Guns are back

Sunday 13 November 2011 9:00AM

Gun clubs report lots of new members, hunting is cool, and handguns are gangland chic. The hundreds of thousands of guns destroyed in buybacks since Port Arthur have been more than replaced by new ones. But guns are highly political and the national system for monitoring gun ownership is a mess. Reporter, Ian Townsend.

Supporting Information

View comments (169)


Ian Townsend: There may be more guns in Australia today than there have ever been. In the past 16 months in Queensland alone, nearly 50,000 guns—such as this hunting rifle—were added to the state's register of firearms.

Tim: Okay, this is a Rossi Rio Grande. It's a 30-30 and lever action. Yeah, I've had it for about three months now. So, yeah, it's a good little tool.

Ian Townsend: Why did you choose that one?

Tim: Yeah, I mean, it's... each gun is bought for a specific purpose. This one's good for sort of close-range shooting. (Sound of gunshot) You know, nice fast action, pretty light and manoeuvrable. So, yeah, that's a pretty good gun for what it's used for, so...

Ian Townsend: Last year this gun club at Ipswich, west of Brisbane, had a ten per cent jump in membership. Across the country, young men like Tim are joining gun clubs to go hunting.

Tim: Just having a bit of fun, just four of us here. Got my three mates that a couple of them are looking at getting their gun license, so it's just spending Saturday morning having a fun shoot.

Ian Townsend: Is there a lot of young blokes starting to take up the sport?

Tim: Yeah, seems to be a few more. Traditionally it was a lot older guys, but I think maybe with the influence of video games and whatnot, guns are getting a bit more attention, hopefully a bit more positive. You know, there's a lot of misconceptions of the sport and it is a good fun, safe sport. And, yeah, it's very relaxing and, yeah, very, very fun.

Ian Townsend: Hello, I'm Ian Townsend. Background Briefing has obtained figures that show Australia has now replaced the hundreds of thousands of guns it destroyed after the Port Arthur massacre.

Woman [archival]: As he was leaving, they had all the toll gates blocked off because he just went up there and shot everybody that was coming in in the car.

Ian Townsend: After Martin Bryant used the now banned semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people, Prime Minister John Howard said he hated guns and that we needed to get rid of most of them.

John Howard [archival]: I'd always had a strong view that Australians shouldn't have guns unless they really needed them for their work, or genuinely for their self-protection, or they were farmers. We really must resolve as a nation never to go down the American path. There are many things about America I admire, but I do not admire their gun culture.

Ian Townsend: Since then, there've been two big gun buybacks and a set of tough national gun laws, designed to stop mass shootings. And they seem to have worked. In the decade before 1996, 11 mass shootings had left 100 people dead. There've been no mass shootings since. Gun suicides dropped dramatically. The risk of dying by gunshot in this country has halved. But 15 years after Port Arthur, the guns are back. Young men like these four at Ipswich were kids back in 1996. Today, they want to go hunting.

Man: I'm 30.

Man: Yeah, I'm 34.

Man: Twenty-two.

Man: Twenty-six. I'm looking at doing my gun licence next weekend—safety course—and just the interest in, like Tim said, that you can go and enjoy a bit of sport with your mates. And it's something that I haven't done very much in my life, but it's very enjoyable, so I'm looking forward to doing a lot more of it.

Ian Townsend: A new generation had been buying guns at an almost unprecedented rate. Last financial year, Australia imported 85,000 firearms and most were new rifles, handguns and shotguns destined for gun shops. If you speak to shooters, they'll tell you a lot of the guns—perhaps most—are being bought for hunting. And hunters, who use guns and high-tech bows, are videoing their kills and putting them on the internet.

Man [from video soundtrack]: There's this nanny goat I just shot. Put the shot straight through the front of the chest, exited out the back down here. She'd probably run about eight, nine metres at best. Really happy with the shot. This is the third one for the morning, so we're having a good morning. Now it's just sit back and watch as we hunt some goats of the northwest New South Wales ranges.

Ian Townsend: Trying to get any basic guns statistics in Australia is like trying to pull teeth. No one seems to know exactly how many legal guns there are, or how many licensed gun owners. Put together the patchy figures from all the state gun registries and it looks as if there are at least 2.7 million registered guns in the country. The national police information sharing service, CrimTrac, says it has 4.3 million registered guns on its database. But it can't say much more about it than that. That's because the country's gun statistics are in a mess.

The director of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research is Don Weatherburn:

Don Weatherburn: It's not just national gun statistics; national crime statistics are in a dismal state and they really need significant attention. We have some states counting things differently to other states; they're often non-comparable—for a while there the Australian Bureau of Statistics even made it impossible to compare one state's crimes with another state's crimes. And that's important, because that's the statistical information that tells the public what's going on and also helps organisations like ours to analyse the trends and identify patterns that can help police. So it's true to say that national crime statistics are badly in need of repair and reform.

Ian Townsend: If you want to know if numbers of guns are increasing in this country, it's easier to look at what's being imported. Customs figures show that last financial year we imported 44,000 rifles, 12,000 shotguns and nearly 20,000 handguns. They also show that in the past 15 years we've imported 730,000 firearms, and that's more than were destroyed in the buybacks since 1996. We've put these figures on the Background Briefing website.

When it comes to the gun debate, these sorts of statistics are bones of contention between pro- and anti-gun groups. With the gun market looking healthier than it has for years, there are also signs that gun politics is back on the table. The biggest of the gun lobby groups, the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, has 134,000 members. It's been quietly donating to political parties and bending the ears of politicians. Its spokesman is Tim Bannister:

Tim Bannister: We let them know we are a legitimate organisation, we have a large membership, we have our interest in our sport and our activities, and we will be watching closely. We also have a large sum of money and we're not frightened to use that when the time comes.

Ian Townsend: Tim Bannister won't say how big that large sum of money is, but this is a group that can rake in $10 million a year in fees alone.

Earlier this year, the Queensland branch of the Sporting Shooters Association donated $100,000 to help Bob Katter set up Katter's Australian Party to contest the next Queensland and federal elections. Described by Bob Katter as 'the fun party', it wants to turn back the clock and make it easier for people, especially boys, to go camping, fishing and shooting.

Bob Katter: Boys are not being allowed to be boys. There would be those that would go further and say we're trying to turn them into sheilas. I mean, in all those things we did as young kids, there was a risk. But that's part of being a boy. It really is.

Ian Townsend: Is owning a firearm part of being a boy?

Bob Katter: No, it's not... you're emphasising that object. That object is only interesting to me as far as it lines up with boiling the billy; it lines up with fishing line; it lines up with taking a bicycle and a big hat and going out and having a day's fun. It's just interesting to me only so far as it's part of the freedom thing, part of the recreational thing. And don't limit it down to just that object in the removal of the freedoms and the removal of recreation. That's not where we're going here at all.

Ian Townsend: But for the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, the SSAA, it is guns that they are focussed on. Tim Bannister:

Tim Bannister: We are quite happy that Mr Katter has brought recreational shooting and hunting up a bit. He's put it on the agenda. So, we can now actually say, 'okay,' to some of those politicians that haven't made any comment, 'where do you stand? We'd like to tell our members where you stand.' You know, 134,000 people would guarantee you there's some people that live in every single member's electorate. Now, they need to have a bit of a think about that.

Ian Townsend: Tim Bannister says the SSAA has also been donating money to the Shooters and Fishers Party, which holds the balance of power in the New South Wales upper house. The Shooters Party has been lobbying lately to get shooting as a sanctioned activity in public schools, but that so far has been resisted by the New South Wales Education Department. There's a lot going on, but it's hard to say why guns are becoming cool again.

Robert Nioa: This is a different calibre, but basically a Ruger 77 bolt-action rifle. That's pretty well going to shoot most of your light-skinned game in Australia...

Ian Townsend: Australia's largest firearms importer is Nioa Trading. It's based in Brisbane and now imports 30,000 firearms a year. It's owned by the vice president of Bob Katter's Australian Party, who also happens to be Bob Katter's son-in-law, Robert Nioa.

Robert Nioa: Shooting's a very enjoyable sport. It's a great hobby and for recreational hunters and young men—and I shouldn't restrict it to young men, but if we're talking about new shooters they would represent quite a proportion— but the prospect of going out into the wild, sitting around a campfire with friends at night, riding motorbikes and hunting during the day and simply enjoying outdoor life, is a really rewarding and fun activity.

Ian Townsend: Gun control groups are worried that this might signal a return to that pre-1996 gun culture. At the time of the Port Arthur shooting, Rebecca Peters was the head of the National Coalition for Gun Control:

Rebecca Peters: It's possible that gun ownership is becoming cool again. At the time of the Port Arthur massacre, actually, the trend of gun ownership was actually downward, because young men... the type of person who owned guns was an older demographic and the new masculinity was much more urban, more interested in communication, more in media, and all those kinds of things.

So it's possible that the interest in guns is rising—I don't think that's a good thing, because in general it's kind of a pastime which is more associated with Australia's past, I suppose, than with modern Australia.

Ian Townsend: The Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia owns this gun club at Ipswich, west of Brisbane. It also owns the 1200 ha property that surrounds it, making it one of the largest landholders in the city. The Ipswich Gun Club president, Ron Dixon, says there's been a surge in members lately.

Ron Dixon: Last year I think we just had just over 1900, now we're up to about 2100, you know, so it's growing rapidly. Shooting is starting to become a good trend again.

Ian Townsend: That's about a 10 per cent increase you've had in membership.

Ron Dixon: It is. Yes, it's growing substantially every year, and as I said, it's a sport that everybody, it doesn't matter who... you can be disabled, you can be... it doesn't matter what you are, you can shoot. We want people to go home... when they come out here they'll go home happy.

Ian Townsend: After Port Arthur, Australia's gun clubs became the place where every new shooter did their mandatory firearm safety course. To get a gun licence, a club has to vouch for you, and it can take weeks of cross-checking by police before you're allowed to actually buy a gun. Australia has some of the toughest gun laws in the world, but it's not putting off large numbers of young men applying for shooting licences. Gun importer, Robert Nioa:

Robert Nioa: When the new licensing requirements came in, in 1996, the current group of, say, 20-year-old men were under the age of 10. And when you've got, say, blue collar, 20-year-old men engaged in activities like mining—where they have nine days five days off, or ten days on five days off, so they've got good income, lots of leisure time—blue-collar young men and they have grown up knowing nothing but the current licensing regime, they don't find the current licensing regime difficult to comply with at all.

The other thing is the current generation expect to be scrutinised and jump through all sorts of hoops, no matter what they do. If they go onto a mine site, they'll spend two days for an induction. If they want to drive a forklift, I mean it will take them two or three months in a workplace part-time to try and get their hours up to get a forklift ticket. The current requirement is you go and do a safety course for an afternoon and you can get a firearms licence. So they look at the current requirements as being very minimal.

Ian Townsend: Those requirements force a lot of firearm owners into clubs. And the power held by the clubs is making the anti-gun lobby uncomfortable. Growing membership gives gun clubs more political muscle. Gun control advocate, Rebecca Peters:

Rebecca Peters: There's a certain tension there, because obviously it's in the interests of gun clubs for more people to get licences and have guns, and yet we're relying on gun clubs as part of the regulatory system. Some might say that was letting the fox regulate part of the henhouse, but it was a reasonable compromise at the time.

Ian Townsend: Both the pro- and anti-gun lobby groups do have common ground. They want to keep the guns away from the people who might misuse them—the bad guys, the crooks. The debate is about how to do that. Gun control groups want gun laws tightened further. The gun owners say it is nothing to do with them; it's the crooks that the police should go after. That's because most gun crime is committed by unlicensed people with illegal guns. And the black market for guns is big—estimates vary wildly, from 50,000 to 6 million illegal guns in Australia. Rebecca Peters:

Rebecca Peters: There's also an incentive to exaggerate the number of guns in circulation, illegal guns, in order to push a particular ideological point of view. Even for those of us who support stronger regulation, some of us might see it as advantageous to say there are huge numbers of illegal guns out there—to exaggerate the number—because that could underline the urgency of the problem that needs solving; whereas, the pro-gun lobby likes to claim there are millions of illegal guns around, that illegal guns far outnumber the legal guns, because the gun lobby says this proves that gun laws don't work and should be thrown out.

And the US gun lobby—and at times also the Australian gun lobby has done this—tends to make wild claims about the huge number of illegal guns in circulation, because they're projecting a vision that the world is crawling with armed criminals and the average person should have guns to defend themselves.

Ian Townsend: But no one can really prove where the illicit guns are coming from. The pro-gun lobby points to illegal imports; the anti-gun lobby says it's guns being stolen from licensed shooters. A check of the news over the past couple of months shows there's been a report of guns stolen almost every other day. Here's one recent report from Tasmania:

Reporter [archival]: Four guns, including two high powered rifles, have been stolen from a home in southern Tasmania. The thieves broke into the house in Blackmans Bay in broad daylight yesterday, forcing open a number of locked gun safes. The licensed owner had about 15 weapons in the house, the thieves picking and choosing which ones they took. Police are worried and are appealing for information.

Ian Townsend: Two weeks ago the Australian Institute of Criminology released its annual gun theft report that showed theft had risen two years running, reversing a decade-long downward trend. The report's author is senior researcher, Samantha Bricknell.

Samantha Bricknell: So in '04–'05 we found 1470 firearms were reported stolen. In 2007–'08, it had crept up to around 1700 firearms. For the most recent data that we have, which is for 2007–'09, it's probably crept up to 1800 firearms.

Ian Townsend: The reason she says 'probably' is that Western Australia didn't send in its theft numbers. And the Institute of Criminology couldn't tell by how much the number of guns was increasing, because it couldn't get good gun registration figures. The report came with a note that explained the problem:

Report: 'Without access to data regarding changes in the number of firearms registered in Australia, it's not possible to discern whether this increase in stolen firearms is influenced by a general increase in legally owned firearms, or rather that it's a genuine indication that theft numbers are on the rise.'

Ian Townsend: In the US, this sort of research is politically fraught. Over there, the National Rifle Association has been campaigning to end firearm research that they say is politically motivated and biased against gun owners. As a result, funding for gun research at the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention has dried up.

In Australia, the research is also restricted, but it's not so much a lack of funding but a lack of access to reliable statistics. The Australian Institute of Criminology's recent firearm theft report did say that almost two-thirds of guns stolen were from gun safes, and bear in mind that only one in nine stolen guns is ever recovered. The question everybody wants to know is; what's happening to the rest of those stolen guns? How big really is the illicit gun market? Samantha Bricknell:

Samantha Bricknell: I've talked to various people in law enforcement who would obviously know a little bit more and they are really unable to even put a number on it. And as I mentioned, we've got about two-and-a half—probably more—two-and-a half million legal firearms in this country. Whether the illicit pool is of a similar magnitude or it's much less, it's difficult to say.

Ian Townsend: The country's biggest wholesaler and importer of firearms is Nioa Trading. Its high security warehouse is tucked away in a nondescript industrial estate near the Brisbane airport. It's owned by Robert Nioa, who's also president of the national Firearm Dealers Association.

Robert Nioa: So this is the gun room.

Ian Townsend: What are we looking at? What types of guns do you have here?

Robert Nioa: Okay. So, this is a display of all of our largely commercial firearms, available to gun dealers throughout Australia. The most common firearm sold in Australia is a bolt-action rifle. Then you get into pistols—I mean, we've got obviously all sorts of pistols here as well. So they've got western action-style pistol shooting...

Ian Townsend: And there are competition pistols?

Robert Nioa: Yeah, well, in fact, all pistols in Australia—other than security guards and police—are owned for target shooting. It is illegal to own any firearm in Australia for self-defence. It is certainly illegal to own a handgun for self-defence. So, the only reason to own a handgun is actually for competitive target shooting.

But the types of shooting, you'll see on the wall here we've got quite a selection of handguns, and you'll see everything from the old Wild West-looking revolvers, which is a particular niche of competition shooting called cowboy-action shooting—they get all dressed up—you've got police and services type disciplines, which just use what looks like an old Dirty Harry-type revolver, and then you've got your Glock pistols—they're semi-automatic and so on.

Ian Townsend: Where's the Glock?

Robert Nioa: Here's your Glock, the standard sort of pistol carried by the bulk of police departments in Australis, either 9 mm—this is a 9 mm one—or 40 Smith and Wesson. So that's your semi-automatic Glock pistol.

Ian Townsend: Nioa Trading sells 30,000 firearms a year, including some guns for the military and police. Business is brisk. Robert Nioa says that while the types of guns for sale have changed since 1996, the people who are buying the guns are pretty much the same.

Robert Nioa: They were security guards, they were farmers, they were sporting shooters and they were maybe your Olympic champions, police and so on. And some professional vermin control companies. There's been no disruption or change at all to the purchasing pattern of firearms, full stop, in Australia at any stage.

Ian Townsend: Roberts Nioa says he doesn't think there's been much change in the illegal gun trade, either.

Robert Nioa: It defies logic that if you are importing drugs, which we know that drug syndicates are doing, that they would not also be importing firearms. It also speaks volumes for the Customs Department that they don't think illegal firearms are coming in in the four to six per cent of containers they screen. And it probably speaks volumes of the fact that they have not ever—to my knowledge—ever intercepted a shipment of any consequence of illegal firearms coming into this country.

Once again, from a government statistics point of view, they can turn a blind eye and say, 'Statistically, we have never caught any firearms coming in; therefore, that demonstrates there aren't any,' which is a really unusual way to draw a conclusion. What I would say is, 'You have not caught any. You need to screen more than five per cent of shipping containers.'

Ian Townsend: In a statement, Customs and Border Protection says it uses what it calls 'an intelligence-led risk-based approach' to detecting illegal guns, and that it x-rays shipping containers. And it did find more than 2000 undeclared guns, parts and accessories last year. But the evidence of any large-scale gun smuggling isn't there.

At the Australian Institute of Criminology, in Canberra, Samantha Bricknell:

Samantha Bricknell: Many jump onto illegal imports as being a possible way that this black market is being filled up, but it's probably likely importation is one of the lesser or least important sources of firearms coming into the black market.

Ian Townsend: Although we wouldn't know, would we, because if they're not detected then they're not detected, but we can easily see the firearms that are stolen. So I guess there's evidence of stealing but not of importation. And as a scientist or a researcher, you'd be swayed by evidence...

Samantha Bricknell: Yes.

Ian Townsend: But there may be a pool of illegal firearms coming in—we just don't know.

Samantha Bricknell: We don't know, and that's true.

Ian Townsend: We really don't know much at all about the illicit gun market. There are probably thousands of guns out there in what's called the 'grey market', guns that were never registered and never surrendered, sitting on the tops of cupboards or in sheds. Some are found and registered or destroyed, but many may be stolen and not reported. Some join the legal guns flowing into the hands of criminal gangs and we've been seeing the results of that lately a lot, with the recent spate of shootings in Sydney.

Reporter [archival]: Police investigating a spate of shootings in Sydney's west believe locals are too scared to come forward with information. Six homes and businesses have been fired at in the past week. Another two houses were targeted overnight. One of them was a Merrylands home belonging to the brother of the nightclub owner John Ibrahim. Police say the shootings are part of a bitter feud between two outlawed bikie gangs: the Hells Angels and the Nomads.

Reporter [archival]: It's becoming a regular event on the streets of Sydney's west:

Man [archival]: I just heard three very quick shots and that was about it, and the sirens shortly afterwards from the police.

Reporter [archival]: Officers were out in force last night after reports of shots fired in Merrylands...

Ian Townsend: The weapons of choice for many of these gangs are handguns. Samantha Bricknell:

Samantha Bricknell: So they're used because they're obviously working in a highly violent form of employment. And there's a lot of young men who work in the drugs trade and handguns are really a status symbol. They like to have their 'pieces' as such, but particularly for those who work at the retail end of the drugs trade, it's very important to have that handgun on them, therefore, to protect themselves because of the very violent nature of their work.

Ian Townsend: And there's evidence that a lot of those handguns have been stolen.

Samantha Bricknell: Some preliminary analysis of data of seized firearms, we are finding at least with handguns that at least a third, possibly up to half, of handguns have been sourced via theft. Now, some of these handguns have been found in possession of serious and organised crime groups and the rest have been found in possession of people who've just been done for firearm offences or for violent crimes, or have just been picked up by police for other unrelated incidents. So theft does seem to be possibly a fairly important conduit, at least at the present time, for handguns.

Ian Townsend: Most gun crime is related to drugs, gangs and crime groups, and easily concealed handguns appear to be increasingly popular. Speaking via Skype is Sydney School of Public Health researcher Philip Alpers:

Philip Alpers: Now the focus is on crime handguns; that's where the problem is now, according to the police and criminologists. And if we can somehow trace those firearms—find out where they're coming from, what's leaking these firearms into the criminal fraternity—and start to plug those holes with evidence-based policy, if we can do that, then we can tackle what could be the last frontier, the next frontier, of gun control in this country.

Ian Townsend: In 2002, a student at Monash University in Melbourne who was a licensed gun owner killed two people and wounded five with several handguns, including semi-automatic handguns and a .357 Magnum revolver. After that, 69,000 handguns were surrendered in a buyback and since then, 85,000 handguns have been imported. Some are for the police, but most are for target shooting, and some do find their way into the crime world. It's a world that's being glamorised in the recent television series, Underbelly.

[Excerpt from Underbelly]

Ian Townsend: In the real world, handguns in the hands of criminals are what the police are increasingly facing. The commander of the New South Wales Police Firearms and Organised Crime Squad is Detective Superintendent Ken Finch:

Ken Finch: It seems that crime in general in some cases may be more violent and people may be more inclined to produce and use guns. And it's not always the case that the firearms that they're using... they may be replica firearms for example, but certain criminal groups seem to be more willing to produce and perhaps use firearms than in the past. And that may well be simply because they follow trends from other countries.

Ian Townsend: A police raid recently in Sydney also netted a number of banned weapons including an AK-47 military assault rifle. This is a gun that's never been legal in Australia, so it must have been imported illegally at some stage. The New South Wales police, the Federal Police, and Customs have recently started a big operation called Polaris, looking for contraband smuggled into the country. They haven't found many guns yet.

People from both sides of the gun debate are always keen to dispel what they see as myths based on firearms statistics. I spoke to Tim Bannister from the Sporting Shooters Association:

The argument I've heard from researchers is that most of the guns in the illicit market come from licensed gun holders and...

Tim Bannister: Tell me the name of one independent researcher who has said that. Never heard that argument independently.

Ian Townsend: Well, the police are saying it.

Tim Bannister: I would put it to you that asking a researcher such as adjunct associate professor Philip Alpers for an independent view on recreational shooting and hunting is akin to asking a vegetarian the benefits of meat in your diet.

Ian Townsend: Well, the police have said that they believe that most of the firearms in the illicit market come from the legal market originally.

Tim Bannister: Oh, I would totally just argue...

Ian Townsend: I don't have an opinion on this, I'm just saying that wouldn't the statistics, if we had better kept statistics, be able to solve that issue?

Tim Bannister: No, look, you've got to look at the reality of the history of firearms in Australia. There was no registration. You could buy a firearm at Kmart. That has created a mass of firearms that are now referred to as the 'grey market'. Those firearms still exist in Australia. We have porous borders. So if we can't control the amount of illicit drugs coming into Australia, of course there's going to be firearms coming into Australia; illegal firearms. So it is a ridiculous argument to say that they come from licensed shooters.

Ian Townsend: These are difficult issues to unpick and part of the problem is that gun statistics across the country are poorly kept and rarely shared. An independent researcher whose work is respected by both sides of the gun debate is Don Weatherburn from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research:

Don Weatherburn: Well, you've got two problems. One is cultural; there's been a long tradition in police services of not releasing information, or releasing it when it suited police—that's not true of all states; it's certainly not true of New South Wales these days.

But there's also the problem that you've got different states adopting different practices and try as they might, the federal government and the federal government agencies have trouble getting them to all approach things in the same way. But it's really not a hard problem to solve, and it needs to be solved from the general public's point of view and from a research point of view.

Ian Townsend: What we do know is that since Port Arthur, gun death rates, generally, have been falling. Don Weatherburn again:

Don Weatherburn: There was a quite marked drop in suicide rates, especially involving firearms, after the gun buyback. But there's considerable dispute amongst academics and scholars as to whether the gun buyback influenced the gun homicide rate. Bear in mind that what we've got to find here is an acceleration of the downward trend, because we had a downward trend before the gun buyback.

Some studies suggest it did accelerate, that it did drop more quickly; some studies suggest that it didn't. So there's really no academic or scholarly consensus on whether the gun buyback reduced gun homicide. I guess one thing that should be said is that we've had no more Port Arthurs and no comparable mass killings of the kind that we had prior to the gun buyback.

Ian Townsend: The types of semi-automatic rifles that Martin Bryant used to kill a lot of people quickly at Port Arthur are no longer legal. Today, anyone who wants to own any gun legally has to jump through all sorts of hoops. We can't control who has illegal guns, though, and so there's a big effort underway to try to trace all guns and plug the holes they might fall through.

The Australian Crime Commission's firearm trace program is collecting serial numbers from overseas gun makers, going back decades, trying to find all the guns ever imported into the country. At the Sydney School of Public Health, Philip Alpers says that not all guns that can be traced are being traced.

Philip Alpers: Despite law enforcement and political pledges going back two decades to diligently trace crime guns and plug their source, it seems that most firearms are not followed back by the police to their point of entry into the illicit market. And so years of sort of sporadic state and federal effort have still failed to yield any useful published evidence to assist in policymaking. And until we have evidence, until we know where the guns are coming from, until we can plug the holes, evidence-based policy solutions are likely to evade us.

Ian Townsend: The commander of the New South Wales Police Firearms and Organised Crime Squad is Detective Superintendent Ken Finch:

Ken Finch: If serial numbers and the like exists, certainly that makes it much easier. Otherwise, dependent again on the make—if it's an exotic type of firearm, sometimes it's easier to link that to a theft than a more common type if serial numbers don't exist. And then again, it may be that we link things by way of a ballistic examination.

Ian Townsend: Do you try in every case to trace the firearms that you seize?

Ken Finch: No, we can't do it in every case, simply by virtue of the volume.

Ian Townsend: The New South Wales Police seize thousands of illegal firearms every year. We still know very little about that black market. There's a lot we don't know about the legal market, too. Speaking to shooters, the interest in guns lately does seem to be fuelled by an increasing interest in hunting. There have been a lot of feral animals out there to shoot since the drought broke. It might be that eating what you shoot has become more acceptable lately. Television cooking personalities, such as Britain's Gordon Ramsay, have been promoting it.

Gordon Ramsay (from television soundtrack) [archival]: I'm in America on the hunt for wild hog. These destructive but delicious pigs have so far fled deeper into the forest, but all that was about to change. (Sounds from hunt) A hog caught by one of Major Toon's traps was in the road ahead.

Major Toon (from television soundtrack) [archival]:We'll just shoot him and then we'll have to move back to the truck, get the truck, load him up and then go through the whole process of preparing him to eat.

Gordon Ramsay (from television soundtrack) [archival]: OK. (Sounds from hunt) Having dispatched the pig, we need to clean it down in the creek before I learn for the first time how to butcher it in the wild.

Ian Townsend: The increasing number of food programs like this one might be changing attitudes towards hunting and eating wild deer, pigs, ducks and kangaroos, according to Tim Bannister from the Sporting Shooters Association.

Tim Bannister: And what we have seen is a growing interest in self-responsibility about what we eat—our diet, where the food has come from—and it's the likes of Jamie Oliver and Poh and various mega-cooking shows that have shown people what can be done with them. And it is actually very nutritious. For those who are interested in carbon arguments, it's low carbon. It uses little water and it's naturally abundant.

Ian Townsend: Hunting may have also been given a boost because of the young men flocking to the mining industry, living in the country with more leisure time and more money to spend on four-wheel drives and guns. One Queensland anthropologist has recently published a thesis on pig hunting in the state's north. Dr Carla Meurk:

Carla Meurk: There's some suggestion amongst people I've talked to that things like increased access to vehicles—four-wheel drive vehicles—have opened up the possibilities to hunting. I think a lot of young people can get into hunting. Certainly in terms of changing, I've seen the introduction of a new pig hunting magazine which was explicitly targeted at families and for the men and women that liked pig hunting; so the sort of expansion and inclusion of other groups into hunting, as well as other political changes and hunting culture to tout itself as more conservationist or more related to subsistence, so in eating pigs.

Ian Townsend: It's complicated, though, this hunting business. These pigs are a real pest. They destroy crops such as sugarcane; hunting them is seen as a necessity as well as a sport.

Carla Meurk: There's a lot of pigs in Far North Queensland, and they're not going anywhere. Eradication's not really an option. And I don't think any hunter would be naïve enough to suggest that hunting is the answer, or... You know, as one hunter said—and I'll quote—he said, 'We're not bloody controlling them, because they're bloody out of control.' And this same hunter would also say that he hunts because he likes it, but he also thinks he's doing a service. You know, hunters are not martyrs of the state, they're not advocating that they are these altruistic managers, but yes, they do see what they're doing as being of use, and more so than those that don't do anything.

Ian Townsend: West of Brisbane, at the Ipswich Sporting Shooters Association gun club, families are arriving for some Saturday morning gun practice. The Sporting Shooters Association owns more than 300 gun clubs around the country. Here at Ipswich, as we heard earlier, there's been a ten per cent increase in membership numbers in the past year. The club's president is Ron Dixon:

Ron Dixon: A lot of young people are joining. A lot have joined for hunting—you know, they like to come out to hunt. They'll come out here and sight their rifles and go out hunting. They don't do as much target shooting.

We hold a safety course here once a month, but we could virtually do a safety course of about 15 people once a week. We put up a safety course for people to start and within a week it's full.

Ian Townsend: There are about 30 people on the firing range. Up the hill, off the range, oblivious to the gunfire, kangaroos are lounging in the grass.

Ron Dixon: It's starting to slowly change now that more people are starting to realise that we're not redneck yahoos that go round shooting up road signs and shooting animals indiscriminately. We are a very controlled organisation.

Ian Townsend: On the shooting range, 11-year-old Bailey is taking his first shots, watched closely by his parents, who are both target shooters.

Bailey, is this your first time that you've been able to fire a rifle?

Bailey: Yes.

Ian Townsend: Is it fun?

Bailey: Yeah, it is pretty fun. (Sound of shot) That one was about my fourth shot.

Ian Townsend: Did you get the bullseye?

Bailey: Um, yeah, once.

Ian Townsend: Where are aiming for? Can you show me what it is?

Bailey: The target on the left. The board on the left. And the target in the middle.

Ian Townsend: Is it something you've always wanted to do?

Bailey: No. My mum told me about it when she went to have her first shoot a couple of years ago, and then I've just been interested from that and then came out here and then they let me have a little shoot.

Ian Townsend: Are you going to get a license? Going to get a licence, you reckon?

Tony (Bailey's father): He will. He'll do a shooters' course.

Ian Townsend: Bailey's mother is a local schoolteacher and his father, Tony, is a social worker, who's also a member of the Historical Arms Collectors' Association.

Tony : I tend to collect Australian rifles; for example, that's an Australian Lithgow rifle.

Ian Townsend: How much are these worth? What would a rifle like this be worth?

Tony : To me it's priceless, but I guess if I was to put this at auction, maybe about $6000.

Ian Townsend: These are old bolt-action rifles, not the banned types of military weapons. Because of the risk of theft, and because he has to by law, Tony keeps the guns in a safe.

Tony : Well, I certainly don't broadcast to all and sundry that I have a collection, but I guess the people who do know I have a collection know it's secure and, again, they don't probably go broadcasting it around as well. So it's about, yeah, choosing who you talk to about [it]. Plus also legitimising it. I guess people I talk to I say, 'Look, it's not about shooting animals, or perhaps shooting targets; it's about looking into the research aspect, looking into the history.' Yeah, so that's probably where I'm coming from.

Ian Townsend: Nearby are the four young men who we heard from at the start of the program, who are part of a growing number of young men who are taking up shooting.

Man: Yeah, I've seen a few young guys around, probably a lot more in the last probably two years. Since I've been shooting, I've noticed a few more. So, yeah, it's good to see.

Ian Townsend: You've got a target up there's a feral pig. Are you thinking of going hunting at some stage?

Man: Yeah, yeah, I go out hunting maybe once a year if I'm lucky as well, on a friend's property. So, yeah, it's good to get a bit of practice in for that as well, but, yeah...

Ian Townsend: What's the attraction of that?

Man: Oh, well, you know, there's... good to know that you're helping out a property owner clear some pests. It's camping with a little bonus, so, yeah, yeah, it's good fun.

Ian Townsend: The Sporting Shooters Association says these young men are typical of the new gun club members. Tim Bannister:

Tim Bannister: We've seen a change in the demographics, so we're seeing younger members, we're seeing women. You know, once upon a time it was perhaps older men, but now we're seeing a real mix, which is really good. And that will play out both in the hunting world—I would say 80 per cent of our membership are hunters—but also at the club level all the way to the elite international level.

Ian Townsend: After Port Arthur, guns were demonised. Hunting wasn't seen as cool. But lately that seems to be changing. At the University of Queensland, Dr Carl Meurk's been looking at the different attitudes of people towards guns and hunting. It seems that your attitude to guns and hunting is still determined by where you grew up—in the city or the country. It's a big generalisation, but if you grew up in the city, it's likely the only thing you know about guns is from the news, of hold-ups and street shootings. If you grew up in the bush, guns on farms are used to kill vermin, put down injured stock, and put a meal on the table. It's a big difference in experience that can set your views on guns for life. Farmers and hunters simply don't see a problem with having a gun. Carla Meurk:

Carla Meurk: They see gun control as something that affects them that's still dealing with a city problem, you know. The problems that led to increased gun control weren't problems within their community and it's a very difficult one of context, you know, because gun control makes sense if you're in the city and gun control doesn't make so much sense if you're in the country.

Ian Townsend: Carla Meurk thinks more people probably are finding hunting attractive.

Carla Meurk: What I think might be happening in Australian society is I think that we're getting to a point where we've lived under the sort of risk-averse society for a very long time and we've seen audit cultures and bureaucratic cultures just growing and growing and growing. And we've become quite abstract and cerebral in the way that we're living and there's a need to reground and to reintegrate into sort of the danger of life.

Ian Townsend: You couldn't get more grounded than to go pig hunting, I imagine.

Carla Meurk: Absolutely not. It was an interesting experience. And, you know, it wasn't something that... I mean, I never had a moral problem with hunting, but I did have a very strong reaction to it when I first started. I was with some hunters and they'd surrounded this pig and all of a sudden, any bravery I had just vanished. I was sort of standing behind this tree, you know, waiting for this sort of hunter to come up and shoot it, thinking, 'Oh my God. What have I done?' And then he'd shot it and there was a release, 'I'm going to be all right.' And after a few times, that sort of transitions to become a bit of a rush, you know, where it started being from this incredible fear, to a release, to being an anticipation and a rush.

And, I don't know, hunters never really talked about that that much—some did, some didn't. I mean, there's a difficulty of talking about the emotion of hunting, the emotion of killing, because it brings you into all sorts of moral disreputes. But actually, I mean if we're going to go back to sort of evolutionary drivers, that kind of very basic emotion surely has got to have some sort of evolutionary benefit, I'd imagine.

Ian Townsend: The main point of the national gun laws introduced after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre was to prevent another mass murder. Norway has a hunting culture and, until recently, a much lower gun homicide rate than Australia.

[News theme music]

You'll remember that earlier this year in Norway a young man shot dead scores of people with a semi-automatic rifle and a Glock pistol.

Elizabeth Jackson AM [archival]: Today we go straight to Norway, where people are still reeling from a massive bomb blast... and a mass shooting at a political youth camp nearby.

Jonas Gahr Støre, Norway's foreign affairs minister: They have different political training courses, there was joy, there was summer, football, everything associated with a youth camp. And today they are struck with this hideous act of violence and we have now to be grown-ups to look after these young people. Young people who engage in politics is the source of hope for any democracy and we just have to be very clear that we will not abide by the terror of these people...

Ian Townsend: That Norwegian gunman, Anders Breivik, had no previous criminal record and no history of mental illness. He bought his guns legally and joined a gun club to get his Glock pistol, convincing everyone, including the police, that he was a responsible person. The gun debate is divided over whether we should be going after the guns or doing more to find those potential killers. Tim Bannister from the Sporting Shooters Association:

Tim Bannister: They should have been caught. There's usually procedures and legislation that should have caught these people that end up committing these horrific crimes. And that is almost an international truth.

Ian Townsend: Philip Alpers, from the Sydney School of Public Health, has a different perspective.

Philip Alpers: Of the eleven most prominent shooting massacres in Europe that have ever occurred, every single one of those perpetrators was a licensed gun owner, had access to a gun club, and had a perfectly legal registered firearm, including the guy who shot so many in Oslo, Norway. And so those people who describe themselves so relentlessly as law-abiding sporting shooters should recognise that out of their own ranks come some of the most dangerous killers—gun killers—that have ever been seen on this planet.

Ian Townsend: At the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn says to understand the real risks, we need better data on guns and who owns them, and at the moment we just don't have those statistics.

Don Weatherburn: As a broad generalisation, the fewer the people there are carrying firearms, the safer we'll all be. But it's fair to say that you need massive reductions in firearm ownership to have significant effects on rare events like homicide. So it's a strategy. Certainly wouldn't want a situation where we see a big increase in firearm ownership. Really what you need to ask is what percentage of the population owns one or more guns, and frankly I think we don't know the answer to that question.

Ian Townsend: Background Briefing's coordinating producer is Linda McGinness. Research by Anna Whitfeld. The technical producer is Mark Don. Executive producer, Chris Bullock. I'm Ian Townsend. This is ABC Radio National.


Ian Townsend
Ian Townsend

Comments (169)

Add your comment

  • Pete :

    12 Nov 2011 10:46:38pm

    There is nothing wrong with people enjoying target shooting and legitimate hunting. Legal firearms shooters are the most law abiding of citizens, because they know any infrigement of regulations, no matter how minor, will cause them to become unlicenced, and hand in their firearms. The real problem is the proliferation of illegal weapons, in the hands of crooks. There is a vast difference between the two groups, and it is totally disengenuous for the 'gun control' people to lump the two groups together, which seems to be their tactic. But given their ideology, and lack of intellectual integrity, that is to be expected. I recently joined the Shooters and Fishers party, becoming a member. I have never been interested in joining a political party, but given the rabid opposition by the gun control people, and seeing what political influence can achive, I paid up to be a member, and have a voice in the debate.

      • jimbo :

        13 Nov 2011 7:35:32pm

        why does Rebecca Peters get "air time" here?

        she represents a miniscule almost non-existent organisation (Gun Control Australia) whilst the SSAA, although having abt 135000 actual financial members "on the books", speaks for nearly one million licensed shooters (both long-arms & hand-guns) in this country!

          • jimbo :

            13 Nov 2011 9:46:54pm

            the gun control lobby is LYING through its collective teeth when they say that crims are using *stolen* hand-guns....the overwhelming majority of stolen fire-arms are LONG-ARMS!.....hand-guns are *very tightly secured* by holders of pistol licenses!

            5% of containers checked.....based on "intelligence"......COME on!...what "intelligence" ?....they wouldn't have the "foggiest" what is going on in most Third World countries!

              • jimbo :

                13 Nov 2011 10:09:43pm

                Phillip Alpers draws a totally illegitimate correlation between the recent Norway shooting incident and Australian conditions.....we don't know the *full story* with this Norwegian incident yet....who was involved and how many may have been involved....there are many, many discrepancies and un-answered questions with the "official account"....we're only getting third-hand info' on this from a non-English speaking country!

              • jimbo :

                13 Nov 2011 10:12:58pm

                the claim that "there has been no mass shootings since the introduction of the post-Prt Arthur massacre gun laws" is dubious @ best!

                three or more people shot by the same gun-man constitutes "a mass shooting" many such incidents have there been in the last fifteen years or so?!?

              • Simon Mitchell :

                29 May 2012 11:30:17am

                The argument that tighter licensing has prevented further massacres is in itself a dubious one, given that Martin Bryant never legally owned any of the firearms he used.

              • the animal :

                06 Mar 2012 3:51:15am

                what a beat up, we do not know the full story, there are parallels, who was involved.

                sir, you need to provide some facts, as your story stands it is a vague beatup. another Azaria Chamberlain story in the making.

                unfortunately rhetoric and vague innuendo is too often the tool of the anti gun lobby.

                shooting is a legitimate sport enjoyed by many thousands of people in this country.

                unfortunately people of the ilk of phil alpers for their own reasons would like to see it stopped. The increase in the popularity of shooting must hurt the antis. sad that

              • DHV :

                14 Nov 2011 12:08:19am

                Australian Bureau of Crime Statistics show us that very few firearms stolen from law abiding firearm owners are subsequently used in crimes.
                Go look it up.
                Bad guys import their tools of trade.

              • ksg :

                15 Nov 2011 7:46:49am

                One only has to monitor the news and current affairs reports on drive-by shootings and gun related crime to realise that there has to be a thriving black market in illegal firearms in Australia.

                Firearms ownership critics and governments have overlooked one of historys lessons; if something is banned or over-regulated then it creates a black market,then any ongoing regulation of it becomes an irrelevance.

                The prohibition of alcohol in the USA made wealthy men with political clout out of street corner thugs.

                In Australia our Police and public service struggle with their obligations to manage a firearms legislation that they quietly admit as being overwhelmed and unworkable.

              • CHARLIE.RAR :

                15 Nov 2011 9:51:53pm

                I held a gun licence in QLD in the early 1990s for a Beretta 92F semi automatic pistol (think the Mel Gibson "Lethal Weapon" films). Luckily, I sold that gun before leaving the military, though getting the gun licence and buying the gun wasn't that hard, being in the military. This is something left out in tonight's doco and should be of concern. Sure, there has been the gun buy-back in the 1990s, but we have seen a hugh increase in the number of serving personnel to keep up with operational tours and rotations in the Afghanistan, Iraq, Timor + the Solomons and more. Many individuals in the military own guns, particularly those in the fighting corps, but we are also looking at same individuals who may be dealing with mental health problems and PSTD in a private way (not to mention the growing vet population). I, personally, am dealing with mental health problems (ex-mil), and if I still owned my Beretta 92F pistol I might be dead by now. At a minimum we need the following: 1. National Gun laws, not state-based for clarity of ownership, and 2. Mandatory Mental health checks before issuing any gun licences.

              • jimbo :

                15 Nov 2011 10:44:28pm

                so.....some-one who serves their country in the military shouldn't be allowed to own fire-arm(s) upon that what yr saying here, eh?!?

                oh....and....."national gun laws"?

                sry!.....ALL Australian gun laws are state-based unless the particular state government in question "cedes" that authority to the change that would require a referendum.....and we all know how "referendums" fare, don't we?

                politicians have now recognised that tampering with/toughening our already over-tough gun laws is political SUICIDE! could be argued that the post-Prt Arthur gun laws were one of the main reasons that the Nationals were GUTTED and the Liberal Party got OIKED in nearly every state and territory election for almost a decade...1997-2006 !

                Bligh's ALP government in Qld was, quite recently, on the verge of toughening up that state's gun laws (restricting magazine capacities for long-arms, putting lever action rifles and shotguns on a Cat "D" license and prohibiting large calibre long-arms [over abt 8mm] )....but they "pulled" the legislation at the last minute because their political analysts told them that, if they went ahead with it, they would be OBLITERATED politically!.....there's over 200000 licensed shooters in Qld and they ALL vote!

              • jimbo :

                15 Nov 2011 11:43:55pm


                apparently, the (amended) Qld Weapons Bill was passed late tonight...on a "division" all the names of those "politicians" who supported it are now "on the public record"/Hansard....

                watch KAP do a "re-run" of Pauline Hanson's ONP 1997 electoral performance come March next year!

                nice 1, Cap'n've just destroyed the ALP in Qld!

                "if the government doesn't trust the people with guns, then, why should the people trust the government to have guns?!?"

              • CHARLIE.RAR :

                15 Nov 2011 10:49:32pm

                I should make a correction to my last message. We should issue:

                1. National Gun 'Licences', not state-based for clarity of ownership and to reduce duplication of administration, and

                2. Mandatory Mental health checks before issuing any gun licences.

              • CHARLIE.RAR :

                15 Nov 2011 11:08:34pm

                We are talking about owning a gun, not a pack of cards, mate!

                And when did I say that "some-one who serves their country in the military shouldn't be allowed to own fire-arm(s) upon that what yr saying here, eh?!?"??

                Go back to oiling your barrel, and happy hunting.

              • get real :

                13 Jan 2012 9:52:51am

                Charlie.rar is not ex-military, but a government propaganist looking for tighter gun control. Charlie.rar go and get yourself committed, because "yes" you should not own a firearm.

              • get real :

                13 Jan 2012 10:15:56am

                Hey Charlie!
                I do not believe you are ex-military.
                I think you work for our govt.,pushing propaganda with the end goal of grabbing control of and furthering gun controls.
                A firearm is just a tool or a piece of sporting equiptment for the law abiding.

              • Drew77 :

                11 Jan 2012 9:51:36am

                Mate, mental health checks? Really?

                The only reason you didn't top yourself was you didn't have access to a gun?

                So there are no other ways (much more popular than firearms) to top yourself.

                I'm sorry you have mental issues but saying that not having a gun saved you is just silly.

                Rope in your shed?
                Car in your driveway?
                Pills in your bathroom?
                Knife in the kitchen?

                I'm ex military and I own legal firearms. Don't lump us all in the nutter class please.

              • Steve eades :

                07 Dec 2011 4:32:32pm

                While I believe national gun laws are a great idea I find the comments that if you still owned a handgun you might be dead most in instructive and frankly ridiculous. If someone is interested in self harm or suicide they will find a way to do it and like crimes against others the gun is an easy scapegoat for the failings of the mental health system

              • get real :

                13 Jan 2012 11:12:47am

                Charlie Bar
                You do not need a "Beretta 92F semi automatic pistol (think the Mel Gibson "Lethal Weapon" films)" to off yourself. You are a fraud. Your story is bogus.
                Most of our people in Af and Iraq are highly trained career special ops, unlike US troops who are 18-23 yo's newbies and national guard reservist seeing heavy action. I do not think we have any where near the the problem with our returned servicemen as the US.

              • Ned Wood :

                13 Jan 2012 8:51:06pm

                There are other ways to take your life if you really want to. I have pistols too but chose slitting my wrists after downing a packet of valium and woke up the next day in a blood soaked bed alive and hungry. The veins apparently closed up and I am convinced that if you don't die then your time isn't up. I know someone who jumped off a cliff and got caught on a tree half way down. He nearly died of thirst before he was found and I believe that his time wasn't up so it didn't happen.
                I almost shot a bloke once in a rage and the gun misfired. It wasn't his time, nor mine to go to jail. Most of us are just not aware of how resilient the body is and if we haven't done whatever it is that we came here to do our spirit will not leave before our task is done. People will not die from gunshot wounds because there are more guns about - if they are meant to die a handy golf club will do nicely.

              • Gold Dust :

                05 Mar 2012 11:33:24pm

                Charlie, I'm the current possesor of a firearms licence and am an ex serving member with deployment experience as are many of my friends. My Father is a Vietnam veteran, his Father and Uncle are Second war veterans, we all have legally owned firearms and live happy, mentally healthy lives.
                Please don't think I'm having a go at you but don't make it harder for the rest of us to enjoy our sport because your ill. Ther are many ways a person can harm themselves, it needn't involve using a firearm. We don't need any more hoops to jump through.
                All the best mate and get well.
                Duty First!

      • Nitrax :

        14 Jan 2012 8:12:19am

        WELL DONE!

  • Count Mouritz :

    13 Nov 2011 7:45:54am

    There is nothing to worry about the increase in legal gun ownership. It is the criminals who the police and anti gun groups need to concentrate on.
    Target shooting is an Olympic and commonwealth games sport, these young people may one day represent Australia.
    Shooting is a safe and cost effective way to control feral animal numbers and put food on families tables.
    The increase in firearm enthusiasts has nothing to do with video games, more likely it is the increase in the membership in the Shooters and Fishers Party which is the 4th largest party in Australia. The game council of NSW has removed hundreds of thousands of feral animals from state forests and hopefully one day will be allowed into National parks to control feral animals.

  • Greg :

    13 Nov 2011 8:58:59am

    Good to finnaly see a balanced unbiased article on friearms - Well done ABC. Got both sides of the story to have their say.

    Since the Port Arthur incident law abiding firearm owners have been treated like outcasts and criminals when they have done nothing wroung. The times are changing and people are starting to realize that shooting is a safe and fun sport.

  • Leigh :

    13 Nov 2011 9:53:12am

    Started out thinking another beat-up, but it seemed to balance out.

    A few things I note:

    GCA are saying its a return to a 'gun culture'... I argue there was never a 'gun culture', it was just 'Australian culture' and its finally sick of being oppressed. Australia was never heading 'down the American path' as John Howard said, because this is not America. If anything we're more like Canada, which has more firearms per adult than the US does.

    GCA and the like seem to want to take their bat and ball and go home because their theories didnt work out. Reducing firearms in society didnt reduce the homicide rate - it was reducing anyway! We know this because, according to this story, now there are just as many lawfully owned ones today, yet the homicide rate is low! Of course thats to be expected since its generally not the law abiding firearm owner that commits homicides.

    I also note the criticism directed at the firearm registries. I have to agree, they are gigantic wastes of resources that achieve little. I agree with licensing, I'll even settle for registration of handguns, but the registration of longarms is just a huge mess and never will be right.

  • Pamela :

    13 Nov 2011 10:29:14am

    Qld is the yobbo capital state of Australia. Along with the increase in gun ownership there also seems to be an increase in redneck numbers who have this "A bit o' sport wiv me moites" mentality. There is nothing sporting about killing vulnerable beings who can't shoot back. Guns should be for self protection against human psychopaths (of which there are many), not for murdering defenceless beings.

      • Dave86 :

        13 Nov 2011 11:07:35am


        I hardly consider your comments of and worth. Firstly, why do you feel the need to resort to petty name calling such as you say "yobbo capital" and "redneck". It is clearly not fair and shows me and most likely other posters that you have no knowledge of the topic at hand.

        Secondly, those vulnerable beings are mostly introduced pest species that cause great economic loss for our farming community. Remember these people produce our food. In supply/ demand scenario, if the demand is high and farmers cant supply enough due to losses through pest animals ill bet your the first to complain.

        Thirdly, I dont consider Federal politicions Bob Katter, Barnaby Joyce and ex prime minister Kevin Rudd yobbos or rednecks, yet all being shooters they are tarred with your brush

          • Pamela :

            13 Nov 2011 11:54:47am

            To make things clear Dave86, Pam is a different writer to me, but I see you were aiming your agression at my comment. Well Dave86 I hardly consider your comments of any worth either, particularly when you make huge assumptions that I would be the 'first to complain' if men stopped killing animals for food, because like a large and growing portion of a thinking population, I don't eat dead animals. And yes, many Australians including myself do see the Mad Katter as a yoboo and a redneck. He'd probably be proud of that name himself because there's something seriously lacking under that oversized hat and ego.

              • Dave86 :

                13 Nov 2011 12:20:05pm

                Firstly Pamela, there was no agression in my post, just facts as i see them.

                Secondly, my family has members that dont eat meat either. I respect their decision. What i dont respect is the petty name calling you have chosen to tar my chosen sport with. Let me be clear here, there is a difference between sport shooting and hunting. I am a clay target and benchrest sport shooter and only occasionly go hunting for meat. Maybe once or twice a year at most. Where i go hunting, the property manager has very strict rules on ethical harvesting and any breach results in a complete ban from that property. For me to even begin a hunt i must pass the accuracy proficency test every time i access the farm. We abide by the calibre restrictions set by hunting groups and never take what we wont use.

                An oversized ego and hat he may have, but QLD will be a better, more prosperous state under him then it ever was under captain bligh and her cronies

              • Pamela :

                13 Nov 2011 12:37:47pm

                Clay shooting is fine but we no longer need to hunt animals to survive. This is the 21st century. And there is nothing 'sporting' about shooting at defenceless beings who can't shoot back. Where's the 'sport' in that?
                If this state is foolish enough to vote the Mad Katter in as some sort of clownish leader, at least we'll have something to laugh at.

              • Chris :

                13 Nov 2011 12:49:36pm

                Why should your idea of NEED determine MY freedom?

                My character grew from my genetic and animal nature and hunting is integral to human development. With modern ethical behaviour to prevent cruelty and ensure sustainability of the wild populations, hunting makes the world a better place than it would be ruled by the thoughtless bans of urban sophisticates.

              • Pamela :

                13 Nov 2011 1:29:53pm

                Chris, why should your need for bloodlust be placed above the right for life of sentient beings? We are no longer cave dwellers.

              • Chris :

                13 Nov 2011 1:53:26pm

                Equally should carnivore animals be denied the right to exist, since they are more sentient than their prey animals? Your ideas are mistaken. You assume 'bloodlust' but the only evidence seems to be your prejudice.

              • Pamela :

                13 Nov 2011 2:02:55pm

                It is not I who is denying animals their right to exist. Why is it that whenever a carnivore animal takes a single human we (the overpopulated) get all hysterical and go on a witch hunt for that shark or bear or lion or dingo etc? It is humans who think they are so superior when in fact we are no more than another species of mammal that shares this planet. Albeit the most cruel, greedy and self centered species of them all.

              • DHV :

                14 Nov 2011 12:10:29am

                We may not be cave dwellers now, but if we all resorted to a vegan lifestyle we would pretty soon end up back there!
                Me, I like my view from the top of the food chain thanks to evolution.

              • leigh :

                13 Nov 2011 3:09:32pm

                Whilst we dont need to hunt animals to survive, we kill them nonetheless. Just in more of an assembly line fashion than it would be if we were hunters.

                Animal products are used in everything from car tyres to cosmetics, to wine. Despite your large (and statistics would indicate otherwise) and growing (probably) group of people who dont eat dead animals - there are many that still benefit from the exploitation of animal death.... probably including yourself, in some small way.

                So, if you've accepted that an animal must die for you to survive, then what more honourable way to do the deed, than do it yourself.

                As for the killing being a sport. Actually the killing is the end of the sport. You cant hunt it any more - its dead. The sport is getting out there, navigating the bush, reading signs of animals presence, looking at wind patterns. Range estimations and calculating projectile windage are a mathematical sport of the mind. Up until the point you take the successful shot, thats the sport.

                The animal has the advantages of millenia of breeding honing its instincts and survival mechanisms that dont allow you to get close enough to take a good shot. Everyone seems to think taking a long range shot is easy - I suggest going to a range and trying it, its very difficult, particularly in windy conditions.

              • Pamela :

                13 Nov 2011 6:38:18pm

                Not that I should have to explain myself here but there seem to be so many assumptions made in this unbalanced comments list. I buy only cosmetics that are not tested on animals and do not contain animal products, I do not drink the stolen milk that belongs to calves, I do not eat those calves OR chickens OR fish. I do not buy anything that is made of fur, leather, gelatine or any other body part of a non-human animal. I do not, nor will I ever 'accept that an animal must die for my survival' because, when you actually stop and think about it, they simply do NOT.

              • Mike E :

                13 Nov 2011 6:55:37pm

                Well, at least you're not a hypocrite (like most people that complain about hunting, then go eat a burger). Out of curiosity do you swat mosquitos?

                Going back to hunting, a hunted animal lives free all it's life, then one day it gets killed. Until that day it was totally free. The meat at the supermarket game from an animal that was born to be eaten, had virtually no chance of escape, and spent most of its life waiting to die. If I'm going to eat meat, what is the more ethical way?

              • R Birch :

                13 Nov 2011 10:05:48pm

                Are you a cannibal, Pamela? Becaue you just said you don't eat anything off a non human animal.


              • DHV :

                14 Nov 2011 12:06:33am

                Pamela you are kidding yourself. Every time you get in your car or on your bike you kill animals. Even the green energy you pay extra for kills animals around the wind turbine.
                That's OK as everything dies eventually and a quick death is better than the slow ones that so often happen in nature.
                By the way, Javelines, Shot puts, bows & arrows, discus all had their origins as killing devices. Looks like you are in for a pretty boring olympics.

              • Andrew :

                16 Nov 2011 12:44:23am

                Pamela, How you choose to lead your life is fine, but understand that you too are in a minority in believing that you do not need to kill animals to survive. As such i urge you to be careful when casting other groups into stereotypes or criticising their thinking.

                You clearly have a computer and use electricity. Do you believe you cause no harm to any other 'sentinent beings' in doing so? Perhaps not as directly as a hunter but make no mistake, just because you don't eat meat doesn't make one iota of difference to the animals that were killed to bring you your power, your water, your commodities, your ability to be concerned with anything other than 'gee i hope a hunting party brings back some meat, i'm starving.' Something that had you been born at any other time in our existance would have been a matter of life or death. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

              • Dagga :

                06 Mar 2012 9:06:52am

                It's interesting this whole "back to nature" and protectionist agenda and the very slowly growin numbers who support it. You don't believe that any animal should die to support you? So you eat vegetables? And you wear cotton? Or polyester?

                Where do your vegetables and plant based fibers come from? Did a mystical bring just twitch their nose and provide them to you?

                Or maybe you're part of the mass slaughter too. A slaughter on such a grand scale that it would make us hunters look quite insignificant as a proportion of the mass killings that support YOUR lifestyle Pam. And the rest of the narrow minded fringe that shares your values.

                Agriculture works by clearing land. So as those two tractors drag that chain and then the plough rips that ground, tearing up everything in its path, you enjoy your greens.

                Use any plastics in your life? Metal? Maybe a car or phone or computer? How much habitat was destroyed to extract the raw materials? How many animals have died or are extinct as a result?

                If you're human then you are part of the mass killings, the slaughter of sentient beings. Deal with it my friend. As long as you're on this earth you are very bit a part of the problem as any flesh eating person or sport hunter. You've just chosen to deny responsibility, where we have chosen to embrace who we are and accept our place in the world.

              • Count Mouritz :

                13 Nov 2011 7:18:29pm

                Pamela if you really wish to be a vegan and not eat sentient beings then so be it but you need to get a shooters license and shoot those sentient beings who are eating you food supply or you can starve your choice.

              • R Birch :

                13 Nov 2011 10:02:15pm

                I'm sorry Pamela, I didn't realise the replicators found in Star trek existed yet. The government must be hiding them from us.

                I guess you should contact the government and get them to start putting them out, because until then we are going to have to kill animals to eat.

              • DHV :

                14 Nov 2011 12:12:57am

                Pamela what is your view on aboriginals practicing their traditional hunting methods?
                Do you think they should be allowed to carry on their culture, or should they be forced to give them up and become urban vegans?

      • Prickles :

        13 Nov 2011 11:46:06am

        I'm wondering did you listen or not IT IS ILLEGAL TO OWN ANY TYPE OF FIRE ARM FOR SELF DEFENCE IN AUSTRALIA.
        Gee I must be a redneck as I am a Pistol competitor and a hunter (with rifle) and will shoot any and all introduced feral pests of this beautiful country. It is the introduced feral pests that are slowly killing off all the native flora and fauna. Also do you eat meat? Nothing wrong with goat etc and it reduces their footprint on our country.

          • Pamela :

            13 Nov 2011 1:06:50pm

            'Prickles', I'm wondering did YOU listen or not. I said guns 'should' be for self defence. I did not say it was legal. Self defence SHOULD be legal. Laws can change, as they always have done. Guns 'should' be to defend the defenceless and the vulnerable, of all species, not to kill them. Is there a psych test before a person can own a gun? If not, there should be. A criminal background check is not enough because many a cunning sadist or sociopath has remained below the radar.

              • Guz :

                11 Jan 2012 4:16:49pm

                Are you out of your mind? We should be able to use our guns for self defence,I for one NEVER want to shoot a Human, I dont even want to give one a slap on the face.
                we are prepaired to respect your vegan choice, how about a little respect in return.

          • Ron :

            08 Jan 2012 9:57:42am

            What is missed out of the program when discussing illegal guns is that many of the hand guns are brought in under the 'Diplomatic Bag' convention, mainly via East European and Middle Eastern embassies.
            Just look at where the most guns are used in Western Sydney - amongst Middle Eastern crime gangs!
            Speaks for itself!
            But I guess it's a step too far for the police and politicians to demand greater scrutiny of what passes for dimplomatic cables.
            Gotta larf!


      • Anthony :

        13 Nov 2011 4:00:01pm

        Do you eat meat Pamela? Do you eat crops? Have you ever lived on a farm long enough to see crops destroyed by pigs and goat and livestock torn-down by feral dogs? The next time you go to your pantry of fridge, stop and consider how your view might change if it had been emptied by a wild animal or if your pet dog (should you have one) was torn apart by a feral.

      • KSG :

        13 Nov 2011 7:03:05pm

        "Guns should be for self protection against human psychopaths"

        OK so why is the democratic right to self-defense non-existent when it comes to firearms rights?

        I've been a firearms owner, hunter, recreational shooter, range shooter most of my adult life. I'm also a retired Army officer, tertiary qualified OH&S and Environmental Management specialist, parent, animal lover and on it goes.
        In my experience gun owners are in the overwhelming majority polite, considerate, safe and have more integrity than any other social minority group that I've come across.
        Your comments implying that theyre a "yobbo" element are totally unfounded and reveal an ignorance on your part.

      • Rusta A :

        09 Jan 2012 2:58:44pm

        Well Pamela we arent allowed to defend ourselves against psycopaths because the police are there to do it for us. We have been disenfranchised from our right to self defence by self serving beaurocrats and politicians who have almost constant and instant police support. It is telling that only one state allows use of force to protect ouselves in our homes, is that an admission by the NSW pollies that the reality of police being able to intervene at all crime sites is impossible? I am one of what you as an uninformed hoplophobe term the gun owning, shooting and hunting rednecks and take exception to that generalisation, as I am tertiary educated and of a professonal background. Get real about animal control for that is what most hunting is (other than destruction of psychopaths, your words)and most anti hunting people who buy their meat vac packed from a butcher live in a different world. Relocation, chemical speying and leaving them to do their own thing does not work with wild or feral animals.

      • Drew77 :

        11 Jan 2012 9:54:10am


        Sorry thats one use that is 100% illegal.

        Firearms in Australia can never be used for self defence.

  • pam :

    13 Nov 2011 10:31:03am

    Guns are for one thing and one thing only:killing. I heard on the program that 80% of gun ownership in Australia outside the police and security and military is hunting. Is this really the 21st century?

      • Mike E :

        13 Nov 2011 11:25:59am

        If guns are only for killing, then I guess mine must be broken - they have shot thousands of innocent paper targets, but never a living thing.

        Target shooting is an Olympic Sport. As for hunting, unless you're a vegetarian or vegan, you're a hypocrite.

      • Fatih :

        13 Nov 2011 12:35:09pm

        Wrong, some guns are made specifically for various other applications and would be deemed too cruel too use to use on game.

        Guns are not for one thing and one thing only.

        If you had some understanding about firearms you would know this, but of course some people are afraid of things they do not understand.

      • Anthony :

        13 Nov 2011 4:02:48pm

        The only true sign of the 21st century here is a wealth of suburbanites who have become so insulated from the origin of their food that they see a tool as 'superfluous' and so devoid of common sense that they're afraid of an intimate object.

      • Count Mouritz :

        13 Nov 2011 7:07:39pm

        So firearms are only for killing yet many shooters use their guns to hit paper targets. we should ban fishing lines and hooks as they are only designed to kill fish.

      • Rhys :

        05 Mar 2012 10:49:59pm

        So guns are only for killing? WTF?!!! So those $10,000 rifles and shotguns that olympic shooters use are only for killing and not punching paper and smoking clays? And the small percentage of guns that are for hunting have their place. I bet you are from the city. Well in the country there are these things we call pests but you probably call them cute fuzzy creatures. These pests destroy our crops and without pest management we would have no crops to sell and you would have no fresh Australian grown fruit and veg to purchase at your local supermarket. Wake up and get in the real world.

  • Jeffrey Honeywell :

    13 Nov 2011 10:31:55am

    That was fairly well-balanced, well done, ABC. Legitimate gun-owners are too easy to demonise, and too varied to categorise -- though it's cheap and easy to dismiss them all as bogans whose interests and rights aren't as legitimate as other people's. The program might have looked as well at target shooters, who practise a very intense, focussed and technical discipline that's demanding enough to be an Olympic event. For the record,I'm an employed historian whose interest in firearms is largely as historical and industrial artefacts. I own a small collection that spans several historical contexts, and I gain pleasure and connection with them by occasionally firing them on a target range. I can assure listeners that the regulations, safeguards and obligations of licensing both myself and these artefacts are more than sufficiently onerous already. That was another omission of the program that may have set some listeners minds at ease: a catalogue of just how many steps are required to obtain AND maintain the licences required!

      • ksg :

        15 Nov 2011 7:31:38am

        An interesting point Jeffrey, that the ommission of what we firearms owners have to go through just to own a gun.
        I often make the point in conversation that firearms owners are almost on par with the specialist intelligence community and Defence service people,in that they have to submit to extensive background checks and legal scrutiny when they apply for a "weapons" licence.
        Yet we're still considered to be a potential threat; I wonder how our zealous critics would stand up if they were subjected to the same process?

  • Pamela :

    13 Nov 2011 10:49:06am

    Ipswich. Of course.

      • Lou :

        13 Nov 2011 11:04:02am

        Imagine what any old sicko will do with animals with these guns. Already enough violence. Anyone can get a gun. What will they practice on? wildlife and any animal bird they can. Some are responsible, but many are not

          • Prickles :

            13 Nov 2011 11:31:00am

            Lou, a very narrow minded view. You are right there are sicko's in every walk of life not just in this subject, idiots will harm all types of life (including human) in all ways. With archery, knives, cars etc so what do we do ban the bloody lot. South Australia has always had the law that all firearms had to be registered no matter what type (since the 190's at least). Harsher old fashion jail time on bread and water for all that break the laws should be re introduced not the holiday camp that so called jail is now.

              • Pamela :

                13 Nov 2011 12:53:09pm

                Cars were not built for the purpose of killing but to transport people from A to B. Guns and arrows were designed and manufactured for one purpose only, that is to take lives.

              • anit-anti :

                13 Nov 2011 1:30:39pm

                So every firearm has been designed to kill? A rifle which has been designed to shoot paper target at a specified distance is no different to a combat rifle?

                There must have been something wrong in the design and manufacture process of my rifles, as they have done no killing.

                How about we look up statistics on firearms related deaths in Australia vs light vehicle related deaths. I think you would be disappointed.

                A car can be used as a weapon as can a firearm. Whether it is actually used as a weapon is upon the discretion of the person driving.

              • leigh :

                13 Nov 2011 2:59:54pm

                Knives were also designed for killing and dismemberment... yet we still have them, and statistically the crime rate involving knives is on the increase.

              • Anthony :

                13 Nov 2011 3:49:36pm

                Firearms are tools, nothing more and nothing less. How would you suggest a farmer dispose of feral dogs killing livestock or wild pigs destroying crops? Do you really think baiting or trapping is more humane? An animal shot once, cleanly will suffer infinitely less than those killed by other means (including by commercial meat production methods. I regularly hunt feral dogs, goat and pig, for no other reason than the damage they inflict. I always (as everyone I have ever hunted with also does) follow an ethical code; the aim is without exception that the animal does not suffer in the slightest.
                When you're ready for the food these animals destroy to be taken from your plate please let me know. If they were walking around suburbia stealing from your kitchen you might find yourself dismounting that high-horse.

              • Chris A :

                13 Nov 2011 4:05:24pm

                Thats why police have guns - to kill others? Here I thought it was to protect their own lives and those of others.

                I hear this fatuous claim a lot. It fails to acknowledge the massive list of other purposes - target shooting, symbolic and historic reasons, as symbols of wealth and power, as gifts to honour, as historic objects, as battlefield trophies, for making noise to scare predators, for protecting the lives of the innocent, for managing species populations, and for training young people in discipline and sacrifice for their society.

              • Alex :

                15 Nov 2011 9:55:20am

                " protect their own lives and others."
                True, but their training instruction is to fire at the centre of visible mass and keep on firing until the risk no longer exists.
                That means pumping repeated rounds into a human body. The wodespread outcome of such action is death, legal or otherwise.

              • Count Mouritz :

                13 Nov 2011 7:00:36pm

                Guns and Arrows were designed to take lives so as to feed your family, If you decided to kill your neighbor then that is against the law so instead of banning guns lets make it illegal to kill people but isn't that the law already.

              • Ian :

                14 Nov 2011 10:51:22pm

                Well isnt it funny that the object "designed and manufactured for one purpose only, that is to take lives." is by far less responsible for death and injury than the car which was humbly designed to " to transport people from A to B"?
                I think your statement is actually pro gun :)

              • David Hill :

                27 Feb 2012 6:57:13am

                You say that guns are designed to take lives ..what about a target shooting gun they are specifically designed for the sport of target shooting , yes they could be used to kill , but that is not there design purpose , much like a car can kill but that is not what a car is designed to do

  • HudsonC :

    13 Nov 2011 10:58:30am

    As kiwi target pistol shooters who have moved to VIC in July my wife and I are still trying going through a very thorough process to be able to participate in our sport in Australia. If the National firearm registry is as bad as this report made it sound I cannot see any good reason as the State process seems very thorough. Coming from NZ the local rules seem overly complex and expensive which automatically means a portion of society is less likely to be able to participate which is a shame. It was nice to hear of the demographic shift from older men to family participation as this allows the new generation to see firearms as the tools they are rather than glorified or demonised objects as per Hollywood.

      • BP :

        13 Nov 2011 3:38:02pm

        I see NZ hasn't had any mass shootings in about 15 years either, just like Australia - but you Kiwis had the sense not to spend millions banning certain types of guns! Can the anti-gun types explain why there haven't been any mass shootings in NZ even though over there they still have semi-autos for hunting and target shooting?

  • Noel Bird :

    13 Nov 2011 11:11:48am

    'Guns don't kill - people do.' This argument is as specious as its partner: 'Speed doesn't kill.' Both guns and vehicles, in particular those with easy access for young, testosterone-fuelled males, need to be much more strictly controlled. So does the licensing process, which is at present far too inconsistent and lax in general.
    I have been a fairly successful target-shooter but, save for one inglorious occasion with a bunch of pissed work-colleagues, never a hunter. Now I feel no need whatever to own or fire a weapon of any type. In any case, at my age, over 70, I feel that any pre-existing licence I may have once thought I might need, or be entitled to, should now be re-tested, as with a car licence.
    Gun clubs with access to a secure range are to my mind quite legitimate.Private ownership and especially storage at home of any weapon should be at an absolute minimum.

      • Chris A (the one above) :

        13 Nov 2011 1:37:55pm

        Up to you mate. Us mere fifty-year-olds still have our marbles and dont handle guns full of grog like you did.

      • Anthony :

        13 Nov 2011 3:37:52pm

        Nice of you Noel to so piously deny others the opportunities that you yourself have had. I used to drink but now feel no need whatsoever to do so, does that mean no-one else should be able to (following your logic)?
        I can't imagine mass storage of weapons at gun clubs would be a better option either. The largest single thefts of firearms have been from police stations and gun clubs.

  • Good Samaritan :

    13 Nov 2011 11:27:02am

    It is refreshing to come across a firearms related article/interview which even acknowledges the fact that licensed firearms owners are not criminals, let alone present an almost un-biased well balanced discussion on the topic.

    I am a Victorian nurse, I am also a Paramedic and yes; I am a licensed firearms owner too. Isn’t it strange how people will so readily accept my help - at any hour of the day, however if the very same people see me walking out of a gun shop on the weekend; they conclude that I must be a deranged puppy-killer.

    This, generally speaking of course, I feel is attributed to a lack of awareness and education. We (licensed firearms owners) can’t just walk into a shop and buy a machine gun, just as we are not permitted to use the firearms we own wherever we want; or even permit loved ones to ‘have a go’ under our supervision. Many regulations (and restrictions) have been imposed on the firearms community, to the extent where we have some of the most restrictive firearms legislation/policies in the world; and yet no crime-stats to support their implementation.

    The general public (those who do not ‘know’ about firearms), will believe anything prime time television will tell them. For once, just once; I would like to see one of these vehemently anti-gun advocates present their audience with current, relevant and truthful information. If after being made aware of all the ‘facts’, someone decides to advocate firearms restriction; then I would agree whole heartedly. Sad though, that this is not the case. If ACA state that they can obtain a handgun from a particular street corner in Melbourne… well, it must be true (despite no police action, and no handgun to support the claim).

    Thanks for reading.
    Disgruntled life-saver.

  • Chris :

    13 Nov 2011 12:48:29pm

    A good interview presenting both side very well. Didn't end up a slag fest upon law abiding firearm owners.

    Target shooting is an Olympic sport. There is a great deal of skill, persistence and time invested in becoming competitive. It's not as easy as looking down the scope and yanking the trigger.

    To those of you who state that firearms don't have a place outside of military/law enforcement use, I ask you this?

    Have you had to endure hardship due to having your entire crop (read income) destroyed by a feral pest?

    Have you had to put down a horse or stock which has had a injury due to stepping in a rabbit warren.

    Have you come across native wildlife which has been poisoned in so called 'targeted' poisoning programs?

    Have you had a pet suffer secondary poisoning as a product of the above mentioned programs.

    Shame on those who have label firearm owners as 'rednecks'. Would you call every person who supports the greens a hippy? Would you label any person of Arabic decent a terrorist?

    If you still feel the same way why don't you visit your local rifle range and see what all the rednecks are up to? No? Better not. You may enjoy it.

    Go ask a primary producer about the effects of introduced feral species on their land. See what these 'defenseless, unarmed, cute animals" are doing in the real world.

    I am a frequent hunter. I abide by ethics then ensure that no suffering is endured. I live rural. A firearm is a tool for myself and many like me.

  • Chris :

    13 Nov 2011 12:55:25pm

    This article is a credit to the ABC.

    In the past, partnerships between journalists and activists have created a very one-sided picture and may have contributed to serious social errors such as teaching criminals how to get guns and providing publicity and role models for suicides and multiple shooting crimes.

    There is also a strong positive effect demonstrated where pro-social behaviour is strengthened by showing good people doing the right thing. Well done ABC!

      • Chris A (the one above) :

        13 Nov 2011 1:36:47pm

        A serious danger sign in politicised issues is exaggerated moral posturing. We dont know what activists such as Rebecca Peters are compensating for, but their arguments are moral status display, not rational analysis. They assume the worst in demonstrably trustworthy people, with lifetimes of experience. They assume away all benefits of firearms, despite every user demonstrating genuine reason and need, and paying great costs in security, training and equipment to get the perceived benefits. Their opponents are framed as moral degenerates despite the evidence that your neighbours, family and friends are the people they denigrate as rednecks. They blithely assume that their prescriptions are worth any cost they impose - but those great costs are entirely at the expense of others!

  • Steve :

    13 Nov 2011 1:25:00pm

    Oh, for these hunters to be in the position of the hunted. Killing with guns is a self-centred egotistical past time for the lazy. It requires no intelligence, no skill and certainly no moral value.

      • Chris A :

        13 Nov 2011 1:45:22pm

        Oh to be a keyboard commando denigrating others for moral self-praise. Soaring above the rednecks mired in their filthy jobs and family lives; alighting on topics as I fancy, destroying their pretensions and preening in the sure knowledge that my values are the only ones that are valid.

      • Food Technologist :

        13 Nov 2011 3:34:29pm

        Steve I'm guessing that there have been so few responses to your ignorant inflammatory post because everything you say is so arrogantly uninformed and wrong. Chris A nailed it in my opinion.
        In your opinion I am lazy, unintelligent, skill-less and amoral - I think you would be amazed to discover that a large percentage of dedicated hunters in Australia are are highly skilled in their chosen professions, requiring higher degrees that eliminate the unintelligent and many are leaders in their communities. And why is it that the anti-gun minority wish violence upon Law Abiding Firearms Owners? What does that say about your intelligence and morality Steve?

      • Anthony :

        13 Nov 2011 3:52:30pm

        Definitely the words of a man who has come no close to a firearm than his television. To state that shooting and hunting requires no skill or intelligence is the epitome of ignorance.

      • Count Mouritz :

        13 Nov 2011 6:41:44pm

        So steve you think it takes no skill or intelligence to hit a target the size of a packet of cigarets at 180 meters, then no shooter will win gold medals at Olympic games. God made the animals to be used to provide food and clothing for us immoral animals. It's more Lazy to go to a supermarket and buy processed foods than go get you own as god and nature intended.

  • Food Technologist :

    13 Nov 2011 4:42:41pm

    "Gun control advocate Rebecca Peters says gun control groups are worried a resurgence of guns means a return to a pre-1996 gun culture."
    Pre-1996 we had an ANZAC culture that expected personal responsibility - we have never had a "Gun Culture" in Australia. More people are becoming Law Abiding Firearms Owners - how does Ms Peters justify that more people obeying the law as a "worrying trend"? When I went to school in the 70's I was trusted to take my Cadet SMLE 303 home on the school bus and on Tuesdays I would take my .22 rifle to school on the bus to compete in the shooting competition at the school range after school. How things have changed! Don't include me in your vision of the future Ms Peters!

  • Blacks :

    13 Nov 2011 4:47:18pm

    So let me get this straight. Registered firearm ownership in the hands of licensed users is increasing, as is participation in the shooting sports. BUT, crime rates are still falling?

    So where is the problem? As I see it, this should give our authorities and anti-gun campaigners more time to focus on the real issue; illegal guns in the hands of criminals.

    Great to hear there are more legally owned firearms...out there destroying feral pests in the rural sector, and providing organic meat for families; while at our ranges and gun clubs we are training the future generation of Olympic champions.

  • Mike (the other one) :

    13 Nov 2011 7:04:30pm

    If you eat, if you have a roof over your head, if you use roads, sports fields, hospitals, factories or anything where land has been cleared, then you are by default, implicated in killing animals. If you eat meat then you are a killer. If you don’t eat meat then you are still a killer because you have been implicated in the permanent destruction and removal of every animal that once occupied that land, removing any chance of those particular animals to ever recover in their numbers, all for your benefit. That self righteous high moral ground some of you are standing on is starting to look pretty shaky. The one thing we should be talking about is balance. It might seem ironical but hunters and fisherman are or should be environmentalists because they don’t want to see their hunting and fishing grounds bulldozed by human over development. They want to return to it year after year to do what they do, that which is inextricably entwined in the human condition, they want to see it sustained so they can hunt.
    I would dearly like to see people like Rebecca Peters use their talents to start addressing the real problems confronting humanity, that of imbalance as far as the natural world is concerned, but I digress. If people like Rebecca were truly concerned about the world’s (weapons) state of affairs, they would be going after the people that have real destructive power at hand, you know, nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons and plain old explosive weapons, that is our governments, the people at the top, our leaders. I’m not hearing too much about WMD controls from governments or anything about a debate on human population control – the two biggest problems confronting us and the most unprecedented threat to every species, our freedoms, our lifestyles and our very lives – en masse. For God’s sake use your talents to address something worthwhile otherwise it starts to look like, as one former Australian business leader put it, ‘an intellectual wank’

  • headwerkn :

    13 Nov 2011 7:39:00pm

    Bravo to the ABC for (finally) producing a rational and balanced report on firearms in Australia. Such a thing is truly a rare beast in today's media.

    Lots of good points have been made here, so I'll just make one: Why is it that these 'urbane elitists' feel that they and they alone have the god-given right to impose their limited and narrow views upon the rest of society?

    And also: why are they so against part of our own culture?

    I'm not forcing you to own a gun, or to hunt - yet you're wanting me to give up both. So what if I can get mass-produced meat at Woolies these days. Maybe I prefer to hunt and fish for my own meat? Perhaps I like the fact that it is totally organic, completely fresh and cheaper to boot? And maybe just I enjoy the thrill and exercise of the hunt? Certainly one way to work up an appetite!

  • Sharn :

    13 Nov 2011 8:02:14pm

    Well done ABC. Interested to hear the point that many of our worst mass killings from a firearm were licensed gun club members, otherwise doing the right thing with regard to gun laws.

    I know of two people whom I was very close with, both legally had guns prior to developing depression, statistics tell us this inflicts one in five (most of us at some time in our life). Though both experienced harrowing (understatement) moments involving firearms, both remain alive today.

    My prayers go out to those who have lost loved ones by their own firearm. I know a number of gun owners who have shared with me that they have considered using them to end it all while at lowest ebb. Some of those same people have been, during happier moments in their life, dismissive about guns and their role in suicide.

      • Chris :

        14 Nov 2011 9:23:41am

        That is a lie. "Our worst mass killings involve licenced gun club members, otherwise doing the right thing". Product of a toxic mindset, twisting facts to frame the innocent other.

        If this were about indigenous crime, or home-grown terrorism the activists would be blamed harshly for tarring the innocent majority with the crimes of a tiny, tiny few. Gun club members are many times less likely to commit any crime at all then the majority, whereas the genuinely high risk factors of other issues are off-limits in polite company.

      • Count Mouritz :

        14 Nov 2011 9:28:34am

        The mental health system in Australia is woefully underfunded, but do you think the only way to commit suicide is with a firearm. A rope over the rafters as a school friends mother used and a work colleague put a hose up his exhaust pipe.
        Don't blame firearms for the governments failure to fund mental health programs.

  • Count Mouritz :

    13 Nov 2011 8:05:24pm

    The increase in stolen guns from licensed firearms owners started when Police started mandatory safe storage inspections. Before entering houses to do the inspection the police would notify police radio where they were and what reason they were entering the premises. The end result criminals with police scanners would know where firearms were stored.

  • Peter Whelan :

    13 Nov 2011 8:16:16pm

    The murder of 35 people at Port Arthur SHOULD have been treated as a failure of Australia's mental health system. Instead it was hijacked by the rantings of a few anti-gun activists. Time has shown (as many predicted) that the sports of shooting and hunting would not wither. Meanwhile, almost 50% of murders are committed by someone with a mental health problem. How many lives COULD have been saved if the $$$billions wasted on gun crushing, had been directed to identifying and treating the mentally ill. Time to scrap long gun registration and allow access to semi-auto rifles and shotguns for licenced shooters. Also time to allow handguns for self protection.

      • Bob :

        15 Nov 2011 8:58:05pm

        It would be awesome to have all the "buy back funds" spent on mental health.
        There are a lot of underfunded mental health treatment services in Australia.

      • Andrew :

        15 Nov 2011 10:54:10pm

        @ Peter Whelan. I couldn't agree more. People are amazingly resourceful creatures. If someone wants to commit a heinous crime on the scale of the terrible Port Arthur massacre, they will, if left to their own devices find a way. Guns or no guns. Imagine if the billions upon billions that has been all but wasted on the buyback and registration was spent fixing the cracks that Martin Bryant fell through.

        I agree in principal with some form of licensing system (you need one to drive a car after all), but registration is a complete failure, and you cannot honestly say that the police resources that go into harassing law abiding firearms owners aren't better spent chasing real criminals!

  • Peter :

    13 Nov 2011 11:01:26pm

    As a pistol and rifle owner I would support every firearm having 'e-passport' that follows the gun from point of import to owner and owner and, across jurisdictions. Firearms dealers and shooting clubs could have a limited access to the database to check that the gun is registered and who to.
    Gun safe standards also need standardised and in some jurisdictions, vastly improved.
    Despite the 90's buy-back there are still high capacity & high volume firearms that are legally obtainable in Australia in the form of pump action rifles mostly Remington 7600 and 7615's and lever action shotguns (look up both types on You-Tube). Are these acceptable or would taxpayers agree to fund another limited buy-back?
    Better and more systemic linking of licence information with mental health information would be a good thing too.
    Also and importantly, many if not most states seem to let criminals off extremely lightly for illegal use and possession of firearms. There was an excellent article in Aust Shooter on this a year or two ago. That must stop.
    However, these things would require our governments to cooperate, coordinate and invest which means none of them will happen.

      • Mike E :

        14 Nov 2011 12:17:40am

        Why are you trying to harm others whose interests in fireamrs differs from your own? Your pistol could do more damage in the wrong hands then a "cowboy" lever-action rifle. Of course, criminals will still get their hands on guns anyway (they don't care about laws, only law-abiding firearms owners do), and a nutter can do more damage with $5 of petrol.

          • jimbo :

            14 Nov 2011 12:51:23am

            actually...i'm surprised that the well-researched and peer-reviewed studies of Prfssr John R Lott of the US were not mentioned on this progm....even in passing...Lott has pretty much conclusively *proven* that "gun laws" have no effect wht-so-ever on violent fact: they facilitate it because crims and thugs now know that they do not have to fear that totally unknown variable...the armed citizen....of cops, courts and gaols, yr average "career crim" cares not a WHIT!

              • Chris :

                14 Nov 2011 10:28:40am

                Lott lets his work down by overstating his results. You put it best: Lott has pretty much conclusively *proven* that "gun laws" have no effect wht-so-ever on violent crime.

                His work on concealed carry permits pretty much showed no effect on crime statistics, yet the study was hyped to claim that it showed a statistical-level benefit. But surely the greater news is that it does no harm, thus disproving the hysterical claims of people like Rebecca Peters?

              • jimbo :

                14 Nov 2011 5:51:01pm

                depends how you define "over-stating";

                the face is that vrs gun-control orgs were predicting murder & mayhem when CC permits became widely available....nothing like that fact, many areas in the US experienced significant reductions in violent crimes like muggings, car-jackings, armed robberies and home invasions!

                the most recent DoJ/FBI stats bear this out....if no other major factor can be cited to explain this large decrease in violent crime (and there doesn't seem to be any credible "takers" so far), then, it would seem reasonable to ascribe that fall to CC permits but, yes, it could be possible to exaggerate that cause!.....but hardly to the hysterical level that the gun control/confiscation crowd do!

              • jimbo :

                14 Nov 2011 5:52:07pm

                sry!....should read...."the fact is....&c...."

  • Chris A :

    14 Nov 2011 9:36:45am

    Why is it that exremist Rebecca Peters is quoted in this aricle? There are grownups around, like senior Police, Don Weatherburn and Government spokespeople; yet the chosen voice is someone from the tiniest, most narrow-minded political group in the country.

  • thelastword :

    14 Nov 2011 2:18:58pm


    Personally, I don’t have any issue whatsoever with people who don’t like hunting or who decline to eat or utilize animal products. It only becomes a problem when said folk believe the rest of us should subscribe to their anthropomorphic delusions. If you don’t agree with the notion of hunting then the solution is clear – don’t do it. But don’t presume that your aversion affords you some sort of moral authority – it doesn’t.

  • val yule :

    14 Nov 2011 9:56:51pm

    New York Times 14.11.2011. Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights
    Decades of lobbying by pro-gun groups have loosened laws across the country, allowing thousands of felons each year to regain gun rights, often with little or no review.
    Video: Restoring Gun Rights to Felons
    Documents: Felons and Guns

      • jimbo :

        14 Nov 2011 11:46:46pm's highly UN-likely that Austr' will EVER have a gun culture similar to the's a bogus comparison from the word "GO".....but...reasonably gun laws seem to work fine in both Canada and NZ....the post-Prt-Arthur gun laws were a massive and un-justified over-reaction to one, isolated have achieved little or nothing in the way of making this country safer...if is MORE DANGEROUS than it was pre-Prt Arthur!...also....just as a matter of interest....the US has a highly skewed and idiosyncrative view of what constitutes "a felon"....offences that, in 0zz, would carry only a minimal/marginal penalty are viewed as "serious felonies" in the US....i doubt very much if US authorities are "restoring gun-rights" to murderers, rapists, kidnappers, home invaders and armed robbers!

          • jimbo :

            14 Nov 2011 11:50:25pm

            oh...BTW...the NY Times, along with the Washington Post, is one of the most virulently anti-gun media outlets in the wouldn't take every-thing they say as "gospel"....their claims should be "balanced out" against the counter-claims of the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.....all of whom, generally, *back up* their assertions with facts, figures and verifiable stats!

      • Mike (the other one) :

        15 Nov 2011 1:56:10am

        Val yule - The more you look at statistics from one country to the next the more you will realise that higher homicide rates (I presume that’s what your worry is) are linked to things like poor social standards, economic conditions, lack of education and training, corrupt and or under resourced governments etc. so if you are concerned for Australia I suggest it might be a good idea to maintain vigilance in that direction rather than worrying too much about what hardware and tools are available. Unfortunately, guns like sharks attract a lot of attention and exposure, but logic and statistics don’t bare that out. To illustrate my point (and your worry) about people getting hurt and killed spare a thought for the 25,000 people killed on Australian roads since Port Arthur, not to mention god knows how many disabilities the survivors are left with.

  • val yule :

    14 Nov 2011 10:06:43pm

    Let's not have the gun culture as in USA.

      • Alf D :

        15 Nov 2011 2:02:49am

        You do know that the world isn't black and white, and it's possible to have saner gun laws (that don't put painball markers in the same class as 12ga shotguns like we do) without going to USA levels, right?

        Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand etc are less restricted then we are with good safety records. Even in the USA you can't carry a pistol in most states without a license, and crime rates have been falling for decades.

      • Keith :

        15 Nov 2011 2:19:01pm

        Can't happen Val. Regulations are so strict if you make a simple mistake,(like not securing a firearm properly) the Weapons Branch are all over you, fines, and you lose your licences, and the firearms. Everything. For a genuine sports shooter, it's not worth the risk.

      • Bob :

        15 Nov 2011 8:50:42pm

        When I heard about the terrible event in Port Arthur one of my colleagues ( A ex pat Filipino was with me at the time. His response to the news about Port Arthur was that. "It would not happen in the Philipines ! 4 people would have shot Bryant before he could kill a lot of people."
        When I was in the US I noticed that in the concealed carry states people made an effort not to be aggressive to other people in any way. It had the feeling of a safer place.

          • Kamlem :

            16 Nov 2011 6:54:01am

            Safer for white christian heterosexual males perhaps...

  • Sydney Observer :

    14 Nov 2011 11:17:22pm

    Perhaps public safety would be better served by targeting the outlaw drug gangs that conduct reckless drive by shootings almost every week with impunity, rather than law abiding, licensed firearms owners.

  • Jessica :

    15 Nov 2011 1:04:52am

    I would like to know what support and links Rebecca Peters has if any with US globalist George Soros, who by coincidence is alleged to be linked with left wing groups connected with Occupy New York. Australians have a right to know if influential individuals and large corporations are attempting to exert sociopolitical influence in this country. What about some investigative journalism ABC instead of publicising media releases?

  • adam stephens :

    15 Nov 2011 8:28:53am

    I a target shooter of 20+yrs, and absolutely love it! I see it no different to golf,lawn bowles,archery etc.. We are all trying to hit the target. My advice to the uninitiated is: get along to a club near you try it, check our safety record, and see just how 'red neck' we really are! Target shooters are one of the most friendly group of people in the sports world! Above all enjoy the challenge this great sport has to offer!

  • Alex :

    15 Nov 2011 9:43:49am

    I have been a weapons instructor in the army and have fired for sport on occasions since discharge.
    While there may be enough new weapons to replace those bought by the government, they have not replaced 'like with like'. Weapons with high rates of fire such as the SSK - cheap and available - are no longer legal.

    No law can confer protection under all circumstances. Attendance over several months at a gun club is no proof that no criminal action could arise in other circumstances. There have been too many cases of killings arising from marital affairs. The option of a gun in a locked safe must be open to any owner inclined to resort to capital offences.

      • jimbo :

        15 Nov 2011 2:22:56pm

        i, also, am ex-Army.....but....i must say...yr "attitude" is a surprising one for an ex-digger...didn't the ANZACS fight for "freedom & democracy"....a central pillar of which must surely be the right of private citizens to own fire-arms...a state where only the police and the military have fire-arms is, in effect, a police state!
        as for guns being used to resolve, "marital problems"....well....that's a bogus argument...knives, axes or base-ball bats could be used just as is a risky business....domestic violence has always been with us and always will such: no government has a <i>carte blanche</i> mandate to go banning and confiscating stuff that "might", on the odd occassion, cause injury.....OTW....again....all we got is a police state!

          • BP :

            15 Nov 2011 9:08:43pm

            What exactly do you mean by "high risk" Alex? What proof can you show? New Zealand still has those "high risk" guns but hasn't had a mass shooting for about 15 years - just like Australia who banned those guns....

  • Clint :

    15 Nov 2011 2:59:13pm

    "Research conducted by John Lott, (author of "More Guns Less Crime") purporting to show that relaxed concealed weapons laws reduce crime, has been the subject of severe criticism not just for its methodological shortcomings, but also for its funding source. These questions have focused on the ties to the firearms industry of the funder of Mr. Lott's fellowship, the John M. Olin Foundation.
    There are significant links between the John M. Olin Foundation and the Olin Corporation, which owns Winchester Ammunition (the largest producer of ammunition in the U.S. and the manufacturer of the infamous "Black Talon" bullet). Olin Corporation at one time also owned Winchester Firearms, a trade name which it now licenses out...."
    The Olin Foundation, a right-wing militarist think-tank, closed down in 2005 - guess it thought its job was well and truly done!

      • Chris A :

        17 Nov 2011 10:29:49pm

        Friend, dont be a nitwit, be a scientist. Lott's claims are somewhat overstating his results, but the evidence is overwhelming that the shrieking protests forseeing shootouts in the streets if they allowed legal concealed carry turned out to be just wrong. The American disease is not just guns but poverty, class, family breakdown and the legacy of race hate and slavery. Americans kill more with knives and fists and boots per 100K people than we do with all weapons, so plainly there are questions we should ask of our political masters.

      • Rusty A :

        11 Jan 2012 12:42:23pm

        Clint please tell me you dont believe the Black Talon hype!!! A bit like the Armalite hype of the 60's, a hit in the finger will kill sort of stuff. Black Talon is no different to other high velocity hollow point, fast expanding ammunition, the idea being that it expends its energy inside the intended target not all around the countryside. Promotional hype was not actually up to physical properties in this case and many (US)law enforcement users quickly went away to a SWAT load of a heavy soft point at a lower velocity as a surer man stopper

  • Ann Dahlby :

    15 Nov 2011 6:20:00pm

    I am pleased that more people in Australia own guns, are joining gun clubs and hunting.
    They learn not only how to handle firearms but bushcraft – animal behaviour, ecology, land care,
    how to survive , travel and think in a harsh environment and how to kill humanly and efficiently.

    Many Australians having such skills would certainly deter any enemy forces should shifting world
    politics, power and alliances ever threaten an invasion of Australia- a frightening fact ,but it nearly
    happened in World War Two. The Australian military; although well trained, skilled, efficient and
    dedicated, is not big enough or prepared for sudden continental defence.

    In the Boer War; the Boers – armed farmers – inflicted huge casualties on the British, who were a
    modern army at the peak of imperial power. Similar outcomes happened in Russia; with partisans sabotaging Nazi logistics in WWII, the Vietnamese defeating the all powerful Americans in the Vietnam War, the Afghans thwarting the Russian occupation and now; the Afghans –call them Taliban ,
    terrorists, or the next name we dub them if we must – are likely to force the coalition into a

    This is mainly because all these people above were/are armed and able to easily adapt and use their
    hunting skills on the enemy and were used to operating in and taking advantage of the harsh local
    conditions. This is especially true of the Afghan tribes, who when not fighting one another, have
    turned on any foreign “invader”.

    In short; they were a tough, half trained army – certainly not the product of a nanny state.

  • Mike (the other one) :

    15 Nov 2011 6:21:12pm

    And the latest….. selling uranium to India is back on the agenda. While the little guy who enjoys his sport is forced into gun buy backs and amnesties to make us feel warm and cosy and safe in the knowledge that our nanny is looking after us, they are topping up the world’s weapons grade uranium supplies. What hypocrisy. What double standards. What a joke…..and before anyone mentions ‘peaceful purposes’ please don’t, once you’ve sold it, it’s out of your control, anyone with a bit of imagination could think of a myriad of ways to launder the crap.

  • Ernst Preuss :

    16 Nov 2011 8:32:23pm

    Australians are obeying the law...

    What is wrong with this? Hoplophobic social engineers are horrified that Australians obeying the law in a proper fashion goes against their vision of enforced nirvana.

    Perhaps we've had enough of the lies and media hype and decided to enjoy one of the safest sports in existence.

  • Ian L gregory :

    17 Nov 2011 11:07:36am

    people are worried about the sport of shooting .
    Ask yourself A: how many people have been killed or injured SHOOTING at rifle ranges in the last 10years ?
    B: How many people have been killed or injured playing FOOTBALL in the same period ?
    C: How many people have been killed or injured playing GOLF in the same period ?
    D:How many people have been killed or injured at CAR RACES in the same period ?
    E:How many people have been killed or injured AT THE BEACH in the same period ?

    You will find that SHOOTING is the safest sport of all because it is the most regulated and governed sport of all .

    Liscenced Shooter

  • Licenced Shooter as well :

    17 Nov 2011 10:41:59pm

    Just wondering about the comments by Rebecca Peters: “So it's possible that the interest in guns is rising—I don't think that's a good thing, because in general it's kind of a pastime which is more associated with Australia's past, I suppose, than with modern Australia.”
    What is your vision of a modern Australia Rebecca ?? A “Nanna society” ruled by ill informed over educated metro sexual do gooders who envisage some sort of land were you cannot go out and enjoy fishing because of all the new Marine Parks, were you can’t camp, can’t own a rife and hunt feral animals (which do tremendous damage to our native species) or enjoy this wonderful country of ours in a myriad of other out door activities. We don’t all enjoy sitting around in cafés drinking lattes, or going to the polo match.
    This is supposed to be a FREE Country, if you don’t like any of the above activities that is YOUR RIGHT to do so But it is ALSO MY RIGHT to DO SO.
    I can’t understand why she has to keep bringing up Port Arthur, it was a terrible shocking episode in our history to be sure, but I wish she would stop using it as some sort of shock tactic. Why does she not address the issue of the ILLEGAL guns in this country, and stop trying to demonise the legally licensed shooters, we are not two headed monsters, nor do we have some sort of mental disorder, we are just Australians, enjoying Australia, like our Fathers and their Fathers before them have. I just hope my sons and daughters have the same rights when they are my age.
    We do however NEED a National registration and licensing system, and we need it now.

  • Fred :

    19 Nov 2011 7:33:33pm

    I have never seen a bad gun. Only bad people with them. Guns are a great item to test your concentration and skill.

  • Dennis :

    21 Nov 2011 9:19:11pm

    Heartening news from Australia. I'm glad to hear it goes as well as it does for you, despite the legal hardships imposed on law abiding citizens wanting to take up a perfectly good and respectable hobby.

    Hopefully we up here in the Scandinavian countries can also weather this storm and come out of it stronger, and more numerous.

  • Tim Smith :

    24 Nov 2011 7:17:47pm

    Thanks to Ian Townsend et al for this balanced and intelligent report.
    Media reports on gun issues in Australia are too often marked by an embarrassing level of ignorance and a telling unwillingness to engage with those who truly understand the situation.

  • Ron :

    08 Jan 2012 9:53:16am

    Your program about illegal guns in Australia misses out a very important detail as to their origin. The 'Diplomatic Bag' which is an 18th century concept protecting confidential messages between foreign governments and their emissaries abroad, is now a means of smuggling in handguns.

    The Eastern European and Middle Eastern embassies are the worst offenders. You only have to look at the handgun shootings in Western Sydney amongst Middle Eastern crime gangs to see the credibility of this claim.

    But, I guess it's all a step too far for our police and politicians to take serious steps to stamp it out.
    There should be greater scrutiny of what passes for 'diplomatic cables' in these locked bags. You'd find that the bags are pretty big!

  • Helena X :

    08 Jan 2012 9:56:21am

    Missing from this report was a discussion of the impact guns can have in the home. The vast majority of gun owners are men and given that the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are also men (if you don't believe me, check the ABS stats) gun ownership should also be a family safety issue.

    I grew up in a violent home in which there was also a gun and I can tell you that the extra level of fear a gun adds to the equation is extraordinary. It's far easier to kill with a gun and you can do it from a distance. And the threat of a gun can turn even the toughest people off supporting and protecting you. I was on the run and as long as my father wasn't caught with the gun in his car or on his person and his threats were veiled, there was nothing the police could do.

    I don't have an issue with people using guns for sport or hunting, but I really do worry about the impact that an increase in gun ownership can have on the home, particularly women and children.

      • Andrew S. MacGregor :

        14 Jan 2012 6:10:02pm

        I could agree with Helena X in regard to firearms and domestic violence in that my eldest sister was shot in the left chest from a distance of 12ft. with a shotgun, on her 24th birthday, by a man she had just separated from. He shot her in my parents front yard while her two young children were present.

        I could agree with Helena X but I shan't. That event caused me to join the Victoria Police, in which I survived for 17 years, and the number of 'domestics' I attended was normal for most policemen at that time, and what we noted was that both sexes had their form of violence.

        It may be true that in firearm related domestics that the men are the major perpetrators, but in regard to knives and blunt intruments, it was the female that was the main perpetrator, and it was the latter events that had a higher incident and murder rates.

        Also in regard to Domestic Violence where children are involved it is mostly the mother that perpetrates the violence

        In regard to Helena X stating that the police could do nothing, that has not been the case since 1996, when every 'Family Violence' incident report, where the male owned firearms, those firearms were automatically confiscated and destroyed, regardless of the outcome of the ensuing Court procedues.

        I am also aware of the extreme bias of such bodies as The Family Court, and the various police forces in regard to 'Male only' domestic violence, which is why such bodies as the ABS figures do not reflect the true nature of these events.

  • MH :

    08 Jan 2012 10:29:10am

    Shooting at targets can be a test of skill but I wouldn't exactly call it a sport. And using guns to kill sentient defenceless beings is no sport at all. Any moron can kill.

  • Noel :

    08 Jan 2012 11:05:19am

    The Law of the Gun

    Discussion around Australia’s current gun ownership regulations and criminal use needs to differentiate between the key elements of the issue. These are some of the major factors, largely from a personal perspective.

    As a former moderately successful sporting shooter – in the main on indoor ranges, using low-calibre 22 gauge single-shot rifles, and under strict supervision – I appreciate and support target shooting as a recognised recreational sport. I felt no need to own my personal firearms for this purpose. Short of Olympic contenders, I see little or no justification for private ownership in this context. The role of the gun club should be the provision, training and supervision of relevant firearms and their users.

    I have once and once only been on a weekend pig and rabbit shooting trip with workmates. The irresponsible and drunken behaviour of a significant minority resulted, luckily, in just a large hole in the roof of the company vehicle. I have known and met many ‘sporting hunters’ in my time and would not entrust my life and safety with most of them. The image of a few mates ‘going bush’ and living off the land, armed with a variety of deadly weapons, conjures up a bunch of cloned, super-macho Bear Grylls and Rambos, fuelled by alcohol. There’s a movie somewhere in there.

    The case can be made for some registered farmers and professional hunters to own suitable firearms, under much stricter supervision than exists now. To supply the relatively few numbers involved does not require either the current level of imports or even the very existence of gun-shops. I also question the regular carrying of weapons by the police – this should be investigated in the light of overseas experience.

    Am I anti-gun? No more than I am anti-car. Just as I use my car as a tool, I have also used a gun as a recreational tool. What I am opposed to is the justification proffered by lobbyists, including gun-clubs and shooting assocations, as well as spurious ‘political parties’ that gun-ownership is a basic human right and a rite-of-passage for young males, and perhaps females. It is not – rather, it needs to be seen as a restricted privilege, under regulations which are regularly reviewed according to the prevailing situation.

      • Doug :

        08 Jan 2012 12:01:52pm

        Ah, Noel, you're 'projecting' your own insecurities with that diatribe.
        Our right to self defense is indeed a human right, certainly not a 'restricted privilege', and no amount of posturing by those of you who fear guns will suffice to alter that fact. Guns are tools, relatively simple ones at that. The fact that some of your workmates were irresponsible at some point is irrelevant to the right. With rights come responsibilities. If you or your mates aren't up to the responsibility part, then perhaps individual penalties should be applied. A blanket curtailment of our personal freedoms based upon the misbehavior of a few is not in any way justified. I'll point out that in the United States gun sales have been setting records for the past three years yet the violent crime rate has plummeted to the lowest level in 40 years. Could that be due to the far greater number of firearms in private ownership? One thing that is certain, Noel, and that is more guns do NOT equate to more crime. We are grossly over-regulated on lawful firearms ownership here in Australia, for no more valid a point than to make those who fear firearms feel good.

      • Rusty A :

        11 Jan 2012 1:15:57pm

        Noel I too am a formerly (very) successful target shooter and am afraid I cannot find a 22 gauge rifle anywhere, were you in fact using smooth bores?
        On a more serious note, to become world class just by shooting club weapons would be an impossibilty, practice at home is regularly required as is familiarity with your chosen tool.
        You must have a very vivid imagination or live an almost cloistered lifestyle as living off the land type trips have always been exactly that for me, no alcohol as it took up space better set aside for a first aid kit or dry socks, and my mates and myself NEVER drink and use firearms.
        How do we make a case for some farmers and professional hunters to have firearms, by level of savings, good looks, ability to tell a joke? Not really a workable suggestion.
        Unarmed police? let me just pick myself up off the floor and get my breath.........ahh thats better. Really Noel, having worked beside police in security situations that suggestion is ludicrous, our officers, unlike most overseas police work alone, at night and in dangerous situations. I wonder, if you called the police because you had a couple of violent criminals invading your home would you expect them to respond unarmed?
        Your last paragraph reeks of a class system which is abhorrent. The systems in place already over regulate shooters to no benefit and are proving unworkable, do you propose adding a further load to it? Think a little deeper and you may realise that court sentencing is letting everyone except the guilty down.

  • MH :

    08 Jan 2012 11:27:26am

    I was once told by an ex-policeman that accidents with guns in the home only occur where there are guns in the home. Same with domestic shootings. If there's a gun in the cupboard then it can be used when a person is drunk, angry or just wants to intimidate. I've been at the wrong end of the latter myself, with three little ones to fear for.

      • Rusty A :

        11 Jan 2012 12:50:43pm

        Seems to me that alcohol is the main problem whether it is spouse, firearm or any other abuse. I cannot subscribe to the greater good argument ( complete removalof firearms) as it is always used as a precursor to totalitarianism. Mandatory punishment for some crimes, and I place spousal/child abuse and violent abuse of firearms/ knives and vehicles at the top of the list, appears to be what most of the public would like to see. Courts however refuse to make people responsible for their actions and see alcohol as an exonerator.
        I sympathise with your fear but wonder how long you put up with it and why?

      • Andrew S. MacGregor :

        14 Jan 2012 12:06:38pm

        Dear MH. This reminds me of a shooting at the Sunshine Police Station in Victoria. A young watch-house keeper, who wished to impress a young policewoman when she attended at the watch-house, pulled out a 38 and shot her in the chest. When the policewoman fell down dead he was most upset as he believed that firing blanks at people would not hurt them.

        Firearm accidents happen just the same as motor car accidents, and police are frequently involved in both.

  • Tom Hadley :

    10 Jan 2012 7:49:27pm

    Listening to the gun program leads me to tell you an anecdote about the availblilty of (stolen) guns in Australia. After a recent drug shooting here in Wollongong, I asked one of my workmates (of Middle Eastern ethnicity) if he knew where I could get a gun if I needed one ? As I suspected, he told me he could get me one tomorrow if i wanted them. He wasn't joking. Why can't the police do the same sort of undercover?
    Second point, with computers it should be easy to get statistics sorted out. All thats needed is funding and committment from goverernment.

  • Genius :

    11 Jan 2012 9:55:43pm

    Ge Ian
    You have done it again refer to Martin Bryant as the Port Arthur gunman, you are just dead wrong!!!
    The Port Arthur massacre was done by a SAS trained marksman and poor Martin Bryant with a IQ 66 that of a 11 year old was wrongly trialed and gaoled.
    Ian; people with a intellectual handicap do not do massacres they are incapable or he was the best shooter in the world!!!
    How many people can do this shoot from the hip (right hip) and hit 19 shoots in the head of his vitems!!
    Ian go to Wendy Scurrs website and look at what really happen on28/4/96
    and just read the whole truth and nothing but the truth so you are wrong dead wrong!!!
    And you will have to stop misleading the people of Australia!!
    Ian you are no better then the rugs published at News LTD who put Martin's face on the front page of a National News paper which made shaw he would not get a fair hearing!
    As a person with a intellectual handicap I do not like the media always refering to Martin Bryant Port Arthur gunman.
    So why do you still do this, poor Martin was setup!!!!!!!!

      • get real :

        13 Jan 2012 10:22:41am

        Port Arthur is what you call a "false flag" operation. Bush knows all about false flag op's and he was John Howards best buddy. The shooter at Port Arthut was probably US special ops. This is for real.
        No way Martin Bryant did this evil act that allowed for the government rediculous buy back scheme.

          • get real :

            13 Jan 2012 10:29:45am

            Carlie bar is a government employee; not of the military type, but of bureaucrat type.

          • Andrew S. MacGregor :

            13 Jan 2012 10:09:47pm

            Please 'Get Real', get it correct. It was Clinton, not Bush in regard to Port Arthur and there were only 4 CIA agents at Port Arthur, and the gunman was a South Australian lad, whose father was videotaped outside the Broad Arrow Cafe shortly after the massacre, which by the way included 7 ASIO agents killed. How else was Roland Browne able to predict the massacre and the weapons used.

              • get real :

                14 Jan 2012 1:56:02am

                Clinton knows about the same sorts of things. For me CIA is same and capable of pulling it off. I hate to think an aussie did it.

              • get real :

                14 Jan 2012 2:15:30am

                I just googled you. Could you please elaborate on the 7 ASIO agents killed. It's the first time I've heard of that.
                The CIA and US military are closely tied these days.

              • Andrew S. MacGregor :

                14 Jan 2012 11:55:06am

                The four killed at the tollbooth from the BMW were from ASIO. Three from the Broad Arrow Cafe were also ASIO, as the cafe had been deemed a 'safe-house' until it was realised that the ferry wasn't running at 1.30pm. The ASIO operatives inside the Cafe were Anthony Nightingale, Bruce Mills and Tony Kistan, from South Africa, whose relative was also the gun-control spokeswoman in South Africa.

                Now back in 2006 just before the Beaconsfield Mine Disaster, Roland Browne and Samantha Lee were pushing for the removal of handguns, and I replied that the only really succseesful 'lone-nut gun massacres' were at schools, and that for the GCA to have handguns removed they would need a massacre at a kindergarten or a school, and so what did we have in Canada and America, massacres at colleges that ended with the Amish girls being murdered.

                So perhaps Ian Townsend should be prepared for such a scenario in Australia now that the GCA has raised its head again.

                Of course, everybody has forgotten that Rebecca Peters and I think it was Professor Woods stated shortly after the Port Arthur Massacres was that handguns were not a problem as they were very well controlled by the police. Mind you the legal handguns are still very well controlled by the police, but that hasn't stopped the smuggling into Australia firearms for the 'criminal' elements, and that is the only area that police and the bureaucrats should be concerning themselves.

      • Andrew S. MacGregor :

        14 Jan 2012 12:21:44pm

        Dear GENIUS, Why would you state that Martin Bryant had a 'Trial'? There was never a trial as the Lawyer, John Avery, convinced Bryant's mother to make Martin plead guilty, thus removing the necessity of a 'TRAIL'.

        Of course this also involved a 'conflict on interests' on the part of Avery, as Carleen Bryant was also one of his clients, and Avery had previously written a 'letter of apology' for Carleen in regard to the Massacre.

        And of course there was also the matter of Avery representing the firearms dealer, Terry Hill, and the writing of a letter to Hill, by Avery himself, endeavouring to blackmail Terry Hill into giving false evidence against Martin bryant in regard to the selling of one of the firearms used in the massacre.

        What is really of interest here was that the AR-15 claimed by Sgt Dutton of the Tasmania Police as the murder weapon had been handed in to the Victoria Police in about 1992, and then issued to the Victoria Police SOG's, and then in 1994 was illegally sold by the SOG's to Garnet Featherstone of Bendigo which means that when Featherstone sold that particular firearm to somebody in Tasmania, that Featherstone had a full record of the purchaser of that weapon in his firearms registry, which of course has never been released by the Victoria Police.

        But let me reiterate, Martin Bryant never had a trial, and again had he had a trial, then the only plea the Hobart Supreme Court could have accepted was one of 'Not Guilty' as on the 29th April 1994, that same court found that Martin Bryant was incapable of handling his own affairs due to his diminished mentality.

          • get real :

            14 Jan 2012 12:27:23pm

            So, does the "official report" acknowledge the death of these 7 ASIO officers, names them and states that Bryant was responsible ?
            What were that many ASIO officers and CIA agents doing down there anyway? How can a government of a modern country like ours get away with such a false whitewashed investigation? How can our population be so complacent with being deceived in such blatant, contrived and arrogant way?
            Thanks Andrew

              • get real :

                14 Jan 2012 2:36:00pm

                I just watched Port Arthur Massacre - Martin Bryant Setup - Part One Wendy Scurr
                I am crying.
                Wendy's courage, heroism and response just blew me away.
                Where is the SAS guy now?

              • Andrew S. MacGregor :

                14 Jan 2012 5:28:26pm

                Dear 'Get Real', ASIO never acknowledges any of their 'agents', but in the case of Lyn Beavis, they did the next best thing by letting her win a 'compensation' payout in regard to the mental injuries she recieved by having to go inside the broad Arrow Cafe to check on her ASIO workmates, Anthony Nightingale and Bruce Mills.

                The CIA agents were Bill and his wife Maryanne Bittner and James Balasko and his 'fiance' Cynthia Z. However, I am not certain about the 'anti-gun' lobbyist Dennis Olson who suffered shotgun pellet wounds to the face and upper body inside the cafe, and his 'wife' Mary, who were supposedly on their honeymoon.

                Now before you say that no shotgun was used inside the Broad Arrow Cafe, please do nor forget that Dr Wilkinson of the Royal Hobart Hospital stated quite categorically on Monday the 29th April 1996, that " whereever we looked we found pellets!"

                Now the Port Arthur gunman has totally vanished, and his family say that he committed suicide about 6 months after the Port Arthur massacre, but we believe that since there is a scarcity of these type of gunmen, that he was also the gunman at the Erfurt school massacre in Germany, and I think that the Norwegian massacre would also fit his Modus Operandi.

              • get real :

                14 Jan 2012 6:19:10pm

                If we except as fact, what the evidence you have put forward leads us to believe, Australian's notion of democracy and rule of law is a delusion and pipe dream.
                No political rationalisation can ever justify action of this magnitude.
                To tighten up gun laws on law abiding citizens is a sick joke to say the least.
                What kind of world have I brought my child into.

              • Andrew S. MacGregor :

                14 Jan 2012 9:42:28pm

                You have brought your child into a world that humans have survived previously, and will continue to do so.

                Previously we had a period of time in which truth was forbidden, and heretics of the lies were burnt at the stake. We called it the 'Dark Ages'.

                There was also the 'Protestant' reformations which heralded the Presbyterian Church, that recognised 'usury' and the wars of Scotland and Ireland are well documented.

                Today's world is very much in the same scenario with various people failing to understand nature, and wish to 'Rule the World'.

                There are leaders and lackeys, but no matter what, the tyranny will not survive.

                Teach your child how to think, logically, and how to comprehend the actions that are occurring around him or her. Teach the children survival skills as the old sayings from the 1960's is very correct today, 'We do live in a concrete jungle'.

                And no matter what never trust a politician, a bureaucrat, or a policeman.

  • Ray Williams :

    16 Jan 2012 12:28:29pm

    Australia should have National Gun Laws so that everyone (ie:each State and Territiory) can work with the same set of regulations.

    We should also get rid of the very wasteful registration of Cat A and B firearms like New Zealand have done since 1983 and now Canada is about to do the same.

    The billions of dollars saved from scraping Cat A and B registrations could go towards improving mental health care which is where most of todays problems seem to come from.

    We must not continue to try and disarm law abiding Australian firearms owners because if ever there was another war then it would be better to have some chance of defending ourselves (even with hunting firearms)than no chance at all.

    As a country we must always be forever vigilant,even consider a militaria which is what Switzerland have done well for centuries.

    Ray Williams
    New Norfolk.Tasmania.

      • jimbo :

        02 Feb 2012 3:04:36pm

        Aussies have the right to own fire-arms under the Constitution of 1689!

        also, ALL gun laws are "statute laws" which only have the same validity as "contract law", requiring mutual agreement....

  • Dave :

    04 Feb 2012 4:57:01am

    At the end of the day we have pro-firearm supporters and anti-firearm supporters. No matter what violence happens in the world today, it appears that most things are blamed on firearms. Some people say banning firearms will reduce criminal activity and suicides etc, but if a criminal wants to get an illegal firearm, or a flick knife or some other illegal object and use it as a weapon or an object to end their life with, then it WILL happen regardless. At the end of the day my firearms are registered and I use them to hunt pests such as pigs and other animals that destroy the native flora and fauna. I know there are people out there saying "poor animal, its defenceless and hasn't done anything" well humans have hunted for thousands of years, fishing is hunting yet people arent trying to ban fishing rods.

    At the end of the day, lke i mentioned, there will always be pro and anti-firarms, and no-one will be truly satisfied.

    A small amount of firearms may well be stolen from licenced owners, but how many of them GENUINLEY had their firearms secured as per the Law? If they didnt have it secured correctly then I would say they are breaking the law, and hence committing a crime and then they dont deserve a firearm. I do believe that we should have safety courses and that firearms should be registered, however, the 1996 firearm laws are out dated and we are now looking at a new generation of firearm owners whom will compete in target shooting and other disciplines as well as hunting and the like. I have the right to my opinion and so does every Australian but unlike the Anti-Firearm advocates I dont put my nose in their business so I expect the same.

    You will also notice that not once did I call a firearms a 'weapon' this is because and i quote;
    "A weapon is;
    1. any instrument for use in attack or defence in combat, fighting, or war
    2. anything serving as an instrument for making or repelling an attack"

    And Lastly, my firearms are NOT weapons they are FIREARMS! I believe it is wrong and misguiding by calling them weapons because, as you can see, they are just as much a weapon as any object used in such a manner as per the official definition.

  • Dave :

    04 Feb 2012 5:06:03am

    Sorry to say Jimbo, but as much as I wish it was a lawful right unfortunatly Australian's right to own a firearm is not guranteed by law nor by the Australian Constitution. You're right that the State firearm laws are Statute laws, however Federal laws are not and unfortunatly Federal laws override Statute laws. This is how John Howard pressured the state governments into "signing" up to the National Firearms Agreement.

      • jimbo :

        06 Feb 2012 12:03:33am

        there is no real difference between state & federal law as per "statutes"....."taxation law" is just as much a statute as state firearm and road laws!

        again, it requires the willing acquiescence of the individual....whether by signing registration forms or signifying their tacit agreement by their silence!

        only Common Law has any historical validity!

        tne Commonwealth Constitution, despite the bogus 1986 "Australia Act", implies the Constitution of 1689, Common Law and Magna Charta....that is why certain sinister forces in this country are determined to make us a "republic"!

        ("freedom wears a crown!")

        as such, Federal law like the 2002 "terrorist" legislation is illegitimate and invalid!

        also: look up "admiralty law" & "letters of marque" on YouTube &c!

          • Vladi :

            18 Mar 2012 4:11:17pm

            Thanks for your post. You are not alone in your knowledge about these things.
            You may have already done so, but try phoning up that ABC radio show that's supposed to be about anything at all and seeing how far you get with that "1986" thing. They know. They know there are no valid Letters Patent anymore and what it means-the entire legal, political and justice system in this country is buggered. They know Bob Hawke committed treason when he signed his own Letters Patent in 1986 and that the problem hasn't been fixed up ever since. It's actually a good thing because all their bullshit laws since then are invalid but still, it will upset a lot of applecarts when it becomes widely known. Hawkie's no intellectual giant but as a trained lawyer he must have known what he was doing. I'm not saying string the old boy up-I don't believe in capital punishment-but it what he did was literally a capital offence.

  • c 2da d o double g. :

    06 Mar 2012 2:12:42am

    Guns are cool.
    Better get some cos the zombies are coming.

  • headwerkn :

    06 Mar 2012 11:36:38am

    Three points of note:

    1. The complete failure of firearms legislation over the past 15 years, and the absolute waste of well over one BILLION dollars of taxpayer money. No credible study has been able to demonstrate a positive effect of the post 1996 buyback and other laws. Gun related homicide continues the same downward trend from the early 90s, coming from a low base that has been indicative of crime in Australia since settlement. Shooting massacres may have disappeared (didn't have any between 1930 and 1980 though) but have been replaced with drive-by shootings.

    2. All that tax money spent, and we don't even have usable statistics. What's the point of registering every gun if the government doesn't even save the data properly?

    3. Rebecca Peters' comment: "the type of person who owned guns was an older demographic and the new masculinity was much more urban, more interested in communication, more in media, and all those kinds of things" - talk about thinly veiled slander!

  • Nath :

    12 Jul 2012 7:55:14pm

    Just a question but where are the bullets coming from to be used with all the illegal guns ? are they being imported to be sold on the black market as well , all this talk on guns but you need bullets as well where are they coming from ?

  • Daravitas :

    14 Jul 2012 9:19:09pm

    The only thing Australia's gun laws have achieved is denying basic rights of home self defense and sport use that is considerably restricted and constrained for good people who would own guns legally. Now, generally speaking, only the criminals are armed. The gun laws are a failure, let us have our ownership rights back, we have a right to domestic defense.

  • shiney :

    02 Jan 2013 8:58:42pm

    The most interesting trend is that since 1969, murders have been on the decrease, as have attempted murder. Now if we look at the stats, it seems that gun deaths are down but knife deaths are not, funny how we just use something else. Control of weapons does nothing to stem acts committed, it only changes the method in which it's done. It's not like someone 'armed' with a truck couldn't drive off the road and onto people, but we 'trust' them not to. Loonies are loonies. Do you drive on the road, do you feel safe when walking down the footpath? Most people do. Same thing with guns. Get a license, prove that you're safe with them and do the right thing [and have to, it's very unforgiving btw] and there's no issues. The people pulling the triggers are the loonies and the crims.