We do tend to take cover when discussing things like this and i will too:

-The fewer the guns likely the more comfortable

-One Nation does not do it for me at all.

That is self-protective politics and opinion out of the way.

What do you take of all this talk of One Nation and Gun Control?

I ask myself, what do people expect? To have guns or not to have guns available is not a matter of right or wrong it is a matter of choice.

Certainly, it seems safer not to have the things around but that is only the case because we have ignorant and calous people in our midst who do not fit into a peaceful society. it is not unreasonable to expect our society to be replete with people who do not express their ideas with this brutality.

One Nation is just a party saying what it thinks. Many do support it. If you fear violent criminals or other crazed individuals is it really unreasonable that you may seek to be able to protect your children and self with a gun?

One Nation does have an ideal opportunity to generate income out of our restrictive gun-laws. These stand as some of the most restrictive in the world and they have ostensibly worked. US pro-gun lobbyists would probably be pleased to have the example out of the way. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of that, it need not be considered underhand it is simply a matter of the politics of winning hearts and minds. I don't think it really has a hope here and even in the US there is a long losing battle being fought. But it must remain their right to put forward their ideas peacefully and within the law.

That right is particularly important when it comes to the security of yourself, your wards and your community. It is a sad fact I think that, at least failing wars, we are a lot safer as a whole without guns but that is not always and necessarily the case at a local or familial level. It can easily be argued that a few guns in the right hands around a school may have been able to stall a massacre...just as it is easy to argue that they can also go off in the wrong hands.

Al Jezeera may be bringing something to our attention but I don't think we need to jump to value judgements. We have laws that are not seriously under attack and we have accepted measures for intensifying or otherwise changing them. We need no more. If pople work within those auspices we can best expect peaceful co-existence.

---

My own background. Brought up on a farm, we had rifles in our hands from an early age but not before we implicitly understood and took full heed of my father's rule as to gun handling. Essentially this boiled down to "never loose a round unless you know exactly where it will end up." That is, you are responsible, there are no accidents. Except for one sad instance with one sibling after I had moved away nobody ever killed a native mammal. Foxes, rabbits and some sheep caught in bushfires were our unfortunate targets.

I am very happy not to have guns around, am fearful of accidents and ignorant use, do not have one or want one but do claim that they can have value with appropriate training. I claim also that our rights as citizen owners of this society make it possible for individuals to put a reasonable case for gun ownership.

(By the way my childhood gun a very underpowered and slow to load .22 would be illegal now since it was technically semi-automatic...but it was never ill-used to my knowledge)