Private ownership of firearms

I agree. I think guns should be only used for target practise and paint ball or whatever its called!

But isn't inaction taking life, taking the life of a whole species? I honestly think it's a joke that people think that an animal that was let loose in Australia, (and is causing the demise of a native species) should be left to roam free just because that animal doesn't deserve to fell pain because of our mistakes.

Care to back up that statement, or do you have no real objection to firearms except an irrational fear of them?

Well yes and no, and that's precisely my point: No matter what you do or don't do, some animal loses out. Inaction may very well mean life lost, just as much as taking action would. To some people the issue may be about pain, to others it may be to do with the loss of life - the ultimate loss. Is it fair to a feral cat that it must be denied its existence because we discriminate against it so that other species can flourish? Or, is it fair that 'native' species must starve to death or be hunted to extinction because of an introduced species? I think the opinion you form depends on where your values lie and how you interpret the world.

If you are of the opinion that we deem a species as introduced and not belonging to the environment and thus must be eliminated, or at the very least, controlled, then that can set up a very dangerous attitude. It's based on the premise of not-belonging', much in the same way current attitudes persist over the issue of asylum seekers or even immigration, where certain cultures are ill-favoured and viewed as incompatible with Australian culture (whatever that is). When that happens, it's very likely that any compassion or consideration we attribute to animals is waived, and it can give license to some very atrocious acts in the name of culling introduced species. An excuse to kill, maim, torture, if you will. Why not? They don't belong here, they destroy habitat, and they threaten our native fauna (e.g. cane toads).

And why would we stop there? If protecting native species is our objective, then we seriously need to take a good look at ourselves. Species extinction caused by introduced species pales by comparison to human development. We are the number one causal factor in species extinction. And if you take the climate change view, we can rant and rave and act on the issue of introduced species all we want, it won't make a difference when habitat is destroyed/diminished due to a changing climate.  

Also...
The human factor aside (and it's a big BIG one), how can we let native fauna be subject to extinction due to us twits bringing in animals from overseas that haven't evolved in our environment? If we don't act, we condemn so many species to starvation and death at the expense of our ignorant actions. Surely we must do something...

^These are some of the things I think can be raised. You can go a whole lot deeper and challenge the nature of ecosystems and human knowledge on what an environment is, how we think the 'natural' world operates or should operate, and what we mean by natural (e.g Is a computer natural? Isn't it just a production of our ingenuity, something that has come from evolution, /natural/ evolution?)

What i get sad about is hearing stories relating to firearms kept. Kid's finding them, playing and accidently shooting their friend. People turning homocidal or suicidal and so turn to using their gun.

I still think the best thing is if you want to go shoot at targets, go to a centre where they provide that for you, pay the price and shoot at things for the day.

If your a licensed shooter then your gun want be 'lying around ' for kid to find, they will be in safe. Unless your using them of course.

You don't have to own a gun to killl your self, there are plenty of other methods. Again isn't that the same with any weapon, I could kill myself or other with a knife, should I have to have a licence to own one? If you look at the stats knife crimes are much more common than shooting with LICENSED firearms.

How about the huge number of people killed by hoons on our roads every week. Imagine if we had a death caused by a firearm every week. Guns would be banned outright. But when it from cars we seem to overlook it and say an ad campaign will do.

Re: "lying around", that's assuming a licensed shooter is responsible and gives consideration to their environment, which of course, we all know how everyone makes mistakes, either through negligence or ignorance. That's why we have safety measures to prevent mistakes from happening.

Yeah you don't need a gun to commit suicide, but if guns were easily accessible I'm sure suicidal people would preference the gun than, say, bleeding out, hanging or any other act that causes grievous injury leading to death that isn't immediate (As morbid as it sounds, I'm curious to see stats on that). That's not a reason to ban guns of course, though it'd be interesting to compare failed suicide attempts in respect to a knife and gun.

and yeah, cars are bloody atrocious when it comes to death, which again, safety measures and deterrents are utilized to minimise fatalities (to be fair, we dn't just have ads, we also have speed limits, police, cameras, registration etc). Just because there is plenty of death by car does not excuse the fatalities caused by guns. However, comparing the two (and others) does give a broadened perspective on safety and welfare.

The problem with comparing deaths caused by car and deaths caused by gun is that a car is almost all of the time is used in a -controlled- environment: the road. It is harder logistically to kill people with a car (through malicious intent, drunken negligence or whatever) beyond the road than say, a gun, which has a great deal more flexibility on concealment and where it can be taken (and pointing and shooting as opposed to driving to the intended or unintended target)

The other problem with the comparison is that cars serve a purpose beyond harming or the threat of harming others. The primary purpose of a gun seems to me to be to cause harm or pose the threat of causing harm to others (if you watch enough Hollywood movies, then you might add to that: opening locked doors). So when weighing up the cost-benefit of permitting the use of cars, you also have to consider the benefits of efficiency in transport - whereas in the case of guns the only costs/benefits to weigh up are those that relate directly to causing harm or the threat of causing harm to others.

No i mean that I would think that humanity would be evolved enough to know that killing each other is wrong... The introduction of the firearms is why the death toll is so much greater in war than when people just used sharp instruments to kill each other. Firearms should never have been invented. War shouldn't exist. Just because people are different or have different values doesn't mean that they should be murdered. there is a quote, i can't remember who said it, but it was something like "You kill someone at home and they'll lock you up and throw away the key, you kill a hundred people on the front line and they'll give you a medal"

D'oh, that too!