Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

Silly me, a mere slip of the tongue my friend.

Hi there IS MISE...

I don't propose to argue with you my friend, as a retired Det.Sgt, I've got a reasonably good idea as to the F/A laws in NSW as it existed prior to '96 and thereafter. It is quite true however, prior to 1996, a legitimate reason need not be furnished to police, in order to own a rifle or shotgun.

Your comments apropos the former PM John Howard, had his own 'armed protection' ? Your knowledge on this matter is obviously superior to mine

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/the-father-of-bondi-beach-bashing-victim-michael-mcewen-reaches-out-to-the-family-of-daniel-christie-and-calls-for-action/story-fnii5s41-1226793793460
0 sung wo, no mate never!this link proves what was already clear.
This thread and the open discussion this country is having had to come.
Mate do not be confronted by some posters displaying an inability to stay within the bounds set firmly by public opinion.
The link should open minds and eyes, with luck hearts too.
We just can not continue to turn our heads and forget it could be our family hurting today.
A real life event may have a message in it for you.
Some years ago, at a truck rollover three truck drivers crawled to the only police officer then on site.
It became so bad I said *have you blokes heard the trash talked about police on truckers CB Radio*
The Cops grin was huge.
Any one can claim what they want about police, without them we would not leave home.
Show me a job, any job, that has not got both good and bad in it.

Are we now on the road from bad to worse ? Anyone king hitting another unprovoked should get a mandatory sentence of ten years & if there is an injury then add another fife years & if the injury is permanent or fatal then the sentence must be life.
Whilst in jail the culprit has to work to pay for the victim's costs.

o sung wu, "It is quite true however, prior to 1996, a legitimate reason need not be furnished to police, in order to own a rifle or shotgun"

It bears saying that the only robust and effective control is in the licensing of the individual.

Howard introduced a heap of bureaucratic red tape and busywork for police that does nothing to treat risk. He was good at selling that to the public and his publicity campaign won him an election. That was what it was about, whipping boys and spin to win.

Can anyone inform me specifically what 'benefits' accrued from sooling the police onto respectable citizens with licences? Now every respectable law-abiding licensed person is on the police computer as a 'person of interest'. The firearms branches and trained officers in local stations are occupied with monitoring the same law-abiding citizens, and conducting random inspections in their homes. The firearms legitimately sourced, bought and owned by respectable citizens are on a hugely expensive registry that is never correct and has never solved a crime (because criminals don't register their guns, silly!).

That is one heck of a lot of abuse of the rights of citizens who are known to be law-abiding and of good character, otherwise they wouldn't have a licence.

Worse, it led to higher risks. Because police are preoccupied with looking over the shoulders of ordinary respectable citizens, and because the particulars and addresses of lawfully licensed owners and what they own are on screens in police cars and in stations, with NO other security but the general requirement of police and civilians employed to do the right thing. A tap or two of a key and the personal details of thousands of respectable citizens are available to criminal gangs. Because not every person working in the law enforcement is 100% trustworthy.

All a damned waste of resources too, because it is the licence that is the only effective and robust control. The rest is all wasteful, expensive window dressing for the mug gun control hoplophobes and the feckless talk show jocks and current affairs hacks.

G'day there ONTHEBEACH...

You're quite correct my friend. Politicians from both parties whenever in power, mandate some edict or other, and it's left to us and other public servants, to carry out their directives.

As you well know with F/A's, it's far easier to regulate and control those ordinary, law abiding citizens who always comply with the law, whatever it is, and whether or not they agree with that law or not ?

There are laws we all have to live with, and because it's in our nature to obey those laws, we simply do ? Legislation post Port Arthur did little to keep F/A's out of the hands of crooks. What it did do, it made a lot of law compliant citizens angry, because of the additional imposts placed on the legitimate shooter.

Many believe, post Port Arthur, because of the political imperative, immediately after the tragedy, many of the additional F/A laws were substantially ill-conceived purely because the relevant authorities wanted to have some measure of control, in place. And also because of the demands made by the anti-gun lobby, who were 'beating down' the government's doors demanding immediate action ? Consequently, we have a bit of a 'dog's breakfast' concerning F/A regulation and control.

I must also apologise to the Moderators, for being so far off Topic ! Though, with any unlawful violent act, come questions concerning measures of self protection which, for better or worse, always brings us back to F/A's. I'm sorry.

o sung wo GY will soon let us know if he thinks we are too far of subject, we have tended to wander in every thread I ever saw here.
Reading some press for free online is still possible.
I do so every morning first Goggle news, then three locals all Fairfax and all have main press story's.
In my waddle through these today two separate story's about king hit exist.
Seems clear public out rage is at its peak, signed a petition to call on NSW leader to address this just minutes ago.
The thread and its thoughts expressed make it a very good one for that I thank you.