Also, check out the lastest data:

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/homicide.html

Also, how do these stats back up your original claim?

Before 96 we never had the issues with guns that we do now.

Our population density is lower than the US as well as our cultural differences. Maybe that has something to do with the murder rate and NOT guns? Why is it that the US is experiencing a declining homicide rate when they are making it easier to own and carry guns over there?

Guns have nothing to do with it. Temperament and culture have everything to do with it.

I wonder what the graph you drew red lines on would look like if we took the people killed in Port Arthur off the statistics list and actually just concentrated on homicides and not the unfortunate mass killing we had.

From your link. So it's going up again.

The annual homicide rate will go up and down. That doesn't mean we should change our minds every year. It just means you shouldn't make a trend from a single data point.

The rate is really quite constant.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't back up your claim:

Before 96 we never had the issues with guns that we do now.

It also contradicts your earlier claim:

Don't tell me that after guns were banned the rate went down and use that as your justification. I will not disagree that the rate went down, but it was going down consistently for years before that. 

My original claim is based off anecdotal evidence.

Yet you criticise me for not using the stats.

How often did we hear about drivebys and execution-style killings with guns back in the day compared to now? Hardly ever wasn't it?

To be honest I can't remember ever hearing about a drive by. Except maybe a recent one in Melbourne. Not sure of the details. But of course you are going to remember more recent ones than old ones. That's why 'anecdotal evidence' is so useless.

Our population density is lower than the US as well as our cultural differences.

There are plenty of wealthy western countries with high population density like the US. All or most have less gun ownership and fewer homicides.

Guns have nothing to do with it. Temperament and culture have everything to do with it.

I know plenty of people who would have a hard time killing me without a gun no matter how angry they were. With a gun it would be easy. That's the difference that guns make.

I wonder what the graph you drew red lines on would look like if we took the people killed in Port Arthur off the statistics list and actually just concentrated on homicides and not the unfortunate mass killing we had.

It would make a slight difference for one year. So what?

Do you follow the news? How can you honestly have never heard of a driveby?

I'm not saying I haven't heard of one. I'm saying I can't remember. That is, it is not significant. Even if I could remember, it still wouldn't be significant. Chances are you only paid attention after 97. The statistics speak far louder than your impressions gained from news coverage.

Fewer homicides does not mean lower crime rate.

It means fewer dead people.

Do you also acknowledge that certain violent crime has risen in Australia since the bans?

I would want to have a decent look at the stats. If they say so, then you don't need my acknowledgement.

Do you acknowledge banning guns for law abiding citizens has had no effect on the criminal availability of guns?

This is a point I strongly disagree with and one which is often put forward by the pro gun lobby. It doesn't make sense. Banning or restricting guns pushes up the black market price. That means fewer crims can afford them. Especially petty crims like druggies looking to score their next fix. The first thing they would do if they had a gun is sell it, like they did with their TV. This is a furphy that the gun lobby repeats over and over again with their hands covering their ears, hoping that people will believe it without actually thinking about it if they hear it often enough.

If I wanted to kill you and didn't have a gun I'd just run you over or burn your house down when you were asleep.

In most situations where a person wants to kill someone else, it is in a fit of rage, in the heat of the moment. Only a small minority of homicides are well planned and done in cold blood like you describe. So gun availability does make a difference. Also, in a situation where there is a threat of violence and an escalation of arms, using knives etc does not lead to the same 'shoot first' mentality. Once guns are produced, it all goes downhill quickly. You shouldn't pull a gun unless you intend to use it. You can pull a knife and still be able to walk away. Guns are the only common weapon for which the human brain's instinctive response to personal space no longer applies. The allow someone to kill without having their personal space violated. This is a huge psychological factor icnreasing the liklihood that the weapon will be used once produced.

The gun lobby focusses to the extent of blindness on the issue of whether the 'good guys' should have guns. They ignore the issue of whether any lunatic should be able to get a gun just because they have a clean record or because the black market is flooded with guns.

If this was America, it would have been guns, and the teachers would not have been able to simply take them off him. Chances are someone would have died.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/boy-to-be-charged-after-weapons-threats/2007/09/12/1189276807649.html

A 10-year-old boy will be charged after he walked into a Canberra school yard and threatened students and staff with a pruning saw and steak knives, police say.

The boy, who is not a student at the school, walked into the grounds of St Francis of Assisi Primary School in Calwell, in Canberra's south, about 1pm (AEST) on Wednesday, police allege.

He then threatened students and teachers with the pruning saw.

"The school implemented a lockdown procedure to ensure the safety of students," police said in a statement.

Teachers spoke with the boy and took the saw from him. He then produced two steak knives and demanded money from a teacher.

Police arrived a short time later and took the boy into custody. He was later released into the care of his mother.

Police say they are yet to determine the exact charges the boy will face when he is summonsed to appear in court at a later date.

---

How low can the gun lobby stoop? Next they'll be demanding that students have the right to arm themselves against classmates.

US teacher fights to take gun to class

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/US-teacher-fights-to-take-gun-to-class/2007/09/19/1189881560226.html

An Oregon high school teacher has sued for her right to bring a gun into the classroom for personal protection, clashing with anti-gun advocates fighting for years to rid US schools of weapons.