'afternoon to PLANET3 and all contributors...

Your right of course, gun ownership should be open to anybody, who can demonstrate the requisite, age, character and personal qualities, necessary for responsible and safe handling of a F/A.

Should a person who's suffered, as opposed to 'suffering' (present tense) a mental illness, be mandatorily barred from possessing a F/A ? My opinion ONLY, not necessarily.

I would think, documentary (medical) evidence, certifying to the applicant's mental fitness, specifically for F/A use and ownership, should be essential. Prior to a licence being granted.

Similarly, there's always been a thorough scrutiny of an applicant's character. Certain criminal convictions too, don't always preclude the issue of a F/A licence, either.

In defence of my opinion, I'd simply state, the number of returned servicemen and women (from all wars), many who came home with a litany of mental complaints, and many were never diagnosed.

Yet, once back in 'civvy' street, they've proven, to be totally responsible with a F/A. I know from my era (South Vietnam, Malaya, Borneo), there are many blokes suffering from the effects of PTSD.

I would hasten to add, the views herein are mine only, and may well be in erroneous. Except perhaps, for some of my comments, apropos former and current licencing practices and guidelines. Please remember, anything denied by police, can be overturned by the Court.

HASBEEN, one of the opinions you expressed in an earlier response, about a young copper who put you through the 'hoops' when assessing your F/A licencing requirements. You used language to the effect of him being 'jumped up' or arrogant, or similar.

You're right. Some young coppers think, 'the majesty' of their uniform, entitles them to be rude, arrogent and simply downright offensive...!

However, they soon lose that negative attitude, when they find themselve's knocked down, and 'sucking concrete' !

There's blokes out there who are NEVER intimidated by a kid wearing blue. To the contrary, it's like a red rag to a very angry bull.

Cheers.

Gun Laws, a catch 22 situation. In case of any future anarchy, I myself would like to be armed,
However in times of peace it seems ludicrous to go around handing out automatic weapons to any idiot who may just not be sensible enough to own one. This of course means sensible gunowners Must be subject to stringent laws to try to discourage the idiots. It should be noted that since John Howard bought in tougher gun laws there has so far been no repeat of Port Arthur although there have been domestic slayings of 2 or 3.

The laws around gun registration and re-registration were bought in for the reason that it is usually a
Loner like Martin Bryant who commits these mass shootings and making them wait a month to get a license after applying gives them a cooling off time and the police a good chance to check them out.
I believe they are actually looking to change this waiting period now. A dangerous idea I think.

Any Australian army man who commits this type of mass shooting here, should not have an army weapon after leaving the military, especially with the large percentage of PTSD amongst returned soldiers. It is up to the relevant authorities to correctly police this.

Pretty hard to tell a man trained in the use of military weapons that he is unfit to own a rifle. As Hasbeen has demonstrated here, it causes offence to those who are sensible gun owners.
I sympathize with Hasbeen, as I said above it is a catch 22 situation and I do have misgivings about the citizens of a country being unarmed. As we saw in England revolutions can happen in the blink of an eye and suddenly we may all need guns for self protection. It is a choice between the possible future loss of freedom and mass gun slaughters by idiots. Neither choice is easy.

After having gone through the rural version of the Qld floods early last year there's a DEFINITE need for protection if you're cut off from authority and surrounded by opportunistic predators. And THAT was a result of some rain. Couldn't imagine what it would be like if society collapsed. It would be all on for young and old.

Not disagreeing with you, StG, but how come we didn't hear about awful things happening to all those who were not armed during the floods?
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

Yes, you can look at things from both angles during that kind of event.
I noticed plenty of instances on TV where people who lived in the same street but who would normally not have much to do with each other, all chipping in, helping and cooperating with each other.

I noticed the same thing here in WA in the aftermath of a particularly vicious storm in June this year - people were out helping their neighbours position tarpaulins on roofs and helping clear fallen trees.

I am not stating fence sitting views here planet 3.
Bit biased by my fixed concerns re America.
And bit by my thanks we are not like that.
The Gun crime in NSW, surely we all know is unrelated to those poor unable to own a Gun folk.
In fact, forgive me, I see a special cowardice and yes, maybe a need to use a prop to manhood there.
Is the conversation trying to find reason we should not restrict ownership? I do not think so.
Would most of us agree if it was asked, are some unsuited to being able to own a weapon, who would disagree.