In today's Sun-Herald (Sydney, Sept 2, 20/07 page 20) is a news item
"Gun clubs target child members"

Would it be a good thing to teach firearms safety to children?

Gun Control Australia thinks that it could lead to a surge in violent crime.

Are they right?

Teaching safety is never a bad thing. Could this lead to a surge in gun crime? Perhaps. Both sides have valid points. I would make the assumption though that these children would be given instruction on safe use of guns that they dont own. Ie, for there to be a corresponding surge in gun violence, these kids still have to get their hands on a badly stored or illegal firearm. One of the cornerstones should be teaching healthy attitudes to the use and safety of firearms. POtentially you could have reporting requirements around any children involved that instructors feel have an unhealthy attitude (be it too casual an approach or bullying behaviour). This might even help pick up those people who potentially become anti-social guns users later in life, before their attitudes develop into obsessions.

The author has not enlightened the reader why he has raised this topic. Is he endorsing this "safety training?"

I fail to see any reason why kids need to learn how to use firearms.

I can assure you my daughter (a young mother), her husband and friends would be horrified. In fact, toy guns etc,violent TV programmes or kids' literature promoting guns are banned in their houses, together with lipsticks and provocative clothing for their young daughters.

Firearms are used in specific industries and an adult can be easily trained in the use of firearms should they decide to join the armed forces, police force or even the farming industry.

Promoting the use of guns for kids is simply promoting violence. Guns kill! Afterall, how will kids, proficient in the use of firearms, utilise their new found skills?

I'd prefer kids to engage in other sporting activities where they would be far more physically active, thereby developing a healthy body and enhanced fitness!

And unlike many American citizens, Australians do not feel the need to go about their daily business armed with firearms!

Do I endorse this safety training?
Of course I do , but I'd really like to hear peoples' opinions, and the reasons why they see it as a good or bad thing.

My son's school has target shooting as a sport, perhaps posters might comment on schools being involved as well.

Dickie,

I'd see it as more of an issue if either of the parents were involved with firearms, either at work or as a sport. Guns ARE dangerous in the wrong hands (but then so are cars) so if kids have any exposure to them, I think safety training is imperative.

Target shooting as a sport at school is ok if you have the interested students.

I dont downplay the safety concerns involved, but thats why I think good training is esstential. Dickie, toy guns etc are designed to encourage violence. Guns clubs do not endorse this type of behaviour and indeed I would be very surprised if they accepted any children that showed a relaxed or aggressive attitude towards guns. I would certainly support a restriction on the sale of toy guns (particularly assault rifle type replicas), as I believe this would help to foster a healthy attitude towards the real thing (eg they are very dangerous, killing people is not acceptable, etc etc)

I agree with CG on this issue, except that I don't think that formalised training courses are necessary until a kid is old enough to get their own shooter's licence.

If kids are exposed to firearms, as is often the case in rural areas, then I think it's the reponsibility of the licensed person who is in charge of the weapon/s to ensure that kids (or, indeed, other unlicensed people) are safe from them. This would involve ensuring that kids can't access firearms unsupervised, that they understand how they work and how to handle them safely.

I wouldn't support children being introduced to firearm safety via recruitment into gun clubs under the guise of 'safety training', which seeems to me to be a covert ploy to recruit a new generation of gun lobbyists.

I think CJ's hit the nail on the head with that last comment. It's likely gun lobbyists would be affiliated with shooter's clubs and I can quite easily envisage an atmosphere where such views are spread under the guise of safety training.

CJ et al,

There is nothing covert about it, the idea is to get kids to have a go and then if they're interested to take up the sport of target shooting and later branching out into other disciplines.
Same as do the football codes, Little Athletics etc.

Gun clubs are full of lobyists, I'd be surprised if one found a member anywhere who was not a lobbyist in the broadest sense of the term.
However this doesn't alter the fact that safety training in any activity ought to be a good thing.
If children learn no more than that there is danger associated with firearms, and that unlike the guns in video games they must be treated with respect and never pointed carelessly then something has been achieved.

The Sun Herald reported that Bob Green, President of SSAA on writing to his members, advocating introducing kids to shooting at an early age, also declared that:

"It doesn't really matter if they are five or fifteen."

Therefore, should I educate my five year old granddaughter on how to safely use a chain saw, drive a car or hand deliver a message for me to a recipient who lives 2 kilometres away?

Shall I, on educating her advise: There's no risk darling, providing you follow my instructions."

Last night's programme, 4 Corners, revealed that 3 American teenage boys, (one as young as fifteen) over three different incidents, will now die in prison - a result of their proficiency in the use of guns to kill their victims.

And I've yet to hear of a sensible argument for equipping children with the skills to use a gun, particularly pre-pubescent adolescents!

Fifty people had to die in immense shooting tragedies in Australia before better gun laws were implemented.

Our current gun laws are a constant irritant to the "Sporting" Shooters Association Australia where they remain intent on increasing membership and are now resorting to the exploitation of children.

Dickie, you need to take that in perspective. Yes, you should be teaching your 5 yo granddaughter about the safe use of cars, chainsaws etc - that doesnt mean that you need to let her use them just yet, but if she is likely to be exposed to them at any stage in her life, good messages about appropriate use and safety can never come too early. The younger these messages are given, the more that they are accepted as the way things are, rather than something that goes against what they might prefer (say fast driving, for example). I grew up on a farm around guns, and couldnt tell you when that message was given to me - it was far too early for me to pinpoint. Dad always made a point about disparaging irresponsible use (of cars and guns), and whenever he had a gun out, it was a safety lesson. Despite this, I wasnt allowed to use one until I was 16, although from aout 12 I was allowed to carry it for him, but with bolt removed (for a rifle) or cracked open (for shotgun). The main lesson - ALWAYS treat a gun as if its loaded and ready to go. Everything else with gun use should flow from that, and that's the important message that we can give to kids who are interested in gun-related sports.

I get your drift Country Gal.

However, my idea of educating any family members is by remote control. I would consider portraying only a picture of a gun to young family members and emphasising the inherent dangers of this lethal weapon, including the advice that users must never point a gun at any living being.

The prospect of any of my family members indulging in gun sports is slim.

I have no intention of showing family members how to shoot up a defenceless animal and then permit members to experience the "pleasure" of the kill, where the victim's head has been shot up or its entrails exposed and its remains left to rot or to be devoured by scavengers.

I accept that the gun is at times essential for specific industries, and that industry members may have difficulty in understanding other community members' feelings of revulsion when these guns are used for recreational past-times.

The ideological extremism within the shooting fraternity, endeavouring to influence politicians is cause for concern, particularly when statistics reveal that 350 fewer Australians are dying each year from gunshots compared to the '70s and 80s.

In addition, there remains the illegal ownership of guns in Australia which indicates that reform is required for more stringent regulations for the safer storage of guns and certainly for more responsible ownership.

Hi Dickie,
Good point, why on earth would one want to teach youngsters gun safety? This will inadvertantly teach them how to handle a gun.
In this day and age, I would suggest teaching them "how to dodge bullets!"

Dickie,

First let me assure you that firearms ranges are very safe places. The gun sports are among the safest of all sporting activities and the reason is the degree of safety awareness practiced by shooters.

I suggest that you visit your local range on an Open Day, and observe; you don't have to shoot or handle firearms.

What you consider to be ideological extremeism is to many others merely defence of their chosen sport/hobby against what they consider to be the unreasoned attacks of the ignorant or malicious.

Why are you concerned that shooters exercise their democratic rights to attempt to influence politicians?
If shooters can put up a reasoned and logical argument then they ought to be listened to.

When I was a child a policeman used to come to the school and give talks on firearms safety, he would bring a rifle and a shot gun with him to show us what they were.
This was at a tme when firearms abounded and when there were no mass shootings, so it can't e the guns that cause trouble, must be something else.

If we were good little boys and paid attention to what he said, he would unload his revolver and pass it around the class as a reward.

Is Mise - effectively, you're saying that the firearms safety program will (whether intentionally or not) quite probably act in a manner that facilitates children to become advocates for gun law reform.

It's evident you believe that there should be relaxations in certain areas of gun control. Many, and dare I say it, a majority, of Australians disagree.

You state: "What you consider to be ideological extremeism is to many others merely defence of their chosen sport/hobby against what they consider to be the unreasoned attacks of the ignorant or malicious."

Be that as it may, a large proportion of the Australian populace does indeed consider it ideological extremism.
Whilst you may not, I seem to recall from other posts that you have a background in the armed forces - most Australians don't have this training, and perhaps this is why they don't necessarily feel there should be relaxed access to firearms.

I think Dickie made a good point insofar as safety comparisons - how, exactly, does this differ from driving a car? We don't allow young children to drive cars, how is it different with firearms?

Dickie, I guess I see gun sports as not necessarily related to hunting. There are some that love their hunting and so be it. Personally I prefer to stick to knocking off bunnies, but then I'm a farmer at heart and dont like the noxious pests. Actually shooting and fumigating are the kindest methods of elimination - the first being very quick (assuming a good shot, and I dont support people who are not good shots being involved in hunting at all), and the second being carbon monoxide poisoning so painless. However, not all rabbits are warren-based so shooting should go hand in hand with warren elimination.

But back to the point, there are many sporting shooters who care only to aim at clay targets (shotgun) or metal replicas (rifle). These are not at all bloodthirsty - trying to hit a flying clay target with a spread of shot is no different to trying to hit a little white ball into a small hole with a long stick. Horses for courses. I am not advocating that you should sign your grandkids up with the local club, but just that you should keep an open mind for those kids that ARE interested.

Tighter gun laws are not going to stop illegal ownership or use in crimes. I think I've made mention before, but there is a healthy black market for firearms of all descriptions even now.

What I think should be required is tighter checks on gun security, and psych profiling of licence holders and new applicants. This wont pick up criminals, as they wont use registered guns or rarely hold a licence, but will go some step further towards removing access of potentially volatile people to firearms.

TRTL,

Firstly, children at a range are under one-to-one supervision.
The arm is loaded for them and safety and responsibility is stressed at all times, and a great time is had by all, there is more danger playing football and the licenced shooters with whom they associate are, dare I say it, better role models for children than many prominent footballers.

When was the last time that a prominent sporting shooter was busted for drugs?

Just going on what has been in the papers lately (and we can't place much faith in what is reported in the media) I doubt that some footballers would be able to get a Shooters' Licence.

The anology with cars doesn't stand up.
1. Young people don't need a licence to drive a car.
2. There is no police character check for young people to drive a car.
3. Young people may drive cars without adult supervision.
4. Young people, if they have the ready, don't need a licence to buy a car nor to buy the highly volatile and sometimes explosive fuel that is used to power cars.
5. When they get their P plates young people don't have to apply for permisson to purchase and wait 28 days before they can buy a car, and if they want a subsequent car they don't have to apply again for permission to purchase and wait a further 28 days before taking delivery.

Is Mise

Opponents of relaxed gun laws are neither "ignorant or malicious." They generally research matters which concern them prior to entering debate.

In the international research journal: "Injury Prevention", it was stated that since Australia destroyed some 700,000 firearms, the risk of dying from gunshot wounds in the areas of homicide or suicide has halved.

This edict was implemented only after some 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings in a decade.

Since the gun buy-back scheme, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia.

Therefore Country Gal, statistics prove that tighter gun laws have in fact reduced the incidents of crime.

On a global scale within western countries, between 1966 - 2002, eighty six percent of mass shootings were committed by lawful gun owners.

Many killers, like the 19 year old who shot dead 16 people at his school in Germany, were previously law abiding sporting shooters or pistol club members whose legal ownership of guns was not questioned until after the tragedy.

Given the global tragedies from the improper use of guns, there can be no legitimate interest served in handing these lethal weapons to children.

This suggestion is, without question, ideological extremism coupled with the vested interests of the gun lobbyists.

Got to get up early so am off to bed, so just a quick nit picking post before I go.

Statistic scan prove anything.

Quote."Since the gun buy-back scheme, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia.

Therefore Country Gal, statistics prove that tighter gun laws have in fact reduced the incidents of crime." unquote.

In the two hundred or so years before there were any mass shootings in Australia there was little or no control of firearms on the scale that we have today and there were no mass shootings in that 200 years.

So what went wrong, obviously it wasn't the number of guns available, so something else must have kicked it off.

The majority of gun crimes in Australia are committed by unlicenced people with unregistered firearms, in other words criminals.

Why don't the do gooders and the Government and all those people of good will within the community who don't like people having guns arrange to disarm the criminals before they even think about law abiding shooters?
After all the criminals don't go through character checks, 28 day waiting periods, periodical safe storage inspections nor do they have to attend safty courses, nor are they compelled by law to belong to clubs.

I really think that the emphasis is on the wrong syllable.

Is Mise

"....there were no mass shootings in those 200 years."

Perhaps you choose not to include the slaughter by guns through the armed rebellions of Castle Hill (1804) and the Eureka Rebellion Massacre(1854.) And of course the indigenous Australians were mowed down en-masse and quick smart by some trigger happy new arrivals in Australia in 1788, weren't they?

Have you considered in your equations, that at the turn of the 20th century, Australia only had 3.7 million inhabitants and some 7.7 million by 1950?

With the increased urbanization of Australia's populations, interest in guns waned considerably for a period.

Enter the period between 1979 - 1996, there were 11,299 deaths from gunshot wounds - averaging some 628 deaths per year. This is a significant figure for any "sporting" body! How many footballers, swimmers, golfers, basketballers, athletes etc die each year from participating in their chosen sport or from improper handling of their sporting equipment?

Irrespective of your sceptical opinion on statistics, they are the most factual accounts we can derive for Australia's history.

You may choose to reject those facts but surely that only lessens your credibility in this debate?

Dickie,
Please forward me these stats you speak of, I would be quite interested and would like to compare a few things of my own.
Thanks

Dickie,

Yes please, put in your references. I would like to be able to access the info as well.

But what about the criminals?

Sorry about the lack of references in my previous posts, chaps.

Is there an easier way for me to transfer references to the forum rather than hand copying them, then typing into here? *%*&?%###!

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/contact/pdfs/2006_InjuryPrevent.pdf

http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/briefs/firearm_deaths_2005

Dickie,

Right click on the URL in the address bar and the URL should be highlighted, at the same time a 'drop-down' will appear.

Left click on 'copy'.

Open the Write New Post or wherever you are writing.

Right click again and on the drop down click 'paste' and the URL (or whatever else you wished to copy) will appear.

I used to laboriously copy URLs until I asked, as you did.
I've been using computers now for 15 years and still learning ! !.

Ah....bliss!

Thanks for that Is Mise.

TRTL,

One would have thought that you would have by now attempted to defend your anology about young people and cars?
Was my refutation so devastating that you have been shocked into silence?

Dickie,

Thanks for those references. Alpers et al have been refuted as to their veracity and methodology by Dr. J. Baker and Dr. S. McPhedran in a paper which may be accessed through c.l.a.s.s.
http://www.c-l-a-s-s.net/index.htm

The figures which you quote of the number of gun deaths are accurate however your use of them is misleading.
In 'Firearms Deaths and Hospitalisations in Australia' the authors break them down into different categories (p.2).
In the 24 years covered, 1979-2002, there are 13,459 deaths but of these 10,383 are suicides; 2,007 are homicides; 206 undetermined; and 113 legal intervention/war.

In the same period 750 or an average of 31/year were 'unintentional'
The unintentional figures would include police, armed services etc and possibly unintended findings in criminal events as well as sporting shooters.
So the actual number for sporting shooters would be lower.
The figure for target shooting is, afaik, Zero.

On page 6 there is a graph on suicides.
Firearms suicides show a steady decline across the period of 24 years whereas overall suicide rates which peaked in 1986 and again in 1997 have not dropped significantly.

So why is it a bad thing to teach young people safety?

Actually Is Mise, your refutation about cars didn't actually address the my point at all - you did say how they're different in terms of rules, but I've still yet to see you explain why it should be a different situation - not allowing children to drive, but allowing them to shoot guns. Unless you're advocating children be allowed to drive...

And young people do need licences to actually drive cars on roads intended, and people under 16 aren't permitted to fill tanks at the bowser.

"One of the alarming findings of the auditor-general’s report has been a steady increase in the number of firearms in Tasmania. In the 1997/98 period, there were approximately 90,000 firearms in Tasmania. By 2003/04, the number had increased to almost 120,000.

"Yet, during the same period the number of firearm licences had dropped to its lowest level in eight years, down to 38,000 from a high of 45,000. This means that whilst there are fewer licensed firearm owners in Tasmania, each firearm owner is holding more and more firearms (on average)."

"In any event, the shooting lobby will continue to pump out its often superficial research, attempting to encourage a public debate about rights and levels of violence in the community. It is easy to raise levels of community apprehension about crime and violence, and this can provide an all too easy opportunity for the shooting lobby to suggest that further firearm availability is a solution to the problem.

"Further, aspects of the 1996 Firearms Agreement have never been implemented. For example, the minimum age for a firearms licence was stipulated in the agreement to be 18 years. There was no mention in 1996 of any gun use by persons below the age of 18 years.

"However, when the laws were enacted across each of the jurisdictions, the concept of minors permits popped up whereby people down to the age of 12 years have been able to get permits to go shooting with a person who holds a full firearms licence. This was never contemplated by the National Firearms Agreement and is regarded as being a breach of that agreement.

"Of course, this did not prevent the Sporting Shooters Association of Tasmania embarking on a critique of the auditor-general’s methodology, and a novel one at that. The association proclaimed that the ”Gun report poses risk to health and safety”16 and criticised the auditor-general’s work as the result of “flawed analysis methods [sic]”.

Google: "Institute for Security Studies Gun Laws Australia"

TRTL<
Children/young persons/youths are only allowed to shoot under one to one supervision. They are not allowed to shoot alone.

If you read what I said about cars,
they are allowed to buy them, use them without supervision etc etc and there is no law against giving them petrol for their cars, bikes, utes or whatever.

Children under twelve are not allowed to use firearms under any circumstances.
They cannot posses/use/carry/own or borrow firearms until they are eighteen and have successfully passed the checks and balances and obtained a licence. They can however buy petrol at the bowser during the same period and at seventeen and a half hold a drivers licence.

Why shouldn't they be taught to use a gun safely and to drive a car safely?
Why is safety training wrong for one and not the other?
Is it because cars kill far more people than guns?

Dickie,

If you want 'flawed methodology' look no further than:

"Further, aspects of the 1996 Firearms Agreement have never been implemented. For example, the minimum age for a firearms licence was stipulated in the agreement to be 18 years. There was no mention in 1996 of any gun use by persons below the age of 18 years.

"However, when the laws were enacted across each of the jurisdictions, the concept of minors permits popped up whereby people down to the age of 12 years have been able to get permits to go shooting with a person who holds a full firearms licence. This was never contemplated by the National Firearms Agreement and is regarded as being a breach of that agreement"

Obviously the Minors Permits were left to the States. In point of fact children from the age of TEN were initially allowed to continue shooting in competition as there were a number who were doing very well and the Police Ministers agreed that it would be unfair and quite upseting to curtail their competition activities.
This concession naturally didn't continue beyond another two years.

It is rather disingenuous to suggest that because something was not mentioned that was subsequently agreed to by the Police Ministers that it is not within the spirit of the original agreement.

What about all the regulations made under the various State Acts that are not mentioned in the original Agreement?

No, Is Mise. Clearly it's because our governments don't want children with young and impressionable minds being recruited into the gun culture.

Personally, I agree with this position, but I can see why gun nuts wouldn't.

Is Mise, All states are responsible for regulating firearm use, however, all states subscribe to the National Agreement Firearms directive.

1. "The majority of firearm related deaths involved the use of hunting rifles, with their share being most pronounced in firearm suicides.[13]

"The number of unregistered or uncontrolled firearms continues to increase, with an average of over 4,000 firearms stolen per year, primarily from residences (although one gun-dealer had approximately 600 firearms stolen sometime between 1999 and 2000).[10] Concern has been raised about the number of smuggled pistols reaching Australia, particularly in New South Wales."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia - 96k -

2. "Between 1985 - 2000, 78 percent of firearm deaths were from suicide." Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics

Which reminds me of an acquaintance of mine (a registered gunowner) who blew his brains out around 2003. He was thoughtful since he covered his head with a towel to protect the walls and furniture. His wife and grandchildren, on returning from shopping, discovered his bloodied remains.

Clearly Is Mise, you and your trigger happy buddies obtain some sadistic pleasure in having dominion over defenceless animals.

However, we (the majority of Australians), object to the many misfits, often "lawful" gunholders, who desire to have dominion over defenceless members of our communities.

I would suggest that one known misfit is your leader, Bob Green, who wants five year olds to use guns. For the sake of the Shooters' sorely diminished credibility, I would advise members to give him the flick forthwith!

Why are your members increasing the number of guns they own? Isn't one sufficient?

Individual ownership of several guns is not in the National interest!

Clearly there is a requirement for more reform with firearms in Australia. Hopefully, the results will see more stringent regulations and a drastic decrease in gun ownership.

Dickie,

I read your post quoting "Institute for Security Studies Gun Laws Australia" with some interest.
Quite clearly they are biased and not very bright.

On the one hand they are unhappy about 12 year olds being taught to shoot and cite as their reason against it that it is not mentioned in the original Agreement.

Then on the other complain about the number of firearms in individual hands, but the number of firearms that a person may own is not mentioned in the Agreement either.

So to their way of thinking the limiting of the number owned per individual would be breaking the 'spirit of the Agreement'.
Can't have it both ways.

Is one firearm not enough?

No,it isn't. When I was pistol shooting I used to take part in a number of Muzzle-loading matches. I had a flintlock pistol for flintlock single shot matches but used the same pistol in percussion matches as it was convertable. I had a percussion revolver for matches for this type. A cartridge black powder revolver, a Brown Bess Musket, a percussion rifle, a percussion shot gun. Some could be used in different matches, some were confined to particular matches.

Then there were the various Military Matches in which I still participate. I shoot WW II style matches and earlier ones focusing on the single shot rifles of pre WW I days. That's about 9 firearms without taking into account hunting rifles and shotguns.
Only the utterly callous would shoot a wild dog, for example, with a .22rim fire something bigger is needed for a clean kill on big animals. So that's two guns plus the shotgun for rabbits etc where the .22 would travel a bit to far.

Furthermore Bob Green was speaking rhetorically. He is well aware that the legal age for a Minor''s Permit is 12.

Will some one tell me why it is OK for a 12year old to drive a motor vehicle without supervision but it's a bad thing for him/her to learn firearms safety?

That's just it Is Mise. It's not okay for a 12 year old to drive a motor vehicle unsupervised.

Perhaps on private property, but even then I suspect you'd find that they're not really supposed to do it while unsupervised. I find it a bit strange that you don't even mention that you most certainly require a licence to go driving on roads. That's why we have these nifty things called 'Driver's Licences.'

Is Mise

I'm having trouble comprehending your defence in your last post.

The authors at the Institute for Security were pointing out the flaws and omissions in the current gun regulations and the need for corrections. If you've done any research on other regulations, you will see that there is often need for revisions or inclusions on other issues also.

"Quite clearly they are biased and not very bright."

That's really lame, Is Mise. The Institute for Security is a non-profit trust and a leading African institute on human security research. This institute conducts many expert workshops for policy development and staff quality is a key recruitment criterion.

In its paper on Australian gun laws, the authors have cited 18 different references and Acts.

How on earth could they be "biased and not very bright?"

And I've been waiting for you to acknowledge the conflict of interest in the review by McPhedran and Baker:

1. Baker is Director of the Research and Policy Unit for the Sporting Shooters Association of SA

2. McPhedran is Chairwoman of the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting.

"Not very bright", Is Mise!

Dickie,

quote: "Quite clearly they are biased and not very bright."

That's really lame, Is Mise. The Institute for Security is a non-profit trust and a leading African institute on human security research. This institute conducts many expert workshops for policy development and staff quality is a key recruitment criterion.

In its paper on Australian gun laws, the authors have cited 18 different references and Acts.

How on earth could they be "biased and not very bright?" unquote.

In the extract that you gave they said that "A" should not be allowed because it is not speciffically mentioned in the Agreement.

Then they complain that "B" which is allowed by the agreement should be curtailed because, apparently, it doesn't fit in with their ideas. There is no curtailment mentioned in the agreement.

This stance is illogical and they can't have their cake and eat it aswell. So either they are incompetent or are being just a tad biased.

Regarding Baker and McPhedran. There is no conflict of interest, they are pro-gun and make no secret of the fact. Just as there are anti-gun writers who are Gun Control activists and make it no secret.
That some anti-gun writers have been proven to be liars etc doesn't mean that their bretheren are also.

TRTL,

Regarding the age at which children can access cars, bikes etc.
There appears to be no legal minimum but one may soon be legislated.
Unfortunately a three year old child was killed yesterday in Victoria riding a small motor-cycle. This is very sad.

TRTL,
You posted:
"I think Dickie made a good point insofar as safety comparisons - how, exactly, does this differ from driving a car? We don't allow young children to drive cars, how is it different with firearms?"

I explained how it is different with firearms.

You didn't mention driving cars on the public road; and it is OK for those under 17 and 1/2 years and in fact anyone to drive on private property without licence, supervision, seat belts, road-worthiness certificates etc and they do it every day.
It is quite common to see un-registered vehicles driven from the homestead to the property boundary by children who are then picked up by the school bus.

So your anology was not a good one.

The difference with firearms is that we don't allow their use without supervision. Simple.

(I had written this last night and meant to post it then but ran into the '4 posts' rule. I didn't hear about the tradgedy with the child until this morning).

Is Mise,
Cars are not "guided missiles" like bullets, unless of course they ARE in the wrong hands, nes pa?

Here is a Media Release from Roy Smith MLC, responding to John Crook of GCA who claimed that if juniors are enlisted in shooting, gun crime will increase:
___________
Media Release

3 September 2007

Sign up a Junior Shooter Today

“I would certainly encourage young people to take up shooting” said Shooter’s Party MP Roy Smith today. Contrary to John Crook’s apparently ignorant comments, learning how to use firearms safely and legally is in fact an excellent way of steering adolescents away from drugs, alcohol and violence.

It seems some are unwilling to recognise the fact that participation in the shooting sports requires discipline and concentration, and builds confidence at a time in a teenagers life where developing such skills are especially important.

Indeed, I urge all licensed shooters, whether you shoot with a club, or are a conservation hunter, to spread the word about how rewarding and safe your sport is, and encourage newcomers, young and old to try shooting.

For further information contact The Hon. Roy Smith MLC on 9230 3383

________________

Seems a reasoned response to me.

Seems like a recruitment drive for the next generation of gun nuts to me.

And here's some more on the subject.
The Tasmanian Government is discussing lowering the age for a licence to 14.
Seems that the 18 years limit is a bit of a nuisance to farmers etc who want their kids to be able to help with necessary work around the farm without the necessity of constant supervision.

You see the fathers and mothers were never subjected to learners permits.
__________

You might also have a read of this and ponder:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece
__________

Dickie,

It's not good to quote Wikipedia, it's unreliable and as we all now know the PM has bits of it altered.

Ref. one of yr earlier posts on massacres:
The Eureka Stokade and Castle Hill episodes were armed rebellions and not massacres. Just as the 'Milperra Massacre' and Custer's Last Stand were not, and Aboriginals were never mown down en-masse in 1788.
Most of the murders of Aboriginals were carried out using poison, the axe and the sword.
Some of the more sporting gentemen, who had served in India, did kill with the lance.
Suggest reading some reliable history. Never Manning Clark btw.

'Firearm deaths and hospitalisations in Australia'(which you cited) states:
'By far the most common type of firearm-related deaths are suicides. Unintentional deaths caused by firearms are comparitively infrequent...'
As the topic is teaching safety then suicides don't come into it and although firearm suicides have dropped the overall rate is much the same because of changing trends or method substitution.
___________

JW. Did you get knocked back for a Firearms Licence?
You seem a little bitter, btw did you look up 'ad hominem'?

Is Mise: "It seems some are unwilling to recognise the fact that participation in the shooting sports requires discipline and concentration, and builds confidence at a time in a teenagers life where developing such skills are especially important."

If this is his only suitable response, I think it's rather weak. There are hundreds of activities out there that do the same, but don't have the added issues associated with providing firearms to teenagers.

Who is providing firearms to teenagers?

That is against the law until they are 18, and then only after they have obtained their licence and have received an approval to purchase issued by their Commissioner of Police.

Minors' Permits, as well, are only issued with the approval of the Commissioners. Do you think that they are derelect in their duty by issuing them? After all, their issuance is not mandatory the Commissioners have discretion.

Are the anti-firearms safety supporters saying that the various State Police Commissioners are derelict in their duty?

Just as an after thought, the latest Sporting Shooters'Association of Australia (over 100,000 members) journal has a bit about Kevin Rudd and a promise by Labor to spell out their policy on hunting and sports shooting before the election.
Kevin Rudd is, of course, well known as a shotgunner, and an advocate of safety training.

You may continue to keep your head in the sand Is Mise, however the majority of perpetrators of gun crimes and accidents are from licensed gunowners.

The death rate for thosed assaulted by guns is several that of victims assaulted by knives or other weapons.

Those shooters whose guns have been used by others, resulting in death and injury, should be heavily prosecuted.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Gpe7LairtFIJ:www.shootersparty.org.au/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_smf%26Itemid%3D50%26topic%3D325.msg2163%3Btopicseen+firearm+suicides+gun+licensed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=au&lr=lang_en

Is Mise, could you in fact be Bob Green, hmmmmm? Your lack of rationale is very similar.

Listen hear guys, if it was up to me, I would bl**dy well get rid of anything resembling a gun.
One doesn't stand a chance when fired upon and luck always plays a hand in whether you are are hit with a kill or maim shot, it makes holes in people for crying out loud, some holes big enough to fit a fist in, not to mention what the exit hole looks like!

If it wasn't for guns, many of our youngsters would be alive today, many having been wiped out before the age of four, due to some airheaded parent not putting the gun in some place safe and not unloading the gun and putting the bullets someplace else, so some toddler can't cock and load the gun himself, it's happened, it's still happening and will continue to happen unless adults who own them, get responsible, especially if children are around.

The age limit you speak of is ridiculous, what eighteen year old knows the meaning of reponsibilty? especially with a gun!
For crying in a bucket, a teenager+gun = big sh!t.

True Spanky,

There are many 18 year olds who don't know the meaning of responsibility.
It is up to the more mature members of society to teach them to be responsible and to teach them safety in all things.

No doubt many of them will vote Liberal/National Party at the next election as they are allowed to vote at that age.
They are also allowed to drink and purchase alcoholic beverages.

Do you oppose these things too?

They are also considered, in time of need, to be old enough to be given a fully automatic firearm and to fight for their country.
What do you consider the proper age to fight for Australia?

Dickie,

You should really think about hiding your gnorance on firearms, even I am starting to feel embarassed by some of your posts.

So shall we all agree to disagree?

I think that safety training in the use of firearms is a good thing and may well save some injuries or deaths in the future.

You seem to think that it is a bad thing and that ignorance is better and to let the future take care of itself.

Is Mise - I just thought I'd point out that this thread's been going for a while now, and the consensus opinion is clearly opposed to the provision of firearm 'safety training' to children - with the exception of you and one other poster, who subsequently qualified her support anyway.

Has it occurred to you that your views about firearms are are somewhat out of step with the rest of us?

Is Mise

My "ignorance" is gleaned from documented reports on the use of firearms. Those posts are generally excerpts written by those experienced in the history of firearm use. The "ignorant" are usually those who debate without any research.

My last five minute research revealed the following:

17/2/07 Armed robbery Sth Wales
23/2/07 Citizens threatened by armed gunman Baxenden UK
23/02/07 Armed holdup Sth London
23/02/07 Armed holdup Haydock UK
27/02/07 Armed gunman shot up shop window Liverpool UK
27/2/07 Gunshot fatality Bradford UK
26/2/07 Man received gunshot wounds to stomach and legs Sheffield UK
28/2/07 Armed holdup Hampshire UK
28/2/07 Armed holdup Hucknall UK
16/3/07 Man charged with brandishing firearm Katherine Aust.
16/7/07 Man charged with discharging firearm during argument Tennant Creek NT
27/8/07 Man shot in stomach and leg Coolaroo Nth Melbourne
29/8/07 3 men dead from gunshot wounds Hertfordshire UK
4/9/07 Vatican police cadet suicide - firearm

There are dozens of others current for this year alone.

"I think that safety training in the use of firearms is a good thing and may well save some injuries or deaths in the future."

Really? Are you sufficiently mature, Is Mise, to take some responsibility for promoting the use of WMD for children, resulting in injuries, deaths and misery?

I regret you are feeling embarrassed but then so you should!

As far as Roy Smith is concerned,... I'm not concerned!

When an eighteen year old is given a fire-arm, I hope it's when he joins the army, where he/she is taught how to handle one, there I have no problem, it's when we hear of deaths out of careless stupidity that tears my goats beard out.

14 Year olds? Guns? are these water pistols we talk about here or have I once again got this at the wrong end of the barrel?

Dickie,

An interesting 5 minutes of research but none of it has anything to do with teaching children safety, so it was a bit of a waste of time in that respect.
What it did show however in that Britain seems to be a dangerous place.

Spanky,

Quote "...it's when we hear of deaths out of careless stupidity that tears my goats beard out.".

So do you think that training might help to eliminate careless stupidity?
Just knew that you'd come around to seeing sense.

This subject has been taken up on some other forums and most posters there are seeing firearms training of children to be a positive step.

"This subject has been taken up on some other forums and most posters there are seeing firearms training of children to be a positive step."

May we have a reference please Is Mise?

No sooner did than said.

'Debate and Relate'. Who took the lead post from here.
http://www.debaterelate.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1661

Envirotalk, whose lead came from ' D&R'
http://www.envirotalk.com.au/forum/index.php?showtopic=7683

and on 'E-blah' we have,
http://www.ebroadcast.com.au/eblah/v-post/b-newsauspolitics/m-1180858998/a-/q-/post-1/n-/

while 'The Shooters' Party'is of course with it all the way,
but have a read there and see what their point of view is,
http://www.shootersparty.org.au/

My my, Is Mise

You have been a busy lad.

I was reluctant to sign in on eBroadcast since I didn't believe I qualified. You see the bottom caption read:

"DO NOT CLICK THIS UNLESS YOU ARE UNDER 18 AND READY FOR SOME LOVIN'"

The top caption was something about Lesbians.

Methinks the "Sporting" Shooters Association would be most proud of ye!

Lang may yer lum reek, Is Mise, wi ither fowk's coal!

You did ask, Dickie, and as it's a free country you can choose which sites you look into.

Did you visit the others and are the majority of posts in favour or not?

Is mise,
Britain comes no-where near South Africa in the plight for gun control.
Britain is becoming dangerous with the use of knives.

South African 12-14 year olds, are gun totting hoodlums and feel nothing in walking up to you in broad daylight and slapping you silly with their guns cocked, pointed at your head...in a city centre.

Yeerrss.. Training as in the army kind of training.

Here's a few thoughts:
1. Training of the use of guns, start at 21
2. Training in a controlled environment, ie Police, Army, academy's shooting galleries or gun shops that cater for the training of the use of guns by a qualified teacher, not by some cowboy or Rambo who owns an arsenal.
3. An aptitude given at the age of 21 for mental competency for the handling of a firearm.

A qualified centre in the training for the use of firearms, teaches us one very important aspect, which todays youths do not seem to take into consideration and just let fly with bullets in all directions, is the simple fact of firing 3 warning shots into the air, BEFORE placing a 9mm bullet in your assailants forehead!

It's good to teach awareness to youngsters, but not too young and ready them for the time when they are able to proove they are competant and responsible individuals.

Spanky,

Sorry to pick just one of your points

" ...An aptitude [test?] given at the age of 21 for mental competency for the handling of a firearm."

Just doesn't work and one of the reasons is that no psychologist/psychiatrist can/or will put him/herself on the line and guarantee that someone is mentally competent to handle anything dangerous.

Well, I will address another point or two, military training.
I spent some years in the Australian Army and in all that period I also spent a lot of time instructing troops just where they had been ill-informed during their basic training with firearms and that now that they were in the real world of the Infantry there were things that they had to un-learn and re-learn, this extended to Officers as well.

On ranges throught Australia young shooters are not taught by 'Rambos with arsenals' but by dedicated shooters with years of experience and both they and their pupils are under the overall supervision of the Range Officer(s)

Visit your local range on an open day or just roll up any shooting day and tell the Officer that you'd like to see how they do things, there's no danger and you might learn a thing or two.
A lot of them have a good b-b-q as well at lunch time, but no alcohol until the shooting is finished.

Is mise,
Where I come from, I was not only in the army, but with special forces, tactics and special weapons, sniper division.
There are reasons for my adamant nature towards youngsters learning and how to handle firearms, I've seen a lot regarding weaponry and the way youngsters take interest in rifles and hand guns is quite astounding, except when it comes to cleaning them.
I have long since left that behind me and settled into what I was professed to do, better left unsaid for now.

OK, Spanky,
Understand.

Dickie,

A few posts back you stated:

"The death rate for thosed assaulted by guns is several that of victims assaulted by knives or other weapons."

Here's the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for 2006.

Murders: 34% by knife...17% by firearm.

Attempted
murder: 35% by knife and 25% by firearm

Robbery: 22% by knife and 7% by firearm, less than a third.

Here's the relevant paragraph:

According to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Recorded Crime–Victims 2006, a weapon was used in 74 per cent of attempted murders, 63 per cent of murders and 44 per cent of robberies. A knife was the most common type of weapon used in committing these offences. Over one third (34 per cent) of murder victims, 35 per cent of attempted murder victims, 22 per cent of the victims of robbery and 10 per cent of kidnapping/abduction victims were subjected to an offence involving a knife. A firearm was involved in 25 per cent of attempted murder, 17 per cent of murder and 7 per cent of robbery offences.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/bn/2007-08/08bn01.htm
_______________

Yes, Dickie, a little research does help, especially from a reliable source.
You'll no doubt note that 37% of murders did not involve a weapon at all and none was used in 26% of attempted murders and the figure was 56% no weapon for robberies, so even violent crimes involving no weapons at all exceeded the figures for firearms.

Just where did you get your information?

Is Mise

Here's a few data to keep you frothing over WMD, mate.

Au revoir!

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Gun-violence-a-global-epidemic-report/2006/05/17/1147545354883.html

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:8vunW2TV4cEJ:www.apha.org/publications/tnh/archives/2006/08-06/WebExclusive/2845.htm+deaths+by+firearm+2006&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au&lr=lang_en

Old stuff, Dickie, old stuff.

Rebecca is still dong a great job at promoting herself and getting grants to keep up the good work.

Bloomberg et al are also doing their best to keep up the level of violence in New York and Chicago, after years of failure one would think that if they don't have a vested interest in violence that they would have gone down the path that Florida took and take measures to cut their crime rates with like success.

The UN is notorious for helping to disarm people and then when the proverbial hits the fan, telling their troops not to fire on the murderers but to watch, take notes and make sure that the world knows just how even handed they are at not taking sides.

East Timor comes to mind when the people on the ground defied their orders from UN HQ in New York and took refugee Timorese into their compound.
Remember the TV coverage, mate, when terrified people threw their children over the razor wire and then scrambled through the wire themselves and fell, streaming with blood from multiple cuts, into relative safety.

Never mind throwing red herrings, just tell us all how you got the figures so wrong over knife crime.

Then, justify keeping children ignorant of safety, if you wish to remain ignorant yourself then that is your right, but don't try to stop others who believe in teaching safety.

Is Mise: "...if you wish to remain ignorant yourself then that is your right, but don't try to stop others who believe in teaching safety."

I think it's been adequately demonstrated on this thread that the only poster who doesn't see through this strategy to recruit kids into the gun culture is Is Mise. Or rather, it's a strategy of which he approves, which is why he keeps pushing it despite its obvious lack of support from others.

I was somewhat bemused by the logic behind those knife attack statistics you brought up before.

The impression I got was that there are more knife attacks then gun hold ups.

My response? Good. How this is an argument that we should relax gun control, I don't know... so... what... we could increase the proportion of gun holdups instead?

I don't mind being odd man out, rather relish it in fact, but when the opposition is so low on facts and can't stay on the subject it does get a little tedious.
So as I've said before be happy that you want to keep children ignorant of safety. You can only do harm.

TRTL,

The facts from the ABS speak for themselves.
The topic is teaching children firearms safety within the parameters of the law.
Dickie said that more people were killed with guns than with knives and that therefore one was relatively safer if attacked with a knife, but in fact more people are murdered in Australia with knives and more are robbed with knives. That's all, I'm still waiting for him to tell us all where he got his amazing figures.