Just some sweeping generalizations of ALL gun owners.

Really?
You might want to put it context with some of my other comments first before making assumptions.

Not anywhere near as bad as being referred to as Shera.

The article I posted about the drug addict who traded his gun for drugs stated that some gangmembers wanted his gun because of how it looked. "Cosmetics" is a variable in desirability.

That said I posted actual empirical evidence that states with the strictest gun laws have fewer deaths from gun related violence. No comment?

The "Tasmanian incident" Macro refered to happened in 1996 in Port Arthur. Its basically a tourist centre rather than an actual town. Martin Bryant walked into the tourist centre with a sem-automatic rifle and killed 35 people and wounded 21 others. He was of low intelligence and socially awkward, but hadn't shown any violent tendencies previous to his actions.

This was a culmination of a number of mass killings that had taken place in the previous few years. The prime Minister of Australia at the time, John Howard (who was a conservative) took one of the few actions I would ever praise him for in his time in power. He essentially coerced the state premiers to agree to a range of measures to tighten the already existing gun control laws. These included what amounted to outright bans on semi-autonmatic rifles and pump-action shotguns and a significant tightening of the regulations governing firearm licences of all kinds. So, for example, if I wanted to buy a rifle to hunt game I would not only have to have a background check, but would have to undergo training in firearm safety. I would also be obliged to provide a secure storage for any arms and ammunition you purchased. Without the licence I couldn't buy either a rifle or ammunition. A buy-back scheme was also introduced where people could hand in any fire arm for just compensation. Over 600,000 were destroyed.

In the sixteen years since those regulations were introduced there has never been a major mass murdering incident. The closest was a student who managed to shoot 2 people.

The homicide rate also declined although, to be fair, it was declining already. So, while you not be able to convincingly argue that the decline was a product of the new regulations, its a lot more convincing to point to the almost total elimination of mass killings as a result. And, guess what, we haven't been converted into a totalitarion dictatorship even though the population has been effectively disarmed.

Currently Australia has around 30-40 firearms related homicides a year, the US has between 9000-10000. So much for guns keeping you safe.

I thought you were Oskar who DID refer to me as Shera earlier this week. As soon as I saw it was you, I removed it. Sorry.

It's okay. Thanks, for explaining because I didn't think I deserved that.

You didn't. I didn't and when I said it to Oskar I was being facetious. I think here that is the worst insult, so when he says he hasn't mocked anyone I beg to differ.

I believe those low figures are pretty much the same for the rest of the civilized countries.
Even for Switzerland where, according to today's Rush Limbaugh rant, every household MUST keep a machine gun at the ready. Yes, he said "machine gun".

Machine gun?
The Swiss are more high tech than that. They use crossbows.

thank you, cattleman.

i read about this incident while i was there. for the record, this is one of the largest mass shootings in WORLD history by a single individual. the only difference between the US and Australia, is that Australia actually acted to do something about it, instead of cowering in fear to the gun lobby.

And again, to be fair, Australia doesn't have anything like the gun culture that the US does. Although there are many similarities between the two countries, one big difference is that the "frontier" lasted for 3 to 4 hundred years in the US and about 70 years in Australia. Guns and the frontier typically go together.

We have our "gun nuts" here, but they are a tiny minority and much easier to deal with than the US version. Besides, we don't have a Bill of Rights that carves into stone the particular concerns of the late 18th century colonials.

I don't think there is any way that you could apply an "Australian model" onto the gun laws of the US. In fact, I think any effective US program could take as long as 30 years to implement. But maybe, just maybe, we can give you some hints as to the way to go. And as Jabra pointed out, we aren't the only ones who have gone down that road.

....with measurable success....