http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/A/D/3/%7BAD36E187-1F6F-426D-9E58-B6926D3450F7%7Dtandi361.pdf Sept 2008 Bricknell Criminal use of handguns in Australia

Thats Trends and Issues No 361 if you are not able to use the link.

"Legal status of handguns used in homicide
The majority of firearms used to commit homicide in Australia since 1989–90 were held unlawfully at the time. Of the 150 offenders known to have used a handgun to commit homicide, 12 percent were licensed firearms owners and two percent had used a registered handgun. Considering all firearms (n=313),15 percent of offenders held a firearms licence and 11 percent of firearms used were registered."

Some research you have done Austin.

The Institute of Criminology reports are regularly quoted by the media where the use of percentages conceals the very low number of firearm deaths through suicide and crime.

The illegal use of firearms is linked to drugs and violence, proving a point I have been making that Howard's laws were wrongly targeted. The goal should have been to reduce crimes and violence not to make more restrictions for law abiding citizens. The latter (Howard's way) is irrelevant to reducing crime and violence and that is precisely what the numbers show, as correctly picked up by researchers.

On the other hand, some of the effect of Howard's refusal to direct resources into mental health can be seen from reports most people killed by police shooting have mental problems. It is a very great pity that both sides of federal politics can't see political points in putting more money into facilities for such sad cases. Similarly the Institute of Criminology isn't interested either.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-shootings-link-to-mentally-ill-20100513-v1rw.html

ChrisPer, I'm starting to wonder which side of the debate you are on.
Your comment, 'Some research you have done Austin.' is a bit rich considering you have already stuffed up with figures as with your '15%' number, and when you refer to murderers that you knew, you wrote that 'One would certainly have got a gun license if he had applied' but you weren't aware of whether he did - a bit vague, eh? Then you use a 'sort-of farmer, licensed to own a couple of rifles' as an example but admitted that he used an illegal handgun to murder a policeman. As for the murder-suicides in WA, you wrote that they were over several decades - therefore outside the time-frame and you thought that they were committed by licenced owners only 'to the best of my knowledge'. Again vague. A major fact here and in the statistics in your link is that no names or examples are ever given. Did the murderers you knew or the ones in WA have names?
Remember you confused England and Wales' statistics with Australia's, so maybe these other murders aren't exactly as you thought. Ask yourself why Monash is still the only example that isn't merely a 'statistic'.
All along I've asked for some proof as I can't find any. If all you can offer are vague recollections of shootings, confusion with other countries' data and statistical reports with no documented facts to back them up, your research is no better than mine - maybe worse.
Or maybe you're playing devil's advocate.

Austin, pardon me for contradicting your belief with evidence. Your initial statement was that no licensed shooters had committed 'gun crime' with no time restriction; on your own statements since you are trying to move the time frame to since 1996 only? And its only valid if they used licensed guns and not if they used a licensed gun and an unlicensed one too? And it would appear that peer-reviewed statistical publications are not valid as evidence, because they don't have names of perpetrators?

FWIW, the name of the man who I knew as a licensed 'farmer' gun owner in 1979 shot two policemen with a licensed rifle and finished one of the wounded men on the ground with an unlicensed pistol was Donald Parre, at South Stirling in WA. The man he murdered was Sen Cst Bill Pense, the wounded survivor Sgt Jim Keelan.

For the rest, I do not hold myself responsible for curing your false beliefs.

ChrisPer, you've lost it ,mate.

As the debate, which you started, was based on the effect of the gun laws since Port Arthur, I was perfectly justified in specifying 1996 as the start of the time frame, wasn't I? Especially as that was the year given in the initial (your) post. To put it plainly, you came up with 1996 first, I just agreed with you on that year.
As for 'pardon me for contradicting your belief with evidence' - do you mean your very vague statement where the murderer you knew (who you still haven't named) would have had a licence if he applied but you 'weren't aware of whether he did'. Other 'facts' you gave were to the best of your 'knowledge'. Not enough to cure my 'false beliefs'. You did manage to supply one name but that was from 1979 - remember the time frame? Since 1996.
Your further 'evidence' was when you confused the statistics for England and Wales with Australia.
So I don't see why you are upset if your flimsy 'evidence' does not convince me one bit.
I really hope you are playing devil's advocate as the alternative is very detrimental to yourself.

Austin, I don't lose anything; debating on your terms is not my intent.