What a beat-up. Australia is still the gold standard of gun safety.

the number of gun licence holders per capita has gone down as Australia’s population has soared, there is now a larger number of guns in the community per capita than there was in the immediate aftermath of the crackdown.

What a way to word it for maximum alarm. Let’s break that down:

1. Number of gun license holders per capita is lower.
2. There are more guns in Australia today than there were at our lowest point ever.

So far, I’m ok with all that.

That’s because the number of guns each licence holder has is going up – gun owners now average more than four firearms for each licence.

In WA, gun owners are now split between suburban and rural. In a rural setting like a farm, I’m comfortable that a gun owner likely needs more than four guns for assorted tasks. In suburbia, I am not comfortable with any guns in the home, but the law has come in with a maximum of five.

In Sydney New South Wales firearm register data shows that there are more than 70 individuals who own more than 100 firearms.

This one is difficult to defend. I don’t know what the maximum number of guns to own should be, but I see no way to justify 100+ guns. Nobody needs that many. I’m also unsure how to read this sentence: Is the register in Sydney, New South Wales? Or is it saying that the individuals are in Sydney according to the New South Wales register? I would read this statement as “In Sydney, the New South Wales firearm register says there are 70 individuals…” which means the people are all over the state, but the register is in Sydney. And it also makes the sentence super-dooper misleading.

Even accounting for all the rage-bait, the biggest difference we have is that our guns are all registered. If you find a gun in the street, Police can look up who owns it, that isn’t so easy in USA.