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?