Tony Lavis,

You display a woeful lack of knowledge of the Weapons Acts and regulations concerning firearms.

It is not my job to educate you. Suffice it to say however that the licensing involves police checks of character and records held by police and others. The Police Commissioner has considerable leeway and discretion to prevent the issuing or holding of a licence. Any conviction or implied drug use or dealing would not see a licence issued. All criminal offences are considered, not just relating to drugs.

As well, there is a very broad scope for a licence to be taken away and even an unfair and unsupported allegation can easily result in expensive and likely treasured firearms being confiscated along with the licence. The onus of proof is reversed.

That would be similar to you having police arrive on your doorstep to confiscate your motor vehicle/s and drivers licence on suspicion or an allegation without requiring any decision by a court to do so, and putting the reverse onus of proof on you to show cause why you should get them back......in time and after you have instigated expensive court proceedings if it was a firearm. You get none of that money back either.

I will leave it at that, which should satisfy the fair and open-minded or at least encourage further research if they wanted. However it does suggest that it is very unlikely that the law-abiding good citizens who have satisfied the conditions for a licence would use drugs and if they did they would very soon be without the said licence.

It shouldn't be forgotten either that the citizen with the firearms licence is in effect always on trail and on top of that has to regularly go back through the full application process. You wouldn't accept that where you car licence is concerned though, would you?

A hoplophobe, someone irrationally prejudiced against ordinary respectable law-abiding citizens lawfully possessing and using firearms, would always find a way to quibble. S/he would never be satisfied with anything short of a complete ban. Totalitarianism which most people would reject.

One poster works over time to show us his self confidence is an over estimation on his part.
At some point this thread was high jacked by the gun nuts.
Using the silly superstitioun if more victims had guns more would ? what not be raped?
Along the way scattering accusations at most for thoughts we do not have but he made up, that poster now takes on another.
Tony Lavis is the target, but how many missed it? the yet again putting his thoughts feeble as they are in another's mouth.
Then offering to educate!
Few if any single one of us do not know the current gun laws in this country.
In fact unless I am quite mad the debate was based around his and another wish to loosen it up.
While the never do that team said no.
Well done however
! for turning a debate against a crime like rape to your hobby horse , the horse seems to want to carry you in to verbal confrontation in every thread with almost every one.

Belly,

I am not the enemy, those who spin lies are.

John Howard covered up what could have been a cruel outcome of selling off the excellent Commonwealth mental health and rehabilitation services and he won a windfall election as a result.

That doesn't excuse the mongrel who committed the dreadful crime. But had he been in one of the previous Commonwealth institutions or occupied in a sheltered workshop (all sold off), the dreadful event may never have happened. That is not to lay blame at Howard either, the offender chose and made fiendish plans to accomplish his ends.

What is interesting though is that John Howard most likely claimed credit for an idea, albeit flawed, that very likely wasn't his own in the first place. There are those close to Howard who say that it was always his wife Janette's idea, not his own. Howard himself admitted as much in unguarded moments -that it was not something he had first thought of, but he had become convinced of. Those burning ears!

His whole Cabinet were opposed because the 'gun control' was not directed at the cause and offered no solutions to gun crime. Howard was resolute, he had his own kitchen cabinet to contend with at home and steering him. Janine made Howard. Janine was the steely strategic thinker, the astute Machiavelli intimately involved in all of his decisions. Later, the LNP like all political parties is obliged to maintain the image and myth to protect its icon.

Lies once repeated can easily become the truth. John Howard struts his 'gun control', which in itself is all spin, a mountain of ineffective, bureaucratic paper that wastes police time monitoring law abiding citizens much to the delight of offenders, and he also basks in the 'Man of Steel' tag given by George Bush. But what if it was actually the woman of steel behind, Janine, whose 'gun control' got up and possibly who also deserved Bush's praise for compliance with his plans too.

Here is an article by a journalist who could see behind the spin,

http://www.virginiahaussegger.com.au/column_details.php?id=58

I referred to 'Janette' on one occasion whereas Janine was correct.

The correction is a good opportunity to post a quote that seems apt when discussing the claimed but unproved 'success' of Australia's gun control,

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
Michael Ende, The Neverending Story

OTB some thing within me wants to let you down softly.
I am no bully, believe me with some truly truculent posters I have, again and again dishonored my promise to ignore them.
Every one has a reason to come here, GY must have noted it is near therapy for some if not most of us.
Some need to be heard.
I too want to express my views and yes learn from other posters.
I have learned a great deal right here.
I have witnessed very bright Liberal posters, and the same with Labor.
Our personality do not always translate in print.
Our facial expressions from that sly grin as we jokingly prod one an other, our snarl too may not come across.
I have as I said grown here, but posted in two other forums over 5.000 posts.
Boy have I learned to be better along the way, I was once just a head kicking loud mouth in a page set up student.
You come across as anti woman, anti to a fault Labor and anti any thoughts not your own.
You mate over value your thoughts and greatly devalue others.
IF WE ALL IN LIFE CONFRONTED THE OTHER SIDE AS YOU DO WE WOULD BE IN A NEVER ENDING CIVIL WAR.
I offer my true opinion not a taunt we all should understand we cannot judge others without being judged, and that is how it should be.

That is your swamp Belly. I will not join you in it.
Have a good day.