Bugsy,

Monis had one illegally modified prohibited firearm, a firearm which the gun laws forbade him to have, if the gun laws were effective then he would not have been able to get his hands on one.
The type of firearm that he had is legally available in most other countries that are comparable to Australia and they don't cause any problems.

What ever way you look at it the Lyndt Cafe was an incident waiting to be expanded into a massacre and the gun laws did nothing to stop it.
Monis was stopped by men with guns and many lives saved by the gun.

Licensing the firearms owner is by far the most effective, robust control.

It gives the means to restrict and charge the unsavory few in society who would choose a firearm to commit a crime.

Apart from that, there are perfectly good laws and there always were, that cover crimes against people and property.

I don't get your logic Is Mise.

That firearms laws 'failed to prevent' a potential massacre (i.e. not a massacre)?

What are you arguing? That a relaxation in the firearms laws may have prevented it? How could that possibly be? The NRA would argue that putting the firearms into the hands of civilians would prevent something like that occurring, but that sounds stupid to me.

How do you tell who is the victim and who the perpetrator in a shootout?

Anyway, you might not be arguing that. You might be arguing that the firearms laws didn't prevent him having an illegal weapon, so they obviously don't go far enough!

But I know you aren't arguing THAT.

Monis had one weapon obtained illegally.

Bryant had more than one rapid-fire weapon, obtained legally. How many people you reckon could have died if Monis was able to obtain several rapid-fire weapons legally?

Anyway, you can take potshots at the gun laws and say they are inadequate, but please let us all know what you think should be done about them. You want them relaxed don't you? Let rapid-fire weapons into the country legally and watch the crime rate fall!

I know it's a straw-man, but hey, it sure sounds like what you're saying. Please clarify your position.

Bugsy,

The logic of the antis is that the gun laws have stopped massacres,
My logic is that the Monis affair could have been a massacre.
That the gun laws completely failed to stop him, armed men had to kill him to put a stop to it.
Men armed with guns stopped a potential massacre, not the gun laws and remember the Monis affair rather dampens the oft repeated claim that Australia is a safer place since 1996.
Monis only needed one gun.

What do I think that the laws should be?
Licencing of firearm owners but no petty restrictions and idiotic hoops to jump through.

Aidan,

One can only wish that the gun laws were similar to the seat belt laws.
Your observation on them misses the point that they only apply on public property, the roads, and not right across the board; I recently drove a powerful (capable of over 100 mph) sedan car several hundreds of miles and didn't wear a seat belt, not only that but we got a wave several times from police cars and they took no notice of the fact that we were not wearing seat belts.
Gun laws apply all over the country, public and private property.

Bugsy,

You are saying that Bryant legally obtained and held firearms.

A firearms licence was required prior to 1996.

If he had a licence as you seem to be alleging that would be news to the police. Where is your evidence?

Otherwise how could he have 'legally' purchased a firearm as you say?

You mean 'police officers with guns' right Is mise?

It's nice to be specific. I have no problem with police officers (men or women) stopping criminals with illegal firearms.

The way you word it, it sounds like having more firearms in the general populace would stop criminals, which I think is a bloody stupid idea.