*Shut up Aussie.  Just shut up.*

For me it is simple scenario.

More guns on the street = more guns available

More guns available = more people have access to guns

More people have access to guns = greater chances of guns being used

More guns being used = more loss of life due to guns

The average punter in a modern society has no need for guns. People can have the right to own guns if they have a legitimate reason (gun club, farmer, security).

The classic example of a social contract that works is the UK. The cops do not carry guns (ok their TRG does now due to terrorists). The rules of this social contact was "if cops don't carry guns, criminals will not either. This has worked well in the UK. It is amazing really. I am not aware of any other country have this sort of social contract with the criminals. A master stroke.

The US on the other hand enshrined the right in an early constitutional amendment. Making that country almost impossible to invade. The consequence is everyone can own a gun (within reason). This leads to a different social contract. The great equalizer. No matter how big you are I can shoot and kill you. In some states, like Texas, I can shoot and kill someone for just being on my property.

Australia removed automatic weapons from the community, put limits on what type of guns people with legitimate reasons to have one can have. Made it more difficult to own a gun. All for the great good that should not adversely impact anyone who has a legitimate need. It is not a right to own a gun, it is a priviledge.

In the US it is a basic right.

The US has more kills by gun and more people in jail than anywhere else. The land of the free my arse. The land of money and power. If you have them you are OK but still at risk of a loon that can grab a gun easily and go on a rampage.

In Australia the loon has to plan more to get a gun. if the loon is just acting out on the spot then he will have to choose less lethal means of assault.

Good on Australia for doing something with the whole society in mind.

I agree with Valkie - there are more illegal firearms available now than there were legal ones at the time Wee Johnnie brought in his little man's laws to do down his betters.

At that time I owned two large calibre rifles and one smaller calibre - I haven't possessed any for many years no, and have no reason to want to - but I do object to the way governments went about stamping out the Right of honest citizens to own a firearm, by a perversion of law called 'domestic violence orders' that permitted the legitimised theft of legally owned firearms by the State etc (and which concomitantly lead to a massive increase in violence BY the state, by some using these things maliciously, and by the retaliatory actions of some - ACA last night had two cases of women killed after taking out DVOs - I long ago cited that the very fact of doing so is often the trigger for the ultimate response, yet all we ever hear is more and more oppression of the 'accused', accused by a false standard of law, BTW).

On the flip side - not only have I been offered illegal firearms - but also explosives - by some people who imagined that with my history and ability to use such things - and my stance against government violence and intrusion - I must be 'one of them' in preparing for the 'militia war' with the government over Rights.

Nothing could be further from the truth.... no point in bringing down the government structure - just modifying it to do its job properly, by firstly divesting this country of its government of two parties.