Dear Belly,

Thanks for your concern.

However it's not something I take seriously.
You'll always find posters on public forums
who are simply testing our boundaries
and waiting for us to bite.
Best to simply not read their posts and scroll past.

We've argued the topic of gun control laws many times
on this forum. It's an emotive topic - however the
following link may be of some interest to you. It also
includes a speech at the end of it from John Howard - which
is interesting:

http://guncontrol.org.au/

Foxy,

No-one would be surprised, least of all me, by you posting a link to that disreputable site.

Tell us now, since the person or interests behind that site will not, exactly how anyone can join that 'organisation' which appears to be just a front? It refuses membership, right?

So how many members does it represent and who are they?

Where do they get their funding, who are the sponsors?

- Once again, the site refuses information. Yet there are persistent allegations that George Soros, the Hungarian born American billionaire currency dealer - the man who who currency deals nearly sent the Bank of England broke, which would have bankrupted thousands of small mums and dads account holders - secretly bankrolls that site you posted, and has actually sponsored the one or two people responsible for the site, to travel to the US for training and activism.

What is also amazing, shocking even, is that the person or persons behind the site, who do not identify themselves, offer to run courses in Australian schools! The Australian government does not give blue cards to phantoms, but obviously you and they don't care about that either.

So Foxy, what about you fill in the missing details on that site? You might want to cover any links between it, the Soros organisation and the scurrilous NSW Greens while you are at it. Trust you though to side-step every question directed at your posts and to give a link to an activist site where run by one or two gun control extremists with a phone, fax and site, but who refuse to give any particulars a bout themselves, not even their names.

chrisgaff1000,

I don't suggest there is anything beyond that evil mongrel who murdered our fellow countrymen.

However Howard and his political opponents for that matter were strongly disposed to avoid any public inquiry. The reason being that authorities knew all about the offender Bryant and for years before. He was a man with low IQ, not mad, who fostered an unreasonable, ill-informed hatred.

It may not be PC to say it, but it is a medical fact that people with marginal intelligence are easily jolted and angered by changes and events in their lives that they do expect or understand.

Regrettably in the years before Bryant, both sides of government had for differing ideological imperatives, sold off and de-funded mental health services and the infrastructure that went with it, and casting the professionals and carers to the wind. The LNP didn't believe in 'government' being involved and Labor's ideology and idealism while it was Statist, (incredibly) saw 'discrimination' in sheltered workshops and so on, and there were people like Keating who wanted to sell government facilities anyhow.

To cut to the chase, maybe Bryant might have been diverted from his course had political events been different.

to be continued..

It used to be that Gun Control Australia was two people with a 'phone and a Gestetner but it is rumoured that they now have a computer, a printer and personal mobile 'phones.

They were looking to don Integrity but it wouldn't fit.

continued..

So yes, Howard the supreme politician was quick to seize the opportunity provided to him to cobble together the populist 'solution' of 'gun control' to prevent a 'gun culture', to reassure a reeling public that the State can pass laws to abolish risk, which is absolute bulldust and he knew it. But a billion dollars wasted is well worth a win at the polls and Howard knew how to play wedge politics.

If only there had been a public review though, because so many families, carers, the community and police might have seen some revision of the rigid and very flawed policy of returning mentally impaired patients to families come hell or high water. Others here can post further on that.

However it is worth saying that many mentally impaired people are now shot by police. That is not the fault of the police or the (shooting) victim's family. It happens because there is no means for intervention and treatment anymore, the politicians sold the facilities off years ago. Same as the C'wealth rehabilitation facilities, excellent facilites sold and demolished for developers to build apartments.

One of the very sad realities of having jack-booted partisans like Foxy is that there can be no surfacing and reasonable discussion of facts and evidence. It all has to be 'her way' or the highway. Broken record replies with the procession of the same old disreputable 'independent' and unaccountable sites. What motivates the few to post the same old, same old for countless years on a site like this and impervious to any opposing argument and evidence no-one will ever know.

Gee OTB, I hope you aren't suggesting our society should have more liberal gun laws because of all the violent mental health patients out there that need shooting?

We should be overhauling the mental health system and not putting more guns out there so that poor depressed people can more easily commit suicide, or take others out with them more easily.

All the evidence I need that our gun laws are working is that we don't have the same murder by gun rates as the gun-happy Americans have.

The have their 'God given right to bear arms', but we have the right to live in a far less violent society, and I am thankful for that.