Hi there PAUL1405...

The proposition that the existing F/A's law in NSW might be broadened sufficiently, to permit a F/A to be licenced for the exclusive purpose of self-protection ? I don't believe we'll ever see it, either here in NSW, or in any other State or Territory, in Australia ?

I could be quite wrong, however if they were to permit such a licencing variation, they'd more likely licence a handgun, rather than permitting a rifle or shotgun to be used for self-defence ? Even in the US the various States opt out for handguns, and even then that includes a 'concealed carry' permit when the licensee is absent from their normal place of abode ?

That is to say, should an individual seek a F/A for protection, if granted (and it usually is) they issue a permit that includes both private and public possession, and concealed carriage. It's for this reason, if we here in Australia, were ever to seek an appropriate model, we'd more than likely follow the US system...if the permit's granted, then it's a case of 'all or nothing', basically ?

And never just a rifle or shotgun exclusively ? It's been determined in the United States at least, a handgun (by it's design) is purely for defensive measures ? In recent times however, as we all recognise, the use of handguns have been broadened somewhat, and are now used in various sporting activities, including hunting, and are no longer consigned 'exclusively' for protection ?

Hi O Sung Wu,

As an ex-policeman surly you of all people can see the dangers of allowing the general populace to be armed for so called self-defense. It truly would be Dodge City and the wild west, except it would not be 30,000 people but in Sydney's case 4,000,000.

Some of the Shooters and Fishers Parties policy I actually support, but as a thinking human being I find a policy which states;

"Establishing the ‘genuine reason’ of Family and Personal Protection for lawful possession of a firearm." end of quote. Pure madness.

In your career did you ever come across a person, say in a "domestic", who had done something terrible to the other party, which he or she has regretted doing later on. If you shoot someone dead and regret it later, nothing in this world can bring them back.

Recently in Sydney we had an Irish national king hit his own brother, almost killing him, through alcohol fueled anger, you know what I'm saying, give him a gun! Never. What some do not realise, that S&F above policy is going to put hundreds of extra guns on the streets of my city alone on a Saturday night.

Hi (again) PAUL1405...

At the risk of being beaten to death by a few other's on this Topic I do agree with you, as would just about every single copper in this country. It wouldn't matter how carefully you'd screen potential licence holders, even if say 2% or 3% of every applicant proved they possessed a 'low frustration tolerance' (quick tempered) that is too greater risk to discount ?

One need only to observe the United States to see what can happen when some people (notwithstanding 'gender' either) 'goes postal', and it's the coppers that need to clean up the mess and front the criticism, 'for doing' or for 'not doing' something or other ? One of the greatest difficulties faced by TRG or SOG police is your 'Monday morning quarterback' telling us what we did wrong, particularly the media. If evidence is required of that statement, one need only look at the comments associated with the Martin Place (MANIS) hostage drama ?

Imagine if every responsible adult was permitted to carry a handgun ostensibly for self-protection, it wouldn't look like Dodge City, it would resemble more like the landings of 'D' Day ! I know some long serving police with rank, given the right (wrong) circumstances, even they, are quite capable of coming out of their respective trees. Look at some of the 'road rage' incidences, it's not referred to as 'rage' for nothing ! All you need to do is push the right buttons, and well.... ?

O sung wu,

In the days of 'Possess, Usu and Carry' pistol licences in NSW there were no problems, I had one for years and never did I do my block, get drunk etc.
In fact I never drew in anger and on the two occasions when I justifiably might have, I merely pulled my coat back so that the would be crim could see the danger that he was in; instant fright-flight.

Paul,

Would you like me to tell you what that appalling Greens sentence means?
Probably you wouldn't but here goes:

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

If that were law then a person who would now be judged not guilty for using a firearm to defend life would have committed an offence by using a firearm.
Now the Greens, in all honesty, probably don't intend this meaning but there it is, in black and white; lack of forethought perhaps, lack of English skills or just the usual plain old incompetence?

The insult to the Commissioner and the lie about Monis are still up on the NSW Greens' site,
When can we expect that long overdue apology?

Paul1405,

Why would the Greens deliberately promote false information on their site? A lie that disgraces the NSW Police Commissioner and the NSW police?

So much for the credibility and ethics of Greens' Shoebridge!

Hi IS MISE...

I'm sure that's very true of you, given your extensive background with small arms, both as a Veteran, and as an individual who's vocation it is, that he's primarily surrounded by F/A's ?

You'd also recognise, with that long protracted exposure to weapons, one does gain a certain familiarity with them over time. As a consequence you tend to exercise a much greater degree and awareness of their safety features, then possibly an individual who may be carrying a handgun for the first time ? Even though he may be appropriately trained and licensed etc. ! I believe you know precisely what I mean, IS MISE ?
.