertaining.
Pity the matter wasn't so serious

Rock Collector
Thanks for your well thought out comments.
We had a head office at a Pistol Club for a few years believe it or not.
It was good of the boys to supply us by sponcership with these facilites.

When you watch the police Van come in a churn a few old rifles and write cheques for eleven G and more only to see the great list of new orders and joy amoung the boys you learn.
I am not saying they probably didnt replace them with something safer because they were more modern.
I am just telling you the facts.
Question is- Is the old gun lying in the cuboard collecting dust and normally out of mind - more or less dangerous than the nice modern new toy?
I honestly dont know.
I think people ought to be able to keep a gun for their protection in this day and age.
After all we live in dangerous times . We should be able to protect our house our family and our country.
btw Anybody can get a shooters licence for forty bucks.
All you have to do is say you want it to shoot harmless animals and nobody blinks. You can take your dogs along to rip them apart as well for no extra cost.
Doesnt seem right somehow- especially when a person is charged for murder for shooting an intruder they are in fear of their lives from.

There has been no change in the figures of people being shot since the new gun laws.

However there HAS been many questions as to "where' some of the weapons have ended up
Speaking of sercurity- There~s food for thought for us all
?

I'm stridently against the relaxation of gun laws, particularly handguns and automatic weapons.

I do realise there's a necessity for those involved with primary industries to possess firearms such as rifles, and don't begrudge them that, though by the same token, I don't see that it should be an easy task.

I thoroughly reject the idea of guns for use for protection - that, ultimately is what our police services are for, if they can't do that, then we need to look at ways to improve our police services and reduce crime. (Yes, I realise that the police can't be there when a crime occurs, however their role is in apprehension and the fact it will dissuade criminals). US style gun ownership would be a horrendous step backward for Australia.

There is a justification for rifles in regional and rural areas. Not in urban areas however.
There is no need for handguns or automatic weapons.

And PALEIF - I don't believe that shootings haven't gone down. I'd need hard evidence. Throwaway comments don't cut it.
Statistically, the Port Arthur massacre alone should be sufficient to push the averages up quite significantly.

I don't see how intelligent people can argue for guns for protection after seeing the mess of killings in the US.
The number of people dying from gun-related carnage over there is so high its ridiculous. That's the last thing we should want here.

Critics point to sweden and finland. To that I say, different culture and different arrangements for gun ownership, with their reliance on a reserve army. Besides, bullets are still banned in public.

Then there's the old 'Washington State' chestnut, where gun advocates point to the tougher laws but still high number of shooting deaths.
Unfortunately, neighbouring states have lax laws, so of course there's still high shootings in such an ethnically and economically diverse setting.

The brutal, cold logic is that when you look at the US, a country far more similar to Australia than Finland or Sweden, you see a country with lax laws, for 'protection' yet brutally high numbers of people dying from being shot.

Sorry PALEIF, your insecurity or need for protection doesn't justify creating that kind of carnage in Australia. I'd fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing happening. The rate of crime here doesn't warrant it, but it most certainly would if handguns for 'protection' were unleashed on the populace. That's what's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. Of the worst kind.

How many ordinary, law abiding people have been shot in their homes by intruders with guns? Point me to the Australian incidents of this occurring? I certainly can't see many, if any. Sure, criminals will gun one another down, and there was the tragic incident with the backpacker in Melbourne, but that was hardly a home invasion.

TRTL said......."And PALEIF - I don't believe that shootings haven't gone down. I'd need hard evidence. Throwaway comments don't cut it.
Statistically, the Port Arthur massacre alone should be sufficient to push the averages up quite significantly."

I believe PALE was referring to the "new gun laws" which were a result of the Port Arthur massacre, therefore not admissible in your argument.

Whilst there has been no more massacres since Port Arthur, my guess is that there are still plenty of unregistered automatic firearms in the community, so it's not unlikely that some nut case will attempt another Martin Bryant one day.

The ABS figures towards the end of 2005 state that although the number of murders in the period after the introduction of the new laws had fallen from 32% to 13%, there had been an accompanying rise in attempted murders involving guns from 19% to 23%. I'm surmising that percentage might have risen a little with the gangland murders in 2006.

I could bore you with statistics which indicate that new firearm laws have had little impact on crime, but there's little point. I personally don't own a firearm of any kind, but with the proliferation of drugs and home invasions in the community, I don't think it's fair that residents are unable to protect their own lives and property when drug crazed people have an open invitation to enter people's homes to rape, kill and maim. The police are powerless, tied down with paperwork and litigation if the public perceives they "got it wrong." Policing seems to be more about following up on crime rather than preventing it. No wonder the home security industry with it's steel bars, shutters and high tech monitors are doing such a roaring trade.

rock collector, if you are still going to make a submission, could you help us out with a few points:

1) Keeping the laws that are agreed to be beneficial is a good idea.

2) How about changing the ones that don't have practical benefit? for instance:

- Air pistols and airsoft guns are harmless, good for sporting skills but not for killing. Even in Great Britain they are allowed competely without a licence. How about removing them from the coverage of Category H? If you want them still to be controlled, make them Category A.

- 28 day waiting periods address an idea that people form a violent or suicidal plan, then rush off and buy a gun and carry it out. However, this logic doesn't work when a person already has a gun and wants to buy another, perhaps for a different target match. Could you support no waiting period for second firearms, since the only effect is to harass the already-vetted legal person?

- Technology should allow better service of record-keeping and paperwork, like fast approvals and easy transfers. If the Government used tecnology to make compliance with the existing laws less of a pain in the arse, we would be less inclined to subvert laws which we presently perceive as founded in contempt.

Can supporters of gun laws support anything whatever which is not aimed at increasing the burden on compliant shooters?

Aime - I'm aware of the fact that PALEIF was referring to the new laws rushed through after port Arthur... that's precisely my point, and why I mention it pushes the stats up.

If you're going to compare shootings before the laws, and shootings after the laws, then statistically, the port arthur massacre is going to push shooting averages before the new laws up quite significantly.

I'm not saying it doesn't mean there aren't illegal guns out there, of course there are. I'm not saying there won't be another Port Arthur massacre, because there could be. (Though bryant was quite a simple fellow apparently, so I suspect it would be difficult for one such as he to obtain it illegally on the black market).

What I am saying, and what those ABS figures appear to indicate, is that shooting deaths have indeed gone down.

As for indiscriminate rape and pillaging during home invasions, I don't think that's right either. I think you'll find most of this crime is perpetrated against other criminals or those involved in that world.
You don't hear many cases of the innocent family at home gunned down.

Gun ownership won't help you. If there's a problem with the police, fix the police, don't arm the population. We may as well just head back to the wild west.
This desire to own guns can only result in more people being shot.

Christ sakes people, look what gun ownership and protection has done for the US. Why the hell would you want that here?

TRTL, you might like to read some of the literature on trying to measure the effects of the gun laws. The references in the article at Wikipedia 'Gun Politics in Australia' and the Australian Institute of Criminology (the Trends and Issues series of publications) are a good start. Andrew Leigh's blog points to some discussions of papers by McPhedran and Baker, Chapman et al., and Andrew Leigh and Christine Neil.

There is a difference of opinon over whether 'drops in gun deaths' AS a statistic should be counted (as by Ozanne-Smith, then by Leigh and Neill) or not. These are mostly suicides, and the evidence is that they are substituted by hanging and exhaust gas suicides. But who cares, if we ignore that the gun laws were hugely beneficial.

I think that the idea of the people measuring the effects of the laws is mistaken, because the change in people's ideas and attitudes is more important than the laws themselves. Read http://www.class.org.au/ideas-kill.htm (my article on how dangerous ideas are).

What a pity Rock Collector has left the discussion unresolved, especially after starting the thread. I still don’t see how I could misquote as I copied and pasted the section from his/her post. If anyone out there can see anything that I can’t, please let me know. Also, what’s the point of not presenting the facts? To state that he/she has a tale to tell but then write ‘does anybody honestly believe I'd write down the things I know, then put them on the inter-net’ makes me wonder why anyone would mention a tale at all. Could it be 'I know something you don't know'?

Over the length of this thread, it has become apparent that the majority of posters have no idea of the current gun laws. The suggestions such as licence numbers being checked against sales, random police inspections etc are already in operation and have been for years. Also, the fear of a crazie acquiring a legal gun is mostly unfounded. Illegal guns are the problem. No amount of changes to gun-laws will address that.

As a footnote, we are a sporting nation. Yet we are not allowed to compete on an equal basis with countries that do not have our restrictions in calibre etc. In IPSC, for example, we can no longer compete in Major power factor, putting us behind American competitors.

Turnrightleft

Your fear of protecting your family is no reason to stop me protecting mine.

By all means hide undre[ under] the bed while the uninvited house guest rapes your wife daughter and bashes your elerly dad.

However do not stop me from protecting my family.

You claim its ok for what you term bad people to be shot so long as they keep it between mates.

Si
The facts are its the old the weak sick. The young girls being raped in the park in brisbane and little old ladies attacked by a raspist.

Tell that to them!

How dare you put all these people at risk and unable to defend themselves.

So trunrightleft. How do you suggrest[ sorry no correction on computer working]
How do you suggest we try to attack the problem?
What about less people?
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Do you have the figures of stabbings and shootings and the areas in which these crimes are the highest?
How about we cut down on imagration. Do you think that would help.?
The name is PALE not PALEIF.
I think OLO have spoken to you before about this and using two IDs.

PALE.. PALEIF... whatever. The holes in your reasoning are big enough to drive trucks through.

Firstly, I'll call you whatever you damn well want. I was abbreviating your name and including the 'intensive farming.'

No, OLO have never spoken to me about using two identities.
I've only registered as one, and you can check with them if you want. I haven't the foggiest notion what you're talking about, or what relevance this has.

"Fear of protecting my family" where on earth did I indicate that? where are you getting this from?
I would however, be more afraid if destructive youths who hang around the local shopping mall managed to get their hands on their parent's gun.

I suspect far too many people are getting cloistered in their homes, and paranoid about the true nature of the Australia that lies beyond.
The rapes in Brisbane are indeed shocking in their nature, but how much better would they be if the assailant had a gun?

The problem with the proliferation of firearms is that it simply means more guns. Not just in the hands of good people.

As for the argument that there are already illegal firearms out there, of course there are.

But where are the examples of these firearms being used against innocent people hmm?

Did the brisbane rapist use a gun? No.
Did the man who raped that old lady have a gun? No.

Who is more likely to be good at using a gun? The young male rapist, or a little old lady?

Whilst the rapes are horrendous and tragic, nobody has died. Sure, we wouldn't shed many tears for the rapist, but if he felt he had to arm himself and had the means, whose to say who would get shot?

The only certainty with more guns is more people getting shot.

I'm not afraid of protecting my family, and that's an insult, below the belt, based on nothing, certainly not reasoned argument or facts.

PALEIF's position is a problem.

Self defence is a basic human right. To deny it to others is a moral crime whatever law you make.

Denying that human right is an act of moral status-seeking, not a defensible intellectual position.

The problem is, in Australia there is very low average risk, especially for the 'new class', the comfy tertiary-educated 40%.

There are extremely few bad guys shot in self defense in Australia, but it DOES happen.

A few ordinary people ARE killed, brutally bashed or raped, who could have been saved if they had been prepared to defend themselves. There are a number of separated partners who knew well they were in danger, murdered by former spouses.

In Mandurah, WA, a man had an affair with a woman he later found was a criminal bikie's wife. Police were so concerned for his safety they put a police camera over his front door. It recorded him being shot dead when he answered it a few weeks later.

The people taught to submit to criminals certainly showed their stuff at Port Arthur.

In addition, many tell anecdotes of using guns to protect their lives resulting in no harm to anyone. We don't report most such instances for very obvious reasons. For instance, many country women are alone, but given security by public knowledge that they are armed.

Self-defense cases are relatively few in number, but are sufficient to disprove the blanket opinion that 'No Australian needs a gun for self-defense'. It seems a more provable claim is that:

'A person who claims that no Australian needs a gun for self defense is not telling the truth.'

TRTL said:
"As for the argument that there are already illegal firearms out there, of course there are.

But where are the examples of these firearms being used against innocent people hmm?

Did the brisbane rapist use a gun? No.
Did the man who raped that old lady have a gun? No."

So TRTL you seem to be saying that illegal guns are not the problem you are interested in. Would it be fair to say you care about 'proliferation' of guns to ordinary people, but not illegal guns owned by criminals?

I think the issue is more black and white than you make it out to be. I'm simply against people being shot, criminal or otherwise.

I care about the proliferation of guns in general - and I reject the notion that there are more out there since the laws came into place.

Whilst I can concede that the numbers of guns trafficked amongst the criminal set haven't decreased significantly, I don't believe they've increasing either.

And logically, when the innocent people start getting more guns, then the criminals are going to decide it's necessary to use guns against them. And I dare say the criminals will be better at it.

You state: "Self-defense cases are relatively few in number, but are sufficient to disprove the blanket opinion that 'No Australian needs a gun for self-defense'. It seems a more provable claim is that:

'A person who claims that no Australian needs a gun for self defense is not telling the truth."

That is fair enough.

Would it also be fair to say that as the number of firearms in the community increases, so too do the number of gun-related deaths?

TurnRightThenLeft wrote 'when the innocent people start getting more guns, then the criminals are going to decide it's necessary to use guns against them. And I dare say the criminals will be better at it.'

Not too sure about that. Do criminals practise at the range every weekend? I and my fellow club members do so and there are quite a few dead-eye shots amongst us.

Maybe we should have a criminal-club competition.

Jps1488
Good Idea.
Turnrightleft
I read all the above posts and I note you were the first to take a personal swipe at the paleif poster by saying= If you are insecure you feel you need to have a gun to defend yourself etc.
Then you seem to have got all offended when the writer replied on a personal note[ as was directed to pale.
Seems fair to me .
Now if you are scared of Guns or your dislike Guns and dont want one in your house to protect your family that IS your right.
Same as If I or pale or anybody else DOES want one to protect THEIR family that ought to be THEIR right.
PS Has it ever occured to you that rapist in Brisbane might not be so keen IF he THOUGHT some of his protential victims MIGHT be armed?
AND What about our country??
You dont in all honesty think we have enough soldiers to protect Australia
Do You?
So what are you suggesting happens when we are attacked one day?
Not one of our young men or women will KNOW how to defend themselves OR Australia.
How clever is that?

Just had a quick opportunity to drop in and see how things had progressed.

Stone the bloody crows!

ChrisPer, do some of these posts come from your lot?
I scrach me head in wonder!

To Turn Right Then Left.
Let's you and me sit back and watch all the heroes rush out and blast the (enemy?) to pieces shall we?
Then we'll grab a couple of cheapies left over from the buyback scheme, (must still be a couple out there somewhere), clean out the dregs, and collect all the medals.
Whatdaya say?

Hey JSP1488. It's me again. You still shootin from the hip or what?

Hey JSP1488. It's me again. You miss me?
I notice you're still shootin from the hip and not hittin much!

Rock Collector, in the words of Saint Pauline of Ipswich, "Please explain".

Hey JSP1488
Thought you'd given up on me. I voted for Pauline. Lovely woman.

Pity about her taste in men!

Now let me please explain. I've been away a few days getting rid of the rocks I'd collected and thought I'd drop back in to say hello.

Owe ChrisPer a couple of comments.

Not too crazy on the Port Arthur comments made about 'showing their stuff'. Can't quite put my finger on that remark ChrisPer but it don't sound right to me. Sounds like you might have been a little perturbed because those that were murdered, didn't try to defend themselves a little better. If that's the case ChrisPer you got to remember most people don't go around Australia looking for a gun fight. And a lot of those murdered were woman and children, some were older people, and the rest were probably suffering from bewilderment and shock. Can't really say how I'd react but don't know if I'd go down without attempting something. Maybe some did. Bryant was a crack shot so I'm lead to believe but it's easy to be a crack shot when you're at shooting women and children cowering on the ground.
Have you put in your submission for the Weapons Act yet JSP1488? Times running out but it doesn't count if you're not a Qld'er.

Ive put mine in and I'll tell you something JSP1488, it's looking good.

Better get ready to hang up the holster!

Did ya see that lady from the states on TV the other night? Gun-totin 80-year old granny if ever I saw one.
Even had a special little holster sewn into her pinnie she made for herself and the pistol, just in case she was attacked at the sink doing the dishes.
No-ones going to mess with that gal!

Looks a bit like a BBQ apron I've got, only I've got a different little holster!

TurnrightThenleft. Fair comments and well presented.

PALE/IF or whatever, like your style too.

Gotta go! ChrisPer if you're there, got an answer for you later about some of the things you asked me.

TRTL asked: "Would it also be fair to say that as the number of firearms in the community increases, so too do the number of gun-related deaths?"

The short answer is no. It seems a simple relationship in people's minds, but in practice is not so simple.

1) Adding safe, trained owners would not increase the number of deaths.
2) Adding guns to a collection does not increase deaths.
3) Adding a second gun to a farmer's cabinet does not increase deaths.
4) Adding a fourth target pistol to an international squad shooter's target box does not increase deaths.
5) Adding ten new air rifles to a Police and Citizen's Youth Club does not increase deaths.

These kind of uses and owners are typical of perhaps 90%+ of guns legally owned in Australia. So what kind of increases in gun ownership will increase deaths?

1) Giving guns to suicidal people who did not have them before, is likely to result in deaths. Most gun deaths are suicides. Since gun suicides have been falling steadily since 1989, we have to question whether fashion in suicide methods is more important than access to guns.

2) Allowing drunks and drug addicts to have guns is likely to result in deaths. These groups are prone to unsafe acts, and unsafe acts result in a percentage of deaths. Young children and irresponsibles, including violent criminals also should be prevented from access to guns.

These people may not legally have guns anyway.

3) Allowing journalists to have guns is likely to result in deaths. Imitators commit repeat crimes, and Bryant was inspired by the coverage of massacres and explanations by journalists of how to get easy access to guns. The final trigger was the coverage of Dunblane's perpetrator.

So, when you say more guns will lead to more deaths, what are your unstated assumptions? Please articulate them...

TarynW:

PALE stated: "I think people ought to be able to keep a gun for their protection in this day and age.
After all we live in dangerous times . We should be able to protect our house our family and our country."

Thus, I concluded a feeling of insecurity, insecurity meaning, a lack of security - "we live in dangerous times."

On the other hand, the statement that I was afraid to protect my family. Where could that be derived from?
As far as personal swipes go, PALE also insinuated that I was posting under two names, which is blatantly false and there is absolutely nothing there to support it. I was quite offended by the implication that I was doing so and OLO had indicated something, which is false.
So when you say "Then you seem to have got all offended when the writer replied on a personal note[ as was directed to pale. Seems fair to me" my response is - no it isn't.

JSP1488: "Not too sure about that. Do criminals practise at the range every weekend? I and my fellow club members do so and there are quite a few dead-eye shots amongst us.
Maybe we should have a criminal-club competition."

I see. So you're saying that in order to balance things out, we should all become proficient in firearms use.
Well, I'm afraid I'd rather live in Australia than the Wild West.

And overall, yeah, I'd say that if you take the firarms skills of the average Australian, then compare it to the skills of criminals using firearms, then you're going to have a discrepancy.
I realise the comparison between an average citizen overall and a criminal who would use firearms is skewed, though the key thing is that the criminal set probably wouldn't have too many compunctions about that.
Whilst you can compare firearms-trained citizens with criminals, it requires the citizens to take on similar duties.

ChrisPer: "These kind of uses and owners are typical of perhaps 90%+ of guns legally owned in Australia. So what kind of increases in gun ownership will increase deaths?"

And the other 10 per cent?

"3) Allowing journalists to have guns is likely to result in deaths. Imitators commit repeat crimes, and Bryant was inspired by the coverage of massacres and explanations by journalists of how to get easy access to guns. The final trigger was the coverage of Dunblane's perpetrator."

How many journalists have shot people, and wouldn't it make sense to also restrict this "easy access" they speak of?

TRTL,
The other 10%? Hunters, family heirlooms, theatrical armourers, etc. There are a surprising number of legitimate reasons to own guns. In fact there are NO legitimate uses which directly increase the number of gun deaths - except that suicide is not a crime in law.

Journalism - the mass media news industry - appears to be the vector for a contagion of mass murder. I wrote this article 'Ideas Kill - Science shines a light on Port Arthur Deaths' about it, and since have found much more evidence has been compiled in a book called 'The Copycat Effect' by Loren Cunningham. Just picked that book up a few days ago. The media industry, for some funny reason, don't give the idea much airplay.

http://www.class.org.au/ideas-kill.htm

The A Current Affair show I talk about in that article said in its introduction that some boys had followed the method reported in PREVIOUS reports and got illegal guns too. According to the police interview transcript of Bryant, he got his AR15 used for the killings five months before the massacre. Lets see... five months before April 28 1996 is... A current Affair showed the segment Tassie Guns in October 1995..

I said to TRTL: "So, when you say more guns will lead to more deaths, what are your unstated assumptions? Please articulate them... "

How about these:
"A gun in and of itself causes a risk."
(Logically, so does a chainsaw, a motorcycle or a human sex organ.)

"People who own guns will be careless with them and leave them where kids can get them."
(Apart from the obvious laws preventing this, the evidence is that people recognise they are dangerous if misused and take appropriate steps to make them secure.)

"Guns will be bought by people who are untrustworthy, maybe some who are idiots, some who abuse alcohol, and some who are violent."
(Judging by the records before the strong laws, a few adverse events happened becasue of this, but not many compared with the imagined danger. In any case, the shooters license system and training in normal safety practises minimise the risk from such people.)

It seems to me that the statement that more guns results in more deaths is very poorly grounded. Even in the USA, the stock of guns has multiplied to maybe double in the last 15-20 years, but gun crime has been declining strongly.

TRTL, the prejudice against guns doesn't seem to relate to evidence if instead it can be hyped with anecdotes

ChrisPer

You mentioned the journalist's role in relation to copycat mass shootings, and I believe you are correct, but that's something I think we can do little about, except of course to ban the relevant exposure of the media to it. Chances are zero I'd suggest if anyone tried to do that.

I'd be interested in your reply to my next statement though.

Today, I caught the last few comments by a journalist reporting from America over a local radio station in Qld. You may have heard the full story, unfortunately I didn't.

The journalist stated that there were so many shootings occurring in America today, they don't get reported. Only the mass shootings get reported. I wonder if this might indicate why mass killings seem to be on the increase?

Can you tell me where this journalist's statement and my question, might fit in to your answer, 'No' to TRTL's comment about more guns, must indicate more related gun deaths - or words to that affect?

Rock collector,
I agree, its completely impractical to STOP journalism's creation of copycats. Copycats operate without access to mass media, just in a far more restricted sense. For instance, suicide clusters can operate largely from word of mouth.

However, there are suitable ways to minimise the risks from media treatment of such issues. Professional journalists can do that - ie behave professionally.

I think the other thing you wanted me to comment about was the journalist's comment from the US, on a QLD radio station, about so many shootings that they are not reported unless they are mass killings?

Firstly, its a journalist talking from the US to Australians. That person's perceptions might address what they feel are the obvious differences between societies.

The FACTS are available as national statistics, and they show gun deaths declining for many years (since 1991). They also show race, substance abuse, sex and age as critical correlates of violence. You might like to look them up for yourself.

For journalists: "If it bleeds it leads." Thats what sensation is all about. An ordinary drug-related black-on-black young male shooting doesn't draw eyeballs (which bring reward).

ChrisPer... it's all well and good to come out with statistics, but I'm not so sure they stack up.

For instance, this website includes multiple links - the website itself isn't impartial and doesn't claim to be, but many of the sources are.

http://stophandgunviolence.com/facts.asp

"More Americans were killed by guns than by war in the 20th Century.
More Americans were killed with guns in the 18-year period between 1979 and 1997 (651,697), than were killed in battle in all wars since 1775 (650,858). And while a sharp drop in gun homicides has contributed to a decline in overall gun deaths since 1993, the 90's will likely exceed the death toll of the 1980s (327,173) and end up being the deadliest decade of the century. By the end of the 1990s, an estimated 350,000 Americans will have been killed in non-military-related firearm incidents during the decade."

Uh-huh. So did you read and understand the impartial sources, or just grab some inflammatory quote from the feral activists?

I took a brief look, but I confess I didn't probe particularly deeply into the source material. I'm simply making the point that statistics can be represented either way.
Ultimately, I haven't undergone a rigorous analysis of the numbers.

If you've a link to concise material indicating the opposite, by all means post it and I'll take a look.

By the same token, if you've something concrete that dismisses the claims on the page then by all means go ahead.
As I said, the site doesn't claim to be impartial, but many of the selected items are from impartial sources.

Isn't it a cop-out to claim that ultimately statistics will be meaningless because they will be co-opted to viewpoint politics? Maybe that allows feelings on a topic to outweigh the facts. Science relies on evidence; projection, denial and self-righteousness rely on feelings.

If you only trust people who reinforce your viewpoint, and don't read original sources yourself, you obviously won't listen to anything I say. I imagine if I challenged you with some evidence from original sources, you might if you wanted get another quote from some activist to 'refute' me.

So I won't go there; you are sufficently educated to find facts for yourself. If you are interested!

Chris - I'm aware of what you say, and I don't subscribe to all that post-modern, 'there is no truth, only perception' guff either.

But you've put forward the notion that on reviewing the statistics, the only logical conclusion that can be set forth, is that increasing the number of guns in the community, will not increase the number of gun deaths.

I think that's quite a bold claim and I'm not convinced. If you can point me toward persuasive studies from neutral bodies then I'll accept it.
But you're in effect requesting I discard the conclusions I have drawn, and attempt to pursue what I believe to be a false conclusion.

My query is what statistics? they're not any I've seen. Sure, you can blast the site I put forward as being partisan, and I don't pretend it isn't - but there is are reams of excerpts from reputable studies, which point to conclusions contrary to your own.

Ah, fair enough. I responded to later statements instead of recognising the expectation I continue to provide evidence for disagreeing with the idea that 'more guns results in more deaths'.

I must demur; I haven't time today. I could offer a blanket assertion or two, but that won't help.

Perhaps while we get back to this, you could think about mechanisms - ie by what means 'more guns' might produce 'more deaths', and what the unstated co-premises are?

ChrisPer I would suggest most people in Australia don't particularly care about statistics. Mention statistics and people begin to tune out. What's that old saying, lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics? Something like that.

Important though statistics are, people seem to prefer the common sense approach to most situations. Doesn't really matter what it is, if you look hard enough, statistics will likely prove or disprove anything, and the net is full of them.

So if I forget statistics for a moment and take this approach.

An analogy between cars and guns has been presented in a few previous posts so I'll use that one.

Would it be fair to say if you could take every car in Australia, off the road for twelve months, during this time you wouldn't have any car-accident related deaths on the road. I think that's a reasonable assumption for this purpose.

The death rate from horse-riding accidents would climb though, wouldn't you agree.

Am I correct in assuming then, that if it was possible to take all the guns in Australia away from their owners for the same length of time, all things being equal, gun-related deaths in Australia would not significantly alter?

This because as we've been told, there would still be guns out there, but illegally, and in the hands of criminals, whom as we have been led to believe, are the perpetrators of most gun-related deaths.

Commonsense suggests to me that me gun-related deaths would drop signficantly over a twelve month period if all guns were removed for that time period. What's your take on this?

ChrisPer. You did ask me some time back for my response to some questions you put.

Finally perhaps I now have some time to do justice to them.

I agree to commonsense laws and I don't personally see any problem for genuine gun owners adhering to the ones we now have in place.

A genuine gun owner will understand exactly why these laws are there, and what they are trying to achieve. I'm not against people owning a gun, but I have been in a position to see how many gun owners fail to understand the serious consequences of acting in a cruel, unsafe, and unthinking manner with them, that's why I said before that there are many legal owners out there who should not be allowed to own a gun.

I was a gun owner for many years and did my share of hunting but now have much more appreciation of life.

I wouldn't place an air pistol in Category H into Category A.
I believe the law is distinguishing a definitive difference between two styles..short barrel and long. Neither would I exclude air pistol/rifle from the lists altogether as you suggested I think.

You mentioned they don't kill but some of these weapons almost have the capability of a .22 although at a shorter range. There have been instances of youths, and others somewhat older, firing air rifles and such at vehicles travelling along the road in many areas of Australia, if you can believe the anecdotes of some long distance truckies and bus drivers. That for my money makes these guns very dangerous when used in a manner such as this. No doubt some car drivers have experienced a similar occurrence.

I would not alter the twenty-eight day cooling off period. I understand why some might complain if they already own a gun but it wouldn't worry me. I understand why it's done.
Too that end I would increase the waiting period for a new owner to sixty days. Sorry but that's how important I see gun control as being.

Rock collector asked: "Commonsense suggests to me that me gun-related deaths would drop signficantly over a twelve month period if all guns were removed for that time period. What's your take on this?"

My take is that most gun deaths are suicides. Those who suicide with guns are generally older or rural males, and intent on completion. They substitute an equally certain method such as hanging, head-on car crash or exhaust gas. Net effect: less gun deaths, so all is wonderful for those who want to show how clever they were to bring in over-the-top gun control.

quote: "A genuine gun owner will understand exactly why these laws are there, and what they are trying to achieve."

Ah, an example of the 'Every true German' argument. Disagreeing makes one a race traitor, or in this case either a illegitimate person or ignorant.

I know what the surface intent of the gun laws is. I also know that they are the result of people giving up MY freedom so THEY can have superior moral status to display.

Does that make me not 'genuine'? This form of argument certainly makes it clear that my opinion cannot be heard if it disagrees with yours.

on 5th August RockCollector wrote
“Hey JSP1488 Thought you'd given up on me. I voted for Pauline. Lovely woman.”

Well, One Nation is in favour of relaxing the gun laws. Lovely party. I never gave up on you, you faded away for a while. Remember?

Also “Have you put in your submission for the Weapons Act ...Ive put mine in and I'll tell you something JSP1488, it's looking good.
Better get ready to hang up the holster!”

I’ve been googling QLD gun laws and can’t find anything on the new proposals. Maybe you’d like to point me to them. As for hanging up the holster, what do you have against sporting shooters? How would you like it if your sport or interest (if you have any) was targeted by armchair so-called do-gooders who were operating through knee-jerking ignorance?

Finally, I see you wrote that you're an ex-hunter. You've used your gun to kill while I have only shot targets so who are you to get on your high horse?

on 6th August TRTL wrote
“JSP1488: "Not too sure about that. Do criminals practise at the range every weekend? I and my fellow club members do so and there are quite a few dead-eye shots amongst us.
Maybe we should have a criminal-club competition."

I see. So you're saying that in order to balance things out, we should all become proficient in firearms use.
Well, I'm afraid I'd rather live in Australia than the Wild West.”

As far as I can see, I only suggested a competition with the crims to show who were the better shooters – as if that would happen. I was making a facetious joke. You had better apply for a sense of humour upgrade.

To ChrisPer Well done ChrisPer. There's no doubting your argument when it's backed up by flawless logic and statistical information, particularly when confronted by the paltry attempts of my own.

I simply argue for a 'better place' but it's obvious my interpretation of a better place, is quite different to yours.

As TRTL wrote 'Look what gun ownership and protection has done for the US. Why would you want that here?'

Happily, so far, the current gun laws see it from this perspective, and, unhappily for yourself, your perceived 'freedom' whatever it might have been, appears to have been one of the casualties.

I don't have any real statistical knowledge of the fact, but logically, I think most Australians would like it to stay that way

Hey JSP1488. Yes I had faded away for a while and I intend to do it again. Thought I'd hang around and say cheerio to you first!

I still like Pauline but I lost a lot of interest when I discovered her silly intentions on gun laws.

Crikey that was close. Was that another rock I saw go over my head just then JSP1488?

I looked everywhere for that high horse you reckoned I was on, but damned if I could find it. Went for a ride on a low horse once but some shooter got at it in the paddock one night and it ended up at the knackers. Statisticaly, I don't suppose it would have been considered a gun-related death but try telling that to the horse.

Again statisticaly, I'd say it was probably some mongrel unlicensed gun owner with an illegal gun that did it.

You have to be kidding me JSP1488?

Have you been looking all over Google for proposals?

JSP1488 I didn't say proposals, I said SUBMISSIONS, and I sent mine by post!

No wonder you can't find them.

And good on you for only target shooting. You've gone up in my estimation a great deal - but you're probably not too interested in what I think so that's all I'll say.

I do hope you're being very sensible about target shooting though and not continually annoying the neighbours with the incessant noise.
Make sure you stick to shooting at a licensed club.

Hello RockCollector, glad you haven’t faded away for ever.

Going back to your first post, you mentioned ‘the Weapons Act Review currently being conducted by the Qld Government’. That’s what I was googling. Still can’t find it.

As for annoying the neighbours with the sweet sound of gunshot, the government won’t allow us to use suppressors (silencers) so what can we do, eh? We are a licensed club, under the wing of a military organisation and more than half of us are ex-services so we already know the pointy end of the gun from the other end.

On the low horse, didn’t your toes drag along the ground?

Try this. Make sure to mention the hate-groups such as GCA and their irrational contempt for shooters, who are cleared by Police as trustworthy citizens. http://www.police.qld.gov.au/Forms/weaponsActReview.asp

I saw this somewhere else:

Gun Control works, criminals are safer.