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).