Is Mise, The Greens can not be held responsible for the incompetence of the Prime Minister! If anyone should have a grip on the situation it should be Abbott. Obviously his erroneous comments in relation to Mad Man Monis shows the ineptitude of the fella. Or was there a more sinister motive behind his comment, shift the blame to someone else, like the NSW Police Commissioner.
As for your post dated December 18th 2014, and I quote "Today's revelation (by PM Abbott) that the gunman at the Sydney siege had a gun licence must lead to tougher gun laws across the country." That opening sentence justifies David Shoebridge completely.

Since you think Greens policy on firearms is "laughable" then you must be in favor of the following policy, which is opposite to The Greens policy.

1 An increase in firearm violence in the community.
2 A proliferation of firearms to cause injury and death.
3 A total acceptance of gun violence as a fact of life.
4 No legal controls on guns.
5 Rural gun owners should be free to shoot anything and anybody they like. After all they are a "special" case.
6 Dodge City syndrome, everyone should carry a shooter to blast it out with anyone who get in their way.
7 Unrestricted importation of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
8 Target practice in schools for all child over 5, got to shoot straight to get em' before they get you.
9 A free hand gun (loaded) with every 'Happy Meal' purchased at McDonalds.

I am proud of Greens policy on Firearms. Thanks for the link, any sensible person reading it, will no doubt agree with it.

Paul,

Dubious humour won't get you or the Greens off the hook,
the lies are still on their web page, twenty-nine (29) days after the AFP admitted that there had been a mistake.

Why is this so?

Incompetence comes to mind as does the idea that if it's left up there someone might believe it.
When first posted it might have been a mistake even though it was two (2) hours after the AFP correction but to leave it up deliberately for a further 29 days makes it a deliberate untruth.

Greens' Firearm Policy.(Example 1)

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

OK, Paul, it's black humour but surely humour none the less.

"7. That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

Is Mise are you suffering from the Dodge City Syndrome? I assume you only want to arm the adult population, ore will children also be tough how to be 'gunslingers' as well. In your ideal society will all be entitled to carry a concealed weapon for as you would call it "personal protection", like they did in the wild west town of Dodge City. Now that is as laughable as the Shooters and Fisher NSW policy of allowing saving hunting dogs onto public land where families and their children camp and play.

Paul,

Analyse the sentence,

"That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."

and tell us all what it really means, take your time, look for the real meaning, that is what it plainly states.

Don't bother to project onto me what you think that I think certain things, just (for once) answer the question.

I

Paul,

Whilst you are in an analytical frame of mind you might have a look at the following and tell us all what it means?

"Now that is as laughable as the Shooters and Fisher NSW policy of allowing saving hunting dogs onto public land where families and their children camp and play."

Do you mean 'savage'?

Hi ONTHEBEACH...

I don't think many ordinary, sensible people would place too much stock on anything the 'Greens' may say ? Some of their statements concerning F/A's are mischievous and quite fanciful. 'None of us' want the criminal element, or those with serious mental impairment, within a 'Bull's Roar' of a gun of any type.

That said, Australia in fact every country on this planet has need of a F/A of one sort or another, for their very existence, as well as a very large number of mature, well adjusted individuals who pursue a sport, where a F/A is an integral part of that sport. That doesn't include the thousands of primary producer's who need guns to rid their property of all manner of vermin, as well as (humane) animal destruction in times of emergency and severe drought.

There are a great number of legitimate hunters who lawfully take game for the table, though personally myself I do not hunt, but that's purely a personal preference, and I for one do not wish to see lawful hunting banned, simply because I oppose that activity !

Unfortunately, I really believe they're becoming quite precarious, because they tend to have an appeal to many of the younger more radical and less informed individuals, who seek nothing better than to destabilise our society, for reasons that are yet unclear ?

In their early days, I generally supported much of their 'green policies' mantra, protection of our forests, and waterways, and much of our fauna and flora ? Today, they've drifted right away from those laudable issues, and seemed to have become almost a rebellious group of activitests who stand for nothing, but to dislocate good governance, by automatically blocking many of the more important pieces of legislation in the Senate ? Whatever major party is in power.

And that is far from productive, because many of the 'Captains of Industry' cannot make sound financial policies and decisions for their individual Companies without government legislative stability.