Duck the US canards that are flying in our gun debate

Pauline Hanson’s predictable response to the gun buyback – that it’s not guns that kill but the people behind them – is straight out of the US National Rifle Association handbook (“ Minns willing to face election gun fight ”, August 17). This powerful and well-funded organisation repeats the canard even though the US has more mass shootings, gun suicides and gun homicides than any other country. Until something is done in the US to rein in the number of guns circulating, the public will have to suffice with “thoughts and prayers” after each shooting tragedy. At least we are striving to find a better way to deal with an increasing problem than vacuous platitudes. Bernard Moylan, Bronte

Matt Canavan has got himself confused. This is Australia, not the US (“ Coalition slams PM over ‘failed’ arms buyback”, August 17). The Queensland senator is outraged that Labor’s gun buyback plans are “trampling our rights”. What rights, exactly? Australians do not have the right to gun ownership – it is a strictly regulated privilege governed by federal, state and territory laws. These laws require a “genuine reason” for gun ownership, such as farming or sport shooting. Self-defence is never a valid justification. Most Australians, aware of the terrible harm guns can inflict, would probably agree that gun ownership should be far more strictly regulated. Alison Stewart, Riverview

Compare Australia’s gun fatality rate over the past year of less than one person per 100,000 with the US rate of 13 per 100,000. This points to weak gun laws combined with a proliferation of guns as the primary cause of gun deaths in America. It’s impossible to limit the number of potential murderers in a country, but you can easily control the number of guns available. Larry Woldenberg, Forest Lodge

If we are asking law-abiding citizens to surrender legally acquired and legally stored guns, surely we must pay them the market value of each firearm surrendered. To do otherwise seems to me to be clearly unfair and, I suspect, politically stupid. Paul Meagher, Wahroonga

It’s great to see that Premier Chris “Fast Track” Minns has allayed our concerns about AI’s impact on our energy and water, and to learn that data centre construction alone has saved NSW from recession, with 75-day approvals for new centres if they provide their own water and energy. Presumably, this means their artificial intelligence will manufacture extra rainfall to meet their cooling demands. We have ample sunlight for solar power, but even covering their whole roofs and walls in solar panels will not satisfy their energy appetite, so they will continue to gobble up more of the clean power that should be shared with the rest of us. I’m hanging on the premier’s detailed explanation on how they have buoyed the state’s economy.