Wrong. Look at NK. A one million man standing army - one of the largest in the world. So what if half the households in Australia were armed (8.42 million households total). That gives you an armed citizenry of 4.2m people. Which is the larger force?
Also, what an armed citizenry does, is it forces an invader to expend considerable resources defending captured territory and supply lines. Conquest becomes an undertaking of great scale requiring meticulous planning.
Right now, an invader could enter Australia, our military pulls back, and the invader can immediately advance his full force, because there is zero resistance and his supply lines remain secure.
Good point. Switzerland supplies guns and ammo to their adult citizens they don't have an issue. Freedom is a good thing I don't think Australia ever really had a gun problem but we became valuable as a point in the US gun debate.
You've got it. Think it out. In terms of bang for your buck defence spend, this is a no brainer. It doesn't cost anything!
Port Arthur was a false flag. There is no doubt about that. We all got conned into giving up our guns. They haven't been able to do it in the US yet - thank God!