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.