C J Morgan & severin

It is abundantly clear that you are both manifestly ignorant of the content and operation of the gun laws. Nonetheless, your support for ex-PM John Howard is touching, or is it just your bigotry speaking?

The invitation remains for either of you to actually read what I have written and quote precisely where I have supported the relaxation or otherwise of gun laws.

To again affirm what I said at the beginning of this thread and have maintained throughout despite your jibes and game playing,

"I don't mind government taking taxes from me and spending same but like everyone else, I want to see some proof of positive outcomes and that value for money was obtained."

That isn't much to ask of any government that spent a billion (and still counting!) of taxpayer dollars, now is it?

Severin, how is it OK for Suzeonline and CJM to express their 'POVs' yet when those in favour of guns express their 'POVs', you call it 'carping'? Oh, of course, you are in agreement with Suze and Morgan so any other 'POV' must be wrong. Also, ' there is no psychiatric evaluation performed as a requirement for gun ownership is there?' Wrong. Any doctor can recommend suspension or cancellation of a firearms licence.

Good ol' CJM, ducking and weaving when questioned about his accusations of whingeing. As for whingeing, he's been the only whinger on this thread as he keeps carping on about his step-father.
He admits to knowing little about pistols except that they are 'very naughty things'. So much for 'expert comment'. He accuses sporting shooters of being'social misfits' in his typically chidish name-calling manner. Then he includes his police 'acquaintances'. I'm sure that 'acquaintances' are all they are as I couldn't see your average cop wanting to be associated with the CJM. What a sad little man.

Powerless: << ' there is no psychiatric evaluation performed as a requirement for gun ownership is there?' Wrong. Any doctor can recommend suspension or cancellation of a firearms licence. >>

When did you last have a psychiatric evaluation, Powerless? I think that gun owners should have them at least annually - possibly more for those who are pistol enthusiasts.

<< He admits to knowing little about pistols except that they are 'very naughty things'. >>

When did I say that pistols are "very naughty things"? What I said is that they are "deadly weapons". Liar.

C J Morgan, "I think that gun owners should have them at least annually - possibly more for those who are pistol enthusiasts."

However you know zilch about the firearms laws and have no evidence to back that up do you? It is just another of the intolerant and inflammatory assertions you make on OLO to bait and stir.

Even if the random, exceptional case of Matthew Bryant is taken into account, he was sane as confirmed by many independent psychiatric examinations conducted from his childhood. However he has marginal IQ and was stressed by normal life. Of course the looney left and the parsimonious right had had their effect on both sides of government and the facilities for people who are similarly disadvantaged or do have mental health problems had been sold off and funding had been cut. Howard cut just as Keating did before him giving relatives, carers and authorities precious few options - a situation that continues to this day.

It is just more proof that the failed Howard buy-back and laws were wasteful and the money could have been directed elsewhere to better effect. Howard's political opportunism and pragmatism ruled.

However Bryant used petrol too against the object of his hate and that would have been devastating in a crowded area. Petrol was used in the Whisky A Go Go fire bombing in Brisbane (15 dead), which before Bryant was Australia's largest mass killing. Its use in a large venue is unthinkable.

So what is it to be? Ban petrol too, along with kitchen knives and the wide variety of possible harmful tools and substances that can be used as weapon or take up the rational option of reducing violence and criminal behaviour the goal of government to make some real headway in reducing needless harm and suffering?

That is why government policy should be based on evidence and why it is crucial that outcomes be measured and changes made where policy is not producing the desired results.

Cornflower: << However you know zilch about the firearms laws and have no evidence to back that up do you? >>

Yeah well, it's just my opinion. Apparently you know zilch about the experience of victims of crimes committed by gun users, but that doesn't stop you attempting to diverting attention away from them. BTW, Bryant's first name is Martin (and from another thread, Pearson's first name is Noel, not Neville).

My opinion was prompted by Severin's comment about there currently being no requirement for a psychiatric evaluation as part of getting a firearms licence, and Powerless's obtuse response. In the case of those who get their kicks out of playing with semi-automatic pistols my opinion is that such evaluations should be compulsory and regular - particularly so in the case of those who display questionable sanity in their advocacy of bizarre conspiracy theories concerning the Port Arthur massacre.

Unfortunately, psych evaluations are not so exact a science that psychs are prepared to sign off that anyone is 'sane enough' for just about any purpose or reason. Predicting behaviour at high accuracy is not their schtick. In any case they would tell you its wrong to stigmatise the mentally ill when only a modest few of them ever commit violent acts.

However, existing licensing systems based on criminal history are already VERY good - of 850,000 legal gun owners in Australia, only a tiny fraction commit any crime of violence in their whole lives.

This makes the obvious point that posters who stigmatise shooters as above are continuing to argue from ignorance - which they think is a virtue.