Perhaps some posters might benefit from reading this < http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-study-demolishes-almost-every-gun-control-myth/ >

WORTH HIGHLIGHTING.
This interesting thread drew many posts.
At first in looking for answers to a crime most find gutless and want to end we put thoughts up.
Length of sentences given and actually served got support,make both firm seemed the required action.
For sure almost every one wanted an end to king hits
SOME HOW the gun debate was opened up here.
And SOMEHOW my call for no freeing up of current laws SAW AN INVENTION SURFACE.
That invention from at least the bellowing undiplomatic and unhappy
OTB and maybe you Is Mise is/was that I at any time called for tougher gun laws!
Show me when!
It is imposable to debate with folk who invent your thoughts then compact that stupidity by insulting you for the words you never said.
It is true, from this thread and others years back I have stood against freeing up hand gun laws.
And a sad fact for my combative Hans Christian Anderson opponents that Australia thinks in numbers too big to ignore we are well served by current gun law.
PS HCA too wrote children's story's.

Belly,

If we are well served by the current gun laws please explain why if I need percussion caps for my muzzle-loading guns I have to produce my Shooters' Licence in the local gun shop but further down the road in three other shops (that are not licenced gun dealers) I can buy percussion caps, by the hundreds, and I don't have to produce the licence.
The three other shops are not breaking the law, their sales of percussion caps are legal.

The same goes for Maynard's Patent Pellet Primers; if the Firearms Dealer sells them to a person who is not licenced then he can be fined and have his licence cancelled, but the three shops down the road can and do sell them without restriction.

After 18 years of the current laws there are still such stupid anomalies.

We are indeed being "served" by the gun laws.

Belly,

You said "....For sure almost every one wanted an end to king hits
SOME HOW the gun debate was opened up here...."

It was opened up because a pistol or other firearm is the only way, in some circumstances, that a person can defend themselves from unlawful attack.
You seem to think that this it is OK that some must be sacrificed for the good of the many.

You haven't yet told us why all the dire predictions about people having arms for self protection didn't happen pre-1996 when licenced concealed carrying of pistols for such protection was allowed.

Isn't it ironic that those that support the right to self defense, deny people the tools with which to do so?

You do agree that people should have the right to defend their gift of life do you not, belly?

How is a person supposed to defend themselves without any form of weapon? In Victoria, woman aren't even allowed a can of pepper spray FFS!

I am finding it imposable to talk to minds that are closed.
I thought better of Is Mise but am not supprised at RMs contributions.
I along with the vast majority of Australians consider more hand guns say more death on the streets.
These filth who king hit are in some cases likely to kill if they have guns.
We see daily shootings now and need them like a hole in the head.
Do not tell me we the over riding majority are wrong and you two right.