Current News


News filed between 1 January and 31 December 2011 can be seen here.
News filed between 1 January and 31 December 2010 can be seen here.
News filed between 1 January and 31 December 2009 can be seen here.
News filed between 1 January and 31 December 2008 can be seen here.
News filed between 1 January and 31 December 2007 can be seen here.
News filed between 1 January and 31 December 2006 can be seen here.
News filed between 1 January and 31 December 2005 can be seen here.
News filed from 2004 and before can be seen here.

Herald Sun's surprise rant
- updated 9 January 2012

In a very strange move, the Herald Sun has turned it's back on its large regionally based readership and created what seems to be a surprising attack on the level of firearm ownership in regional areas. If you didn't read the paper's banner, you'd think you were reading The Age.

The story is not helped by the fact the hysteria in story has been stoked by Victoria Police.

Click here to read the stories.

The paper did run additional stories relating to the feral dog problem but the editorial was disappointing in backing the anti-gun lobby's call to reduce firearm ownership.

The CFCV's President, Bill Paterson, has sent the following letter to the Editor in:

Mondays article on the rise in gun ownership and your Editorial requires some comment, regarding the underlying premise made by yourself and Gun Control Australia, that more guns means more crime.

You ignore your own figures which show that 75% of guns used in crimes were never registered or legal and state that guns stolen from licensed owners end up in the hands of criminals. Well, that’s where most stolen goods do end up, but as you state, the number stolen has fallen significantly, due to the requirement to store guns securely!

Does anyone really think that criminals smuggling drugs into this country do not also smuggle in pistols? Is a rise in rifle ownership in towns in the heart of deer hunting country really likely to increase crime?

These issues were emotively and poorly argued and do not reflect well on the journalistic merit of your paper.