Surely, though, it is a good thing that we have a National Firearms Agreement and that the laws are the same across the nation?

If we didn't have National Laws then stupid things could be law; say in Western Australia it could be an offence to have a pencil with a fired, inert, absolutely harmless brass cartridge case stuck over the end of a pencil and in the other States it would be quite OK to have a pencil so adorned.

Now isn't it good that that is not the case.

It would be ludicrous if one had to have a firearm's licence to buy percussion caps for an 1840 muzzle-loading shotgun at a gun shop but no licence was required to legally buy percussion caps at another shop in the same street in the same town.

Would it not be even more ludicrous if one could buy blank rim-fire cartridges at another store without a licence but need a licence to buy them from a gun shop?

I am happy that such anomalies are not around 19 years after the new, sane laws were introduced.

But maybe I dream and such stupidities are real and help to make Australia a safer place.

Hi ONTHEBEACH...

Once again you've hit the proverbial nail right on it's head ! If F/A's inspections 'must' occur, surely that particular task could be more properly consigned to an 'inspectorate' or some such body. If a householder is not cooperative or obstructive, then let the coppers carry out the inspection complete with a marked car etc.

Any irregularities, any nonsense during the process of an inspection, OK, then hand it to the coppers, surely these irregular inspections could form part of an (informal) exchange of information, or a general Q & A perhaps, all undertaken in a convivial atmosphere over a coffee or two. I believe 98% of all licenced shooters will eagerly cooperate with the authorities, because it's in their own interests to do so.

Licensee's for the most part, are generally law abiding people. Therefore it's for this reason, they wouldn't wish to run the risk of endangering their sport by making life even more difficult for themselves by not co-operating or obstructing the inspectorate doing their task ? Why would they, if they've complied with their legal responsibilities ? Therefore, there's no need for the coppers, nor a marked vehicle and certainly no (embarrassing) uniforms ! It's a win win all around, therefore everyone should be happy ?

Sooling police onto the reputable, law-abiding citizens with licences is rather missing the point, one would think.

Double post, AJ. I was too tired to play last night.

If I had more space than 350 words a post, I would be very happy to quote entire passages of my opponents verbatum. Because if I do not include the previous or following sentences, I get accused by dishonest debaters like yourself, of taking quotes out of context. I know that you are playing to the audience, because you made the same accusation on the "climate change " debate. You said that the quote from me, that Flannery had said that "the dams would never fill again", was wrong, even though you knew it was right. They may not have been Flannery's exact words, but there was no change in their meaning, and you knew it. The object was, to run me around on a wild goose chase researching the exact quote, to derail my line of reasoning. Your intent was to delay and to obfuscate. I won't fall for that trick again.

I already knew that you were not prepared to debate honestly, because of our encounter on a racism topic. Either races are equal, or they are not. Your tactic there, was to oppose the concept that races were unequal, while simultaneously refusing to defend the concept that they were equal. This puts you in the position of always demanding that your opponent provide proof and come up with reasoned arguments, while you just sit back and heckle.

I have met "debaters" like yourself before, and they drove me crazy until I figured out what they were doing. But this encouraged me. I realised then, that this indicated that I was dealing with people who knew that they were wrong, but who were desperate to hide the truth. It is easier for me, because all I have to do is debate honestly. While my opponents can only imply their position, present no arguments themselves, and have to keep coming up with new ways to throw me off the track.

Continued

Continued

And you are right, there are a lot of people here who will not debate against me. The reason is, that I was just another friendly gun nut minding my own business until the Left decided to use me as a scapegoat for their own stupidity. Now I am on the attack. I will enthusiastically go after Lefties and their causes everywhere. And I enjoy sneering at their pomposity and tying them up in knots. I think that this is why you are so determined to get at me, and no blow is too low to do it.

But I know what you are doing, so rotsa ruck.

Back on topic.

You have claimed that crime is not rising, and then implied that the public only thinks it is rising because of increased media coverage of crime, and now you are even denying that you said that. This is another tactic of the dishonest debater. Always change your position so that you can not be pinned down. If you wish to submit a reasoned argument that crime is not rising, then go right ahead. I will very happily examine what you written, and subject it to fair examination. But I know you won't. Because that means that you would have to say something you would need to defend.

In addition to the facts I have already written in previous posts about rising crime, I would add that the clearest picture of our changing society comes with any train ride from Sydney's Central Station into the South Western suburbs. We now see graffiti splattered suburb, after graffiti splattered suburb, of houses with steel bars on every window.

Another factor, is that people who murdered more than once in the past, were simply tagged as multiple murderers. But with multiple murder homicides of total strangers becoming more commonplace, sub groups of multiple murderers have been identified, and they have had to be named. We now have serial killers, spree killers, and mass murderers. Nobody knows what to call kids who kill kids. Gunkids? Psychokids? Schoolboy terminators? Junior Rambos? Krugerkids?

Hi there LEGO...

Your suggestion a train ride out to Sydney's, South Western suburbs, would make the average citizen wonder whether or not, crime's under control, or is it on the increase ? Many of Sydney's well to do areas, with those patrician members of the cities society, also have a well hidden underbelly of ineradicable crime too !

Apropos this particular topic though, it's the criminal element who (generally) commit most gun crimes. It's the criminal element who're are behind the trafficking of illegal F/A's into this country. And it's the criminal element who continue to 'force' the hand of government, to ever increase restrictive elements of the F/A laws ?

Every time a crime of violence occurs, where the presence of a F/A is an integral component of that crime, someone usually from the 'left', will start complaining, that government's are not doing enough to curb F/A crime. Therefore the laws governing F/A 'MUST' be tightened ?

This response and the attendant processes, are clearly flawed. All it achieves is to further alienate the licit shooting community, by introducing, even more disproportionate and restrictive F/A practices. Ultimately, it may well serve to drive some law abiding individuals, underground.

LEGO we speak of young Muslim's being 'radicalized' ? If governments continue to impose ever stricter laws, on legitimate shooters, it could well work in reverse ? It may well 'radicalize' honest (younger) shooters who view these laws as being grossly and overtly unfair ! Therefore they see their only course of action, is to go 'underground'. And in so doing, utter that age old Aussie response...'bugger 'em all' !