Time to leave the thread.
Not with my tail between my legs but for the sake of this site.
I have a total understanding of this country,s gun laws.
At first saw Howard,s policy as a threat.
But know to of Americas horrible history of little or no gun control.
So as threads I posted long ago and others, have said we do not need to change.
IF I could lock one poster up in a gun closet I would continue this worthy subject.
As he has neither the class or best wishes for this site in mind it must be me who leaves.
But to even my worst opponents LOOK at the unfounded child like charges about me he places here.
He claims he knows my mind.
OTB is a sand paper like taunter not just of me but many.
I love this site have supported it and intend to for ever , not posts but cash.
What however is to come if more balanced posters leave because of this troll.
For that is what he is no other description describes his intent to do verbal combat with any who hold views other than his

In today's Sun Herald there is an interesting article on our topic; in it a senior NSW policeman defends the status quo, as tougher laws, such as the ones in Newcastle, would in his opinion hurt Sydney's international image.

Wow!!

Belly,

Taking your bat and ball and leaving the pitch without even the mildest apology to the many thousands of respectable LAFOs you offend, damn and defame entirely without evidence when you deliberately and callously conflate LAFOs with criminal offenders.

You leave because you would prefer to bury your head in the sand bucket rather than confront the possibility that you might be wrong.

It bears repeating that I would much prefer to put my trust in the word and behaviour of those many thousands of proven respectable law-abiding Aussie LAFOs you disrespect than hysterical gun control zealots who are likely getting their support, funding and marching orders from a secretive foreign currency dealer who conspired to send the Bank of England broke.

Is Mise,

I would very much like to know what 'tougher gun laws' do. The crimes committed with weapons, such as threatening, harming and killing others are already illegal and stiff penalties are there for judges to decide.

Exactly how do 'tougher gun laws' affect offenders when they have already chosen to break laws, eg laws against burglary or trafficking drugs, and tools such as weapons, cars, mobile phones and so on are a secondary decision. Ban everything?

Does it take a brick Council dunny to fall on some people to make them realise the obvious truth before them, that the $$windfalls from drug trafficking are easily able to corrupt to the very top of society? 'Tougher gun laws' are the talk of lazy and sometimes corrupt politicians.

Why is it that effective cooperation between jurisdictions is seemingly impossible to maintain except for particular exercises and after, the skills are usually cast to the winds?

There are well-proven ways to deal with corruption and criminal gangs. When police say they don't get support, they are usually looking upwards. They are very game to admit the obvious, which could shorten their career if they are more specific.

I don't know about that ONTHEBEACH, I think you're being a bit hard on BELLY, old man ? I really don't think BELLY is in anyway disparaging or defaming anyone who chooses to pursue sporting shooting as a pastime. I don't like golf, but many of my friends and work colleagues play the game, can I say fanatically and zealously ?

I think he's merely expressing an opinion that supports many of those people who are opposed to F/A's being in the community. Unless there's a very good and legitimate reason for them to have one. As I said in an earlier thread, mention guns to anyone, and it can get quite emotive and aggressive, even between good friends, even family members.

"Unless there's a very good and legitimate reason for them to have one"

What about you be required to provide a legitimate reason for approvals to conduct your recreational pursuits? Where does it start and end? A car and mobile phone are much more valuable to a crim than a noisy gun. What about 'car control' and 'mobile phone control'? What legitimate reasons do you have for possessing either? Are you of good character and without a criminal record, no matter how far back?

Belly regularly conflates criminals and criminal behaviour with the LAFOs. He should be accountable for what he asserts.

As well, shouldn't laws be based on evidence? Thinking need and outcome.

Speaking of which, there is absolutely no evidence, none, zilch, nada of the Howard initiated 'gun control' preventing crime. The reason is obvious: the Howard-inspired regulations are as I said previously redundant bureaucratic busywork that do squat, take police away from collaring criminals and slag respectable LAFOs, who have already been required to prove that they are law-abiding and safe.

The licence is the only robust, effective control. But not that or bans will ever prevent criminals from conducting their business as usual. The state of play ATM is that there are windfall profits to be made from drug trafficking. The gangs use all manner of means to enforce, get paid and stake out territory. Gun crime is a minor part of the widespread serious violence and crime, but it makes for sexy headlines. The easy-out for politicians is 'gun control' - which does SFA to prevent crime. Or hasn't anyone noticed that the Howard-inspired 'gun control' has had no effect on the street?

Why should random posters be able to come on here and slag respectable citizens? In this case LAFOs, without anyone saying, 'Hey hold on there, where is your evidence' and making them accountable?