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?