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.