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.'