In relation to Joe's comments: The article does not claim that it will completely avoid mass casualties, but is a step to reducing. The response highlights people's tendencies to only ' hear' what supports their preconceived judgements- the article clearly explains that at least 2 terrorist attacks were averted on Australian soil when the groups tried to obtain weapons illegally.
If there are less assault weapons in the community there are less to be stolen.

You missed my point, Ellen. The 'terrorist' attacks stopped in Australia were by little 't' terrorists, despite the potential horror that may have ensued. Big 'T' organised terrorists, organised crime etc have no difficulty stealing from military armouries, smuggling from overseas etc. What ASIO don't reveal is the number of big T terrorist attacks averted...
I don't have a problem with gun control, but there are very few assault weons in the community, those that do possess them (licensed collectors etc) tend to keep them in armouries in gun clubs. It's not a if there is still a pool of semi automatic weapons in the community in Australia. Handguns and shotties (from memory) are e most stolen in he community (by organised crime to use on each other, primarily).
Gun control has been successful in Australia and will be successful in America, if implemented ( as the author points out) but will it stop big t Twrrorists from using SAMs on aeroplanes or blowing up buildings? No. Will it reduce domestic homicide and columbine type massacres? Probably.

Not all firearms are the same. A semi automatic firearm (banned since port Arthur) is considerably more lethal than a lever/bolt action. Despite the fact that there are now more firearms in the community the ratio of semiautomatic to manual loading is much less, hence the authors contention of the reduction in potential for lethality.
It's hard to mount a terrorist attack with a bolt action 5 round mag.

Well actually the AFP a few years ago tried to infiltrate a branch of the local gun club because they were considered to be potential snipers and that class of rifle is normally single shot. They were soon recognised and the shooters laughingly gave them advice on how to improve their marksmanship. However this article perpetuates the myth put about by people like Andrew Leigh (a Labor Member for Canberra) and Professor Simon Chapman that the Buyback of 96 has caused a gradual decline in gun related deaths. Think about it, only a handful have been seized since and a gun destroyed in 96 does not kill for a few subsequent years and then stop! Once it ceases to exist it does not kill anyone in any subsequent year.

Keystone coppers... what a great short story ... infiltrating the shooters equivalent of the CWA... pure Lawson.

Don't know about a "myth" of gradual and incremental reductions in deaths, David.

It makes sense to me that a gun eliminated in 1996 is no longer available in each and every subsequent year. It is no longer within arm's reach when the missus leaves the damn cap off the toothpaste one time too many. There is a reduction over time... a cumulative effect.

It's not like each gun kills each year David. It is that they are available - out in the shed - covered in an oily rag or dust. And I for one, am very glad we don't have too many of them about.

Are you saying that a .223 in a semi auto - good for about 400 yards, is less lethal than a say a 30-06 manual repeating rifle which is good for 800-1000 yards and fires a projectile over 3 times heavier? Dead is dead. You are just as dead if you are fatally shot with a .223 semi auto, or a 30-06 bolt gun, so lethality has little to do with the mechanics of the action, and everything to do with the ammunition type, and the skill of the shooter.

Bolt actions can have any size mag you can fit to it. hell the .303 has a factory 10 shot mag, and an optional (but admittedly rare) 20 shot factory mag.

As I said earlier and is easily checked, firearms have increased, deaths decreased. If there had been a sudden decrease in firearm related deaths the year after the buyback then Leigh and Chapman might have a case but it did not happen. To credit for example, a decline in gun related deaths between 1998 and 1999 to the absence of something which was destroyed years earlier obviously defies logic. Any terrorist thinking of hosing an area with automatic fire would either have to have an escape plan (?) or not. If not he might as well become a suicide bomber, Even in Afghanistan Pakistan and Iraq the weapon of choice is an improvised explosive device the availability of which has nothing to do with firearms laws. And the story of the AFP trying to infiltrate the Bench Resters is highly improbable but actually true. I was not told until years later and had to check it before I could believe it.

You are confusing lethality to an individual with lethality to a group. Why is it, do you think, that the military no longer use large calibre, bolt action rifles( with the exception of snipers)?
The point is that an armed villain can kill the occupants of a room, a mall, a tourist site quickly and efficiently with a self loading, high capacity assault rifle. This cannot be achieved with a low capacity, bolt action rifle- irrespective of the kinetic energy, penetrative power or dimensions of the round.

2 dead - nah not enough ... and wounders don't cut it at all.

You need 4 certified DOAs to make it into the massacre stakes statistically. I wonder who decides these things.

2 dead and 5 wounded would barely get page 24 in the US press.

It said mass casualty. A wounding is a casualty. I'm just pointing out the flaws in the article. I'm still trying to work out the correlation between laws that restrict the law abiding, and how they stopped crims from getting guns on the black market - which doesnt care about laws at all.

Peter seems to be having his usual problems with logic. So I will explain things as simply as I can. In 1996 some 650,000 rifles and shotguns were seized and destroyed. Since then a million have been imported.The gun related deaths have fallen since 96 at the same rate as they were before. More guns, more gun owners, more people but less deaths. Very few killings involved the type of firearm which was banned, certainly not the 200 claimed by Andrew Leigh. Very few terrorist acts actually involve even semi automatic firearms, the weapon of choice in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan is the IED which can easily be fabricated using information gained on the web. There are now more firearms available in Australia than before Port Arthur but less deaths,

Not statistically it's not Leigh .. doesn't make it into the count at all. That Sally-Anne Gifford woman - shot in the head by a madman - would not even be a statistic were she not an elected celebrity. Not at a national level in the US.

Not the article's fault - it's ours I guess - in what we choose to measure and count.

I did a lot of digging about in US data and stats following the Connecticut massacres. Woundings - life-long mutilation and disability - not a jot. But stuff on "race" - awash with it.

Have a look at road casualties... most illustrative. Now in India there are 150,000 deaths by car every year - well no rising by 8% a year. 70% in Mumbai incidentally. Mostly pedestrians. Poor folks who spend their days in the hot crowded streets. Shocking huh?

Nope. What is shocking is that some 3,000,000 people are estimated as admitted to hospital injured by cars. They don't know because no one counts 'em.

Statistics tells us a lot about what we think is important - and what we don't.

I dont particularly care what is 'statistically correct'. This isnt a dissertation on statistics... its a presentation of facts in support of a statement or opinion. The dictionary definition of casualty is an injury or death. Fact. Its poorly worded by the author, and if he opens the door by usage of poor language, I am going to go through it.

"ery few killings involved the type of firearm which was banned, certainly not the 200 claimed by Andrew Leigh."

Got some data there for us?

"Very few terrorist acts actually involve even semi automatic firearms"

No, most of them involve automatic weapons (when firearms are used in preference to IEDs or other weapons) - and why not, since they are so freely available.

"There are now more firearms available in Australia than before Port Arthur but less deaths"

Sure - I'll grant there are more weapons, but we also have rigourous license checks, strict rules on storage of firarms, ammunition and safety training and none of those new guns are assault weapons with high capacity magazines.

Automatic weapons have been banned everywhere (except Tasmania) since the late 1920s/early 1930s. I dont remember so many being freely available, even prior to 1996. Even in the US - where the probability of obtaining a fully automatic weapon is arguably higher (since some select few can obtain them on collectors permits - all tracked by the federal govt)... there havent been any.

There are plenty of new 'assault weapons' - an incorrect term, since a knife could be an assault weapon if used to assault - you simply need particular reasons to have them. You need to be a rural property owner, for example. Breivik in Norway purchased land to not arouse police attention when purchasing large quanitities of fertiliser. In Australia not only would it give him cause to get the fertiliser, it'd get him access to the mini-14 he used in the killings. Sure the police would know who he is, they'd know where he'd got it, but at the end of the day, no one could predict what he had planned as he had no priors for mental health or criminal issues.

Personally I think the licensing scheme in Australia is a good thing, with background checks and the like. Restricting particular categories of firearm did little. If you want to kill a lot of 6 year olds, you can easily do it with a bolt action and there's nothing an unarmed citizen can do about it. Its better to restrict the people who want to do such things from getting ANY guns at all, than say those that wont do it, have to be treated like they will.

Thanks David, I appreciate the simplicity.

It appears not only is my logic failing but my comprehension- even of the most simple statements.

Could you please explain what this means: "The gun related deaths have fallen since 96 at the same rate as they were before.".

The actual weapon of choice in all these places is the Kalashnikov AK 47. The Afghans got mountains of 'em and endless ammunition during their tummy tickling session with the old USSR. They also make them. So do the Pakistanis. 12 year old boys sitting on their haunches filing firing mechanisms by hand. 7 moving parts. Unbreakable and cheap.

While it is true that the ready availability of explosives and expertise favours IEDs, car bombs and C4 jackets.. the availability of crowd killer weaponry in the US is dominated by automatics and semi-automatics - an AK 47 will set you back $680 on-line from Texas.

True their home grown terrorists have also used explosives - like McVeigh and the Unabomber. But this is relatively rare and sources and raw materials are increasingly open to official scrutiny.

It's usually a sniper, a seige, a stake out a random walk through the workplace or schoolyard spraying lead. With something like a Bushmaster... too small to hunt deer - just right to hunt kids.

To be honest I don't actually know why we would distinguish so finely in our terror. I really don't care why that kid decided to slaughter those infants. It's splitting hairs the why. The fact that a 6 year old can be seen as a legitimate target by someone with the means and intent is no less terrifying and terrorising.

" Its better to restrict the people who want to do such things from getting ANY guns at all, than say those that wont do it, have to be treated like they will."

No they are treated like they CAN Leigh which is a simple statement of fact.

Now that's a good idea stopping potential mass murderers from getting access to crowd killer firepower. How? How do we spot them? One eyebrow? Too many black clothes?

I reckon the new rules - and the outcomes - have been excellent. The local and Federal coppers need to do more about illegal imports and sales - and illegal mods. But it is difficult to stop professional crims tooling up. As it is impossible to collect all the AK47s from serious pig shooters.

But serious pig shooters never use toothpaste and don't care if the dog leaves the cap off.

Regarding rate of gun related deaths I was obviously referring to Australia and would refer you to the AIC web page. Obviously there are swings from year to year but the overall decline started decades before Port Arthur. But put yourself in the shoes of a terrorist, as would any anti terrorist force, how would you use an assault rifle v an IED. I would lay an IED with a view to not being caught so I could lay another one. If I wanted to shoot a dignitary I would use an accurate rifle, you may remember Johny Howard and his bullet proof jacket. But once again there is no way that the Buyback of 96 can claim credit for any gradual decline in deaths involving a firearm.

So - it being hot and me being lazy I went off and had a wander through the Institute of Criminology website - and I found this: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/261-280/tandi269/view%20paper.html

Noiw this looks at gun deaths between 1991 and 2001. And the giblets show that following 1996 the rates of death from shotguns hunting rifles and military rifles (don't know where the 303 would fit) dropped substantially and have stayed down.

Table 4 : Number of firearm related deaths by type of firearm

Year Hand Shot Hunt Military Other N/A Total
1991 29 133 282 4 0 181 629
1992 26 132 291 9 1 163 622
1993 17 120 211 6 0 168 522
1994 40 112 210 4 0 163 529
1995 30 106 231 1 0 111 479
1996 28 107 231 38 0 117 521
1997 41 101 195 2 0 98 437
1998 36 58 145 0 0 88 327
1999 31 75 134 4 4 105 353
2000 36 55 145 1 0 94 331
2001 49 54 76 0 1 153 333
Total 363 1053 2151 69

Also worth noting that some 77% of these deaths are suicides. That's the hunting rifle numbers I'd reckon. Almost all males. Almost all rural.

They also include police killings. They do not merntion attempted murder or wounding at all. Just killings - or more precisely deaths attributable to firearms

I have no idea what leads to the N/A - "not specified" column. One would think this was a pretty straight forward line of questioning: Dead? Shot? Gun. Apparently not.

Such are the mysteries of our counting.

But looks to me like the Institute of Criminology might differ in their assessment of the effects of the Howard system.

Facts mam, nuttin' but the facts.

Peter, I think he means that if you look at the homicide rate from 1969 through to the present (at the ABS), it shows a steady sdecline with no change in that rate post port arthur.

Oh heck these laws won't get the Missus to remember that toothpaste cap! People will still kill each other - although with guns here, mostly they only kill themselves (near 80%).

They will use lumps of wood, or kitchen knives or even spoons or egg beaters or maybe they'll push you downstairs while you're drunk, or throw a toaster in while you're having a soak in the bath, enjoying a banana dacquiri. Then say it was an accident.

But at least they won't be using high capacity rapid shot crowd killers.

Now we just have to ban stairs. And perhaps banana dacquiris. Onward ever onward!

Actually you are going off topic but you may wish to look at allied casualty lists and see how many are due to rifle fire and how many to bombs. Most of the stuff made in the Tribal Territories is little more than a facismile and might last five rounds, simply status symbols.

This is a nonsense comment unless you can show that prior to the date of change of legislation the newly banned firearms had been involved in the number of deaths which were now not occurring, this is the "Andrew Leigh assertion, 200 saved per year by banning firearms which had never killed 200 in any one year". Should you look at longer term data the trend is the same, downwards and once again just under eighty per cent of firearm deaths are suicide, for that task you do not need a twenty round magazine.

Why is that a nonsense comment David - have a look at the data.

I indicated that yes, there was a decline in the rate of gun related deaths across the entire period of 1979 to 2010 - a compound rate of -4.7 across that period. If you look three chunks within that whole period however it gets very interesting - that first section 1979-1988 is like a slight downhill gradient which steepens slightly from 1989-1996 and after 1996 it gets steeper again.

Ignoring Andrew Leigh (I did not use his data or paper at all) I think that looking at that data it does beg the question of why to the rates of gun deaths not just continue to decline but decline more rapidly after certain points.

Your assertion that the types of firearms that were banned must be shown to be responsible ignores the reality that banning those firearm types represented only part of the overall legislative approach. I would possibly accept an argument that the same results may have been acheived without the need to restrict access to some types of weapons, but you would need to demonstrate that.

You obviously do not realize that the rest of the legislation was cosmetic and few of those who handed in semi autos did not have other firearms which they did not hand in so their capacity to kill had hardly changed once again your position has no credibility given the fact that firearms, owners, and population have increased since Port Arthur but deaths have continued to decline, Given it is bloody obvious that the Buyback of 96 did not cause a sudden drop and could not have caused a long term decline (unless you take the Leigh/Chapman position that you can be killed with a gun which does not exist) what NEW legislative changes brought in 1996 were responsible and how? If they were in prior to 96 then they cannot be responsible for post 96 changes. It is a bit like crediting penicillin for a decline in death rates post 96 when it was already available and in use before then,

David - lets take a different tack.

To what factors do you attribute the decline in the rate per 100,000 of gun deaths over time?

What is changing in society that gun deaths should decline?

The rate of decline over time is not constant - it fluctuates, a trend that becomes clear when you look at large blocks of time - What causes those fluctuations, and why are we seeing a steeper downward trend?

I'm not telling you why I am asking you what you think is causing the change.

David, in addessing this point "You obviously do not realize that the rest of the legislation was cosmetic" you may wish to consider that some states and territories had minimal gun controls until 1996 - the legislation in this case is hardly cosmetic - it is entirely novel.

David - you are fudging your words now ... shifting ground like a crab scuttling about...

What do you mean when you half-say this: "Given it is bloody obvious that the Buyback of 96 did not cause a sudden drop ..." in what? In the overall death rate from guns? Yes it did. From hunting rifles, shotguns and military weapons in particular? Yes it did.

Total firearms deaths 1991 - 629... 1996 - 521 ... 1997- 433 down to 333 in 2001 and apparently staying there.

The number of deaths from shotguns - fell from 101 to 58 in 1997 and has stayed around that since. There was a preceding decline from 1991 - from 138 to 101. This cut it in half.

Hunting rifles - 231 in 1996 down to 134 by 1998 and down to 76 by 2001.

Military rifles - from an average of half a dozen a year to Martin Bryant's spike to 38 then down to 2 then zero.

These laws did exactly what we wanted them to do - they stopped the deranged and the unhinged having access to crowd killers like they still do in the USA. To make them harder to get hold of during a toothpaste cap crisis and to soak up as many as possible that were out there lying about the place.

Gee I wish I could post a table or two from that AIC report - just jumps out at you. True there was a decline preceeding Port Arthur but the big changes and declines followed it.

Don't sneeze at stuff that works David. Sometime even our most blundering short sighted politicians - yes even John Bloody Howard - can get things right.

The only problem I have with associating the gun buy back with a drop in gun deaths is that there was already a decline in gun deaths occurring, so it is hard to show exactly how effective the gun buy back was.

I disagree with David about the suicides figure. Suicides overall have not really changed. Firearm suicides may have dropped but that is meaningless when the method of suicide has changed. Specific age ranges (15-24) did have a response, but this was about access to more efficient methods of suicide.

Thanks for proving my point, firearms deaths according to your own figures dropped by over a hundred a year 91 to 96 but by less than that the following year, Once again you cannot credit the Buyback with further reductions unless once again you believe in the Leigh/Chapman thesis that the danger from a gun is inversely proportional to the time since it was destroyed. I assume that you are not crediting the Buyback with reducing deaths before it occurred? Some form of time travel which has actually been asserted by some commentators.

Tim - On the face of it yes, there was indeed a decline - they key is to look at the change of rate in decline. This idea was sparked by David's earlier claim that "gun related deaths have fallen since 96 at the same rate as they were before". This seemed to be a claim that if valid, would support David's assertion that the 1996 changed nothing. However is is relatively easy to compare the period prior to 1996 and the period after and demonstrate that the rate of decline nearly doubles from 1996. Something caused that change in rate - while I acknowledge that correllation does not imply causation Occams razor suggests that in the absence of a better explanation...

Grendelous, I agree, I'm just saying that it is hard to ascertain how much we can attribute. I disagree with David that the gun buy back did nothing, but I don't agree that the entire change in annual deaths was as a result of the buy back either.

The rate changes are hard to assess with annual data, especially with such a radical change in the system. I think it is fair to say that the gun buy back resulted in a lowering of deaths, I just don't like putting a whole figure on it, especially not the entire drop in gun deaths.

I really hate it when the anti-gun crowd include the suicide figures with the gun deaths to obfuscate the actual change as well.

Tim has made one of the few intelligent comments in this discussion. When looking at suicides, nearly eighty per cent of firearms deaths in Australia, we have to disagregate figures sensibly and look at both immediate substitution over time. Frequently when a method of suicide is removed, for example coal gas in the UK, suicides will fall but be made up is subsequent years to "make up the back log.Likewise there are numerous examples of people with access to firearms who choose other methods, for example the fairly recent tragic death of an ACT Police Commissioner.

Tim - I concur, I am not sure that even Andrew Leigh is claiming that the entire change resulted from the buyback - at least in his media article yesterday he acknowledges the existing decline.

"The rate changes are hard to assess with annual data, especially with such a radical change in the system. I think it is fair to say that the gun buy back resulted in a lowering of deaths, I just don't like putting a whole figure on it, especially not the entire drop in gun deaths."

I agree - I used a compound growth rate calculation over decadal blocks for my analysis - annual data taken as single points with small numbers is subject to high uncertainty. I am intrigued by what was driving the change prior to 1989 and the magnitude of impact from NSW and Victorian legislation prior to 1996.

I agree - suicides should not be considered when examining change to violent gun deaths.

I would have been amused (and possibly supportive) if you had claimed that Tim had made the ONLY intelligent comment in this discussion...

The only case he may have and I emphasize may, is that there have been no mass shootings since but even with Port Arthur these were minor in the overall scheme of things. There have been none in NZ either which is about as culturally similar to Australia as you can get. The last I looked two areas in Australia had had identical legislation for as long as anyone can remember, the ACT and the NT because the Federal Government had ruled both and brought in identical legislation. ACT had the lowest murder rate and firearms related deaths and the NT the highest. Different populations with the ACT having high employment and education, the NT very high young male, very high alcohol consumption and high family and group violence among a sector of the population which I am not allowed to name but which were referred to in the recent Reith Lectures where an aboriginal mine worker said a big advantage of working on the mines was the absence of violence.

Would that have included your own comments?

Oooh dear ... not a history teacher are you David?

Here's what was going on:

1984 Milperra "massacre"
1987, Hoddle Street massacre
1987 Queen Street massacre
1991 Strathfield massacre.

Shooting massacres in Australia and other English-speaking countries often occurred close together in time. Forensic psychiatrists attribute this to copycat behaviour which is in many cases triggered by sensational media treatment. Mass murderers study media reports and imitate the actions and equipment that are sensationalised in them.

This set of laws pretty much stopped that in its tracks David.
1984 - Milperra "massacre"

Grendelus, do you know what the effects of the legislation was on firearm crime in those previously unregulated states?

Yep said that might be a case but when did such shootings account for two hundred a year? Prior to Port Arthur the biggest mass murder was the Whiskey a Go Go which was done with a can of petrol

Agree with pretty much all of that Tim.

Must admit I'm still trying to work out what one hunts with one of these Bushmaster things - large flocks of racoons? Piddly little slugs and lots of 'em. Let alone an Uzi.

It's truly amazing what one can buy on-line. And cheap too given the level of celebrity achieved with a decent slaughter. Quite a small outlay really.

Tim Scanlon your comment "The second amendment does not allow for personal gun ownership. It allows for people to join a militia." is not correct but sadly something I do hear as an ‘interpretation’ from a few Australians.

US 2nd Amendment states:- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There was no standing army in the 13 Colonies. The Continental Army was formed AFTER the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War who, with help from militia units won independence. (the Continental army consisted of 35,000 (volunteer citizen/soldiers) but they were BACKED by 44,500 citizen militia)

Like it or not, the US founding fathers as regards the 2nd Amendment intended that what the people bearing arms would be shooting would be people, not animals, to protect the security of a free State.

Currently there are 22 State militias operating in the continental USA (5 are not armed). There is a distinction between militia and armed forces and militia can’t be called, ordered or drafted into the armed forces. Militia are volunteers and some must supply their own equipment/uniforms.

The commonly accepted meaning of the Second Amendment was written by Joseph Story in Commentaries on the Constitution. Here Joseph Story describes a militia as the "natural defence of a free country," both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a "moral check" against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power.

Noah Webster argued:
Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

The Bill of Rights creates limitations on federal government (and State government in the 14th Amendment) It is meant to protect the natural rights (Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable or unalienable as spelled in the Constitution.) of liberty (ability of people to have control of their own actions) and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.

I'm intrigued by this notion that the idea behind the US constitution was to allow a revolt against an elected government via the second amendment.

So who decides that the time is right for violent revolution, fighting in the streets? Who decides that a Black, Islamic, Foreign-born, socialist like Obama is a step too far? Give us an inkling into your thinking here Suzann - what would have you reaching for the trigger?

When is democracy a risk to American freedom?

As for me I'm starting a fund raiser to purchase decent god fearing weaponry like Uzis and Bushmasters for the Blacks and Latinos who it appears don't get quite so much of a licence for packing heat. Who do these gun-toting freedom loving democrats thing they will be fighting - more toddlers?

Maybe when the government decides you are to be interned because you are jewish, homosexual, disabled, spoke out against the government, and so on. Yeah didnt happen in the 18th century, did it? Didnt happen in some backwards 3rd world African nation, did it?

Bushmasters are very effective at eradicating feral pigs, kangaroos, and the like, in number, and in particular when on the move. I partake in this, but not with a bushmaster because I am not allowed - despite the farmer on the land in which I do it, being perfectly entitled to one - yet is no more or less law abiding than me. I use a manual repeater, but I would rather use a Bushmaster.

I also participate in Service Rifle shooting competitions - a follow on from when I was in the ADF and participated in marksmanship competitions. Many of my fellow Service Rifle club members are ex-ADF. I was trusted with a fully automatic actual assault rifle in a steel rack, in my bedroom, in the ADF, but the day I left (1998), I wasnt trusted with so much as an air rifle. I am not going to lie, it feels like a betrayal. Anyway, at an international level, all competitions worth their salt - in the US, and closer to home in New Zealand - our ANZAC ally - are geared around semi-automatic civilian versions of service rifles.

So dont tell me there's no reason to own a bushmaster.... I just gave several.

Leigh,

Have you ever used a Bushmaster or the like on pigs? Know anyone who has? I'd very much doubt it.

How many 223 slugs to the head do you reckon it would take to drop a charging boar - in numbers even.... at a safe distance.

More likely you'll be spraying wildly into moving bushes mate... pigs long gone...shredding the vegetation and the odd Swedish backpacker.

The reason I ask is that the pig shooters around here - and isn't that everyone - all reckon a 308 is the optimum. Some go lighter but no one - no one at all - reckons a 223 is worth a pinch ... not unless you're going to mince the thing.

Serious hunters are horrified at that prospect - let alone the professionals who alone would have access to a Bushmaster under Australian law.

Might be OK for goats or the like out of a helicopter ... but even then these fellas take serious pride in doing it right once... especially hanging out of a chopper... wounded animals - animals requiring a second shot - are an embarassment - a professional slur.

The fact that Bushmasters run a popular range called The Varminter - in amongst The Predator and the gives you an idea of what these are about. I've heard minced possum is actually quite tasty - while echidna is very similar to pork.

If you'd like to get the real feel of a Bushie ... have a crack at this - the all new, revolutionary ACR ...the Adaptive Combat Rifle ... take that pig!

http://www.bushmaster.com/acr/default.asp#/intro

You can get Bushmasters in .308 calibre, based on the AR10/XM15 that are regularly used on pigs. Been around since mid 2000s.

http://www.bushmaster.com/electronic-documents/2005Catalogv1/Page%206-7%20308%20Rifles.pdf

We have a number of contract shooters in my club with them, who often shoot from helicopters as well as land based vehicles. .223's are used for roos, mostly, as I am sure you are aware. They have them, too.

If I had my choice, I'd have an M1A/M14. Its fine for the job, with some accurising.

I personally dont like the .223, except for roos (yes, I have a permit). Not too bad for foxes of course too. I know what you are saying about using them on pigs - only really any good for a heart or head shot at close range. Hell I've hit a pig with 300WinMag centre of mass and its run a good 100m.... as I found out after I had to jump the property owners' neighbour's fence to retrieve it (I didnt think it right to leave a dead 100kg pig on another man's property, with wild dogs around and so on).

I still have trouble what anyone would want with one of their piddly things - massacring cockatoos maybe. Tempted myself often. Especially when they cut my nets.

From what I'm told about it by those who do this for "fun" - shooting a charging boar or even a maddened sow - is s not unlike shooting at a D-9 Bulldozer once they've got up a head of steam... they just keep coming... surprising quickly.

I'd be wanting a Howitzer myself.

I shot a 100+kg boar on the run with a .308 with 168 grain ballistic tip hollow points.... and it just kept running like nothing was happening. 2nd shot turned its brain box to a pile of goo and bone fragments and that was that. Autopsy showed the first bullet performed as it was supposed to, just wasnt enough for a boar pumped up on adrenaline. I dont do it for fun, I just do it because I am a good shot, and these farmers need a hand. There's no trophies on my wall, I dont booze up and shoot, and I dont get paid to do it. In fact I usually pay for the privilege of staying in their shearer's quarters and using their facilities. I'd just rather do it with the most effective equipment - and on my list, it'd be an M14/M1A variant.

Suzann: Not to get nit-picky here, but what part of "a well regulated militia" did you miss in the 2nd Amendment? Because that sounds pretty conditional on firearms ownership, which in turn makes personal ownership contingent upon being part of a group that is recognised, well trained and lead (the regulated bit) militia.

So what we are actually seeing is a derivation of that original amendment to allow marketing of firearms to people. The individual ownership is nothing to do with the original intention of the amendment.

But let's go further, are you honestly wanting to tell me that everyone has the right to own firearms? Because there are plenty of people who I'd hope are never allowed to own firearms. Hence there are restrictions on the types of firearms, how many, in some instances licensing and safety measures are required. So it isn't a right to own a firearm, but a privilege. Please don't pretend otherwise.

Suzann, well said. :)

The English Bill of Rights 1689 says we (Australians, since we also follow English Common Law) have the right to arms, it makes no mention of a militia or otherwise, however it varies with 'unless restricted by law', whereas the US 2nd Amendment, which was based on the English Bill, says that it shall not be infringed (by law).

Perhaps the restriction on the types of people (rather than the types of firearm) is what is meant by 'well regulated' - since a person fit for duty (usually not a criminal, and not deranged) is considered 'fit for regular duty'. I dont think you'd find many americans - including the NRA - opposed to keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and the deranged. Certainly the many, many US friends I've spoken to - some gun owners, some not, some staunch NRA members, some not - have all agreed universal background checks and wholesale and all encompassing improvements to mental health and identifying those that need that kind of help, are paramount and they would not be opposed to.

I don't think the American founding fathers were that silly or knowledgable about the human condition Leigh. Don't think they anticipated folks who were so unhinged that they would be considered mentally unfit for military service because they were too violent.

The essential difference is the notion of being an organised paramilitary force... not some rat-tag mob of folks with bazookas under the bed.

The central question is - and was - how is this power to be used and deployed? Who decides the government has become "oppressive" And to whom? Some kid in Connecticut? A madman in Oklahoma? The boss of the NRA?

Without a well regulated militia, one is left with heavily armed chaos - a slice of which reckons it's OK to rebel against an elected government. I just keep wondering when this insurrection and revolt becomes "justified" and to whom.

The vague assertions and declarations of a right to rise up against an elected government are an utter distortion of the notion of protecting the republic - for all the people.

I'd like to see background checks and proper licensing in the US. I think we go too far here, with the police often overturning license applications just for fun (one shooter was knocked back from buying a legal rifle because the Lapua had "armour piercing" bullets available for sale online).

But they also need to change their attitude to violence and guns. They have try-hard weekend warriors going around shooting like they are in the army, yet they are too afraid to actually serve. They have people who daily carry as though they are going to be in an extended gun battle where-ever they go. They think it is okay to pull a gun in a dispute, as though escalating the situation will solve it.

Also the Aussie constitution also allows for us to own guns, but it also allows for government overthrow. So our original ideas on weapons and the people power are not that different from the US, they have just taken it in a different direction. They have also forgotten the original intention of the laws, to protect the country, not to have a gun on you at all times and use lethal force in any situation you please.

Aha - I suspected as much... I have only been allowed to see expurgated Constitutions where these clauses sanctioning insurrection are stashed.

The Constitution allows us to own guns, subject to the laws that are applied to them. But not once ever have they - whoever they are - let me see any suggestion in the Sacred Text that the self and me paddy mates would be OK constitutionally to go throwing cowpats at our local betters or worse.

Point me towards these refreshingly liberating clauses in our starch-collared Constitution, Mr Scanlon.

A fienian figleaf of legal probity. Excellent. As if one were necessary.

Whilst plenty of 'carry' firearms owners talk tough (and there's nothing wrong with that, free speech and all), at the end of the day in almost every state, to pull a gun on someone that is not threatening you (with grave violence or the clear threat of it) is guilty of assault... which can get their guns taken off them forever. OF course its also grounds for the other person or people to pull theirs and shoot you - justifiably. So, frequently, whilst they might say that, in reality its not the case.

The militia has always been a ragtag disorganised mob, and whilst you could argue you have the right to a bazooka, federal law says you cant own explosive rounds for it.

I think mad people existed for some time before 1791, and will a long time after it. In the late 1800s, less than 100 years after the 2nd amendment was ratified, they had lever action firearms that could fire at a much more impressive rate than a musket. Gatling guns existed. Why then did they not say 'hey this law is outdated and dangerous'?

As for who is the well regulated militia, seems their supreme court has already decided that. Are we to argue with what a Supreme Court, determines about how to interpret its own legislation? I am pretty sure you wont see Obama here telling us to overturn any of our supreme court decisions. You didnt see anyone in the US -even the gun control advocates, telling us what to do with our gun laws pre-1996 or even after. They just show their (misguided but well meaning) admiration - in the case of gun control advocates, or (misguided but well meaning) disdain - in the case of the pro-gun lobby.

I am not sure what you mean by 'without a well regulated militia, one is left with armed chaos'. Australia doesnt have a well regulated militia... its a matter of perspective, and perhaps if you live on the Gold Coast, in Western Sydney, or some parts of Melbourne - amongst other places - as to whether we have heavily armed chaos or not.

I am guessing you mean without regulation a militia is armed chaos. This is true, but the government has enacted many laws to control (regulate) arms sales to civilians, so it is regulated. I guess the question comes down to how much is 'well regulated' and how much is infringement.

As I have said I dont think too many of even the most staunch NRA members would put universal background checks in the 'infringement' column, and to be honest I think the media could help by not focussing on bad black weapons, and more on this, to get real change for the better.

Pete, I can't access it here at work to make sure this is the right link (heaven forbid we read the constitution) but the phrase to look for is overturning of government.

More modern versions have additions to this about petitions and the like.

The most interesting thing about the constitution (aside from the party system not being allowed, no support for cabinet officers either) is that Western Australia was disadvantaged financially by joining the nation and was to receive compensation. Seems nothing has changed except for WA getting that compensation.

Sorry but I am confused Peter, in your first paragraph you seem to wish to debate the fact that the 2nd Amendment was written to limit the power of the federal government in the USA, yet in your second paragraph you seem to be making a broader statement about why and when does anyone decide they have a right to start a violent revolution?

I have no idea when or who will stand up and say enough is enough Peter but I do know there comes a point when citizens tend to question how much government control is too much government control and in the US citizens have a natural right to stand against tyranny in any form. I also know that if US history repeats itself, it only took 1 shot and they still (since 1775) have yet to clarify which ‘side’ pulled the trigger.

The question is about Constitutionality and this is especially sensitive as from day dot in the USA Constitutional rights have far outweighed legal rights...and no patriotic US citizen wants to lose their Constitutional rights (or have them replaced by legal rights) that so many have given their life/puts their life on the line to defend.

Any American should see it as sad day when any president commits (and is struck down in a Court of law) for unconstitutional acts (as has just been decided in a Federal Appeals Court) because unfortunately a lot of damage can take place whilst waiting on the US system to operate. If a president KNOWINGLY violates any part of the Constitution you must ask yourself what is to spare the other parts from the same violation.

I wasn't attempting to clarify what was 'my' trigger, I was just attempting to clarify a bit of US history as regards the 2nd Amendment as Tim Scanlon made some excellent points although I differ in opinion with him on a few points.

Peter your question about democracy being a risk to American freedom leads me to believe you do not comprehend the vast differences in relation to the definition of types of ‘democracy’ or the difference between Constitutional Rights and Legal Rights. Just because a country calls itself a democracy does not equate that the citizens have the same freedoms/rights compared to another 'democratic' country.

Sorry Peter but the US government beat you to it:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
I find your last paragraph in particular your last question crass and have no response to same other than you have the parties backward...most democrats are pushing stricter gun control while most republicans are standing on constitutional 2nd Amendment ground.

No Suzann I have no doubt that the 2nd Amendment of your Constitution was designed to establish a counterveiling force against the elected government. But this was - in the words of the good Tom Jefferson himself - "a well-regulated militia" - not some rag-tag mob of individual NRA enthusiasts answerable to no one, part of nothing.

Now I'd have a hunch that Tom was actually just redcognising the reality of the colonies at the time... bristling with rebels who didn't trust government in any shape or size - even one they elected themselves. So in recognising their presence, the 2nd amendment actually sought to contain rather than institutionalise their power.

Now if your gun-toters wanted to get themselves organised into some sort of well-regulated militia - perhaps under the control of the National Guard or the ATF - under some sort of control - then you might be getting close to the spirit and letter of the 2nd Amendment.

But this notion that the US Constitution ensures each individual's right to bear arms and make war against an elected government if they as individuals - or even a group of them - "feel oppressed" is not historically defensible and is inherently anti-democratic whilever your government is elected constitutionally.

Give me some circumstances in which it would be conceivably constitutional in your view to make war on Washington - in other words, what does the 2nd Amendment mean in practical reality. When has democracy "gone too far" and who decides?

Well said Leigh!

The difference lies in understanding. It lies between the difference in natural and legal right...you must make the distinction to even address the rest of it intelligently.

The English and US Bill of Rights models aren't the same...for a reason! (possibly when the term hindsight was coined) I think the fact that the US Constitution written so long ago still stands so strong truly reflects the remarkable vision on the authors at such an early time...it is an amazing collaboration.

$60 question is.....How much legal right is to be allowed by the government before it infringes on an individual's natural right.

Nobody that I have ever talked to said make everything legal and do away with the control of the law...only stance I see is differing points of where the 'limit' of government law which is exactly what the Constitution was written to do.

I know that's the national mythology Suzann - that, unlike every set of political leaders in the known history of the business - your lot got together and tried to restrict what they could do.

I'm not sure that would be a particularly realistic assessment of the situation your founding fathers were looking at. Have a think about the historical context.

Declaration of Independence ... Rights of Man... the place was boiling with incendiary ideas ... but not necessarily amongst the politicians. All these hot headed rampant individualists running about in the scrub with guns shooting noble savages when they weren't shooting the Brits, a thin veneer of fragile and brittle states and congresses and the good chance that the Brits would be back.

So I reckon the militia idea - Jefferson's personal re-edit of the original amendment text incidentally - was both insurance and I suspect unavoidable given all that Rights of Man stuff running about the place. No mob of blokes in Washington - lawyers for chrissakes! - that no one knew was going to go infringing on those anarchic shooters in any way at all just then. Bigger things to worry about. And they might be handy.

Either way I am intrigued by this "natural right" to be lethal argument.

Am I right in putting this distinction as this: that "natural rights" are embodied in the Constitution while "legal rights" are conferred by legislation made under the Constitution. The former are inviolate and, for want of a better word, "eternal" - while the latter are more ephemeral and liable to change in line with necessity or political will.

The US Constitution is a very clever document - a clever political arrangement reflecting what was going on at the time and the forces at play....not so good as The Declaration of Independence which still stirs the cockles to this day and perhaps forever. But that's because the Declaration of Independence was not a "political" document in the sense of codifying administrative arrangements - it was a defiant statement of principle. It is full of eternal self-evident truths and "natural rights".

But the Constitution - any Constitution - is a very different sort of thing. Unlike the Declaration, the Constitution is very much a man-made document - even worse, a politician-made document- worse still - a lawyer-made document. It was not inscribed on Tablets of Stone and dropped in from Mt Sinai. Neither are the amendments Suzann. They come - they go. They've came - they've went. But not the second. That's sacred. Hmmmm?

As for Supreme Court interpretations, it might astonish you yanks to realise that we wouldn't put up with that sort of business for a minute. Judges telling us the intention of the Constitution - not damn likely... inter[pretation, application but here we like our elected folks to make the law, not politically appointed lawyers. It's probably a convict thing.... but it is a very deeply rooted view here. We keep our judges on a very short leash. And, like "natural rights" and amendments judges come and go.

Now while we're talking about "natural rights" Tom Jefferson also whipped up the First Amendment didn't he? The one about separation of church and state ..."a wall of separation" he called it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." such lovely simple unlawyered words.

Yet now you are "... one Nation under god " (inserted into your Pledge of Allegiance by Truman in 1954) and the wrenching shift from the Jeffersonian - "E pluribus unum" to "in god we trust" as the official US Seal. (1956 - same bloke). Seems the 1950s were a period of significant change for these eternal truths and natural rights".

Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." You reckon that's true - in practice?

See I reckon that from a distance it looks like there's been a lot of incremental change in the revolutionary, rational, humanist principles embodied in your constitution and its amendments.

Do you get dry rot in the US? ... eats away at everything over time. Especially ships of state.

Peter, unfortunately when foreign people invade a country they aren’t received well by the natives especially after the new wears off. The colonists tried to befriend the natives albeit they wanted them to change and emulate the British. Naturally the natives resented the suggestion and hostilities took over.

Declaration of Independence was written as an explanation to foreign governments as to WHY the colonies were separating from Britain...hence the emotion.

The Declaration speaks of ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ and served as the ideas that were formed into the US Constitution 10 years later.

The colonies had militia before standing up to the British (before ANY government was established). They then formed the Continental Army.

At that time most governments felt rights were given by the government to the people (and could be taken away). Monarchy was the flavor of the day. The ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the fight for independence before any formal government was formed was obviously the driving background influence for the US Constitution with the intent to provide protection of citizens’ rights from the government.

You may think that the US Constitution is ‘not so good’ but since it was written only 27 Amendments have been made to the original. Interesting you say Amendments ‘come and go’ but in reality they haven’t. Only 12 Amendments have been added since the 1900’s, only 1 amendment has EVER been repealed.

The first 10 Amendments comprising the Bill of Rights have NEVER ‘come or gone’ so I am not quite sure what you are referring to in your statement....most would say all of the first 10 of the Amendments are sacred as they are the Bill of Rights (but not all are absolute rights!).

Each State has their own Constitution some include a (State) Bill of Rights that mirror the FEDERAL US Constitution. How are you going to get around ALL of them? Each State is guaranteed a republic form of government.

I don’t think I said the Supreme Court ‘makes’ our laws. I said they (in the decision I posted as regards the UPHOLDING of the 2nd Amendment) interpret Constitutional law. They have powers of judicial review. Last I looked one of the Australian High Courts functions is to hear cases which require the interpretation of the Constitution of Australia. Not much difference in how the US and Australia make laws (congress/house of reps v parliament) the difference comes when you get to the head of state.

A lot of the early immigrants went to America to escape religious persecution. Why do you find it surprising that the 1st Amendment addresses a religious issue? It more addresses the fact that a state-supported religion can not be created. In other words New Mexico couldn’t require all citizens to become Catholic. It has nothing to do with whether there is a God because the people that wrote the documents and founded the country for the most part believed in ‘a GOD’ and fought for the right to worship as they wish. Obviously that worked as there are somewhere around 3000 different religious groups in the USA so they must not feel too hard done by. It is for THIS reason that the 1st Amendment rights are a different animal all together as they are NOT generally upheld as absolute (as those 1st Amendment rights can be limited such as in circumstances to protect the rights of others).

You somehow missed that the Act of 1865 gave the authority to put ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’ on coins and you can thank the threat of communism for the insertion of the ‘under God’ wording in the Pledge of Allegiance. Reciting is not mandatory and you can’t be punished for not saying any version of same. Bellamy was a socialist Baptist minister; he wrote the pledge and left God out of it in 1892!

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." You reckon that's true - in practice? Are you insinuating something here because I am at a loss to find your point? I’m not aware of any public office requiring you to believe in a particular God if any, a specific religion or anything of the sort. When public officials take oaths they have a choice to affirm or swear on a Bible...same in a Court of law.

Peter I live in Far North Queensland and yes we do get dry rot....however despite a POLITICAL erosion in the USA I don’t get where you see the US Constitution has suffered such severe erosion. I personally think it is holding up pretty well for a 225 year old document.