Is Mise, I am not questioning the existing law, what I have asked is simple;

Do you agree, or disagree with the supposition that the ordinary citizen being of arbitrary good character should be free to carry a firearm for the purposes of self defense.

I disagree with that supposition. Your view?

Paul1405,

That is all ducking and red herrings.

What relevant academic qualifications does Professor Alpers have?

Taking (say) the time he has been with the University of Sydney, where and when has he published his research in journals of stature and what was the result of the peer review?

Paul,

Of course the ordinary citizen should be able to have a firearm for self defebce; he/she has a natural and legal right to self defence therefore it logically follows that there exists a right to possess an adequate means of defence.

The State has the right to require an adequate standard of training, such as that given to police, who are, after all, ordinary citizens.

Is Mise, your are entitled to your view, but like thousands of others in the community I will continue to resists violence in all its forms. Be it gun violence in a domestic situation, or premeditated murder by criminals, state sanctioned murder in times of war, no matter what the circumstance people still needlessly lose their lives to guns. After all guns really only have one purpose, and that is to kill.

I don't know what motivates you to believe that by arming ordinary citizens of arbitrary good character, whoever they are,
will in someway make both the individual and society safer. Possibly you are drawing on the 'American experience' witch indicates the exact opposite.

We have had another tragedy, this time in South Australia, where a mum and her two young children have been found dead in horrific circumstances in a farmhouse north of Adelaide. As yet police have not released details of what exactly occurred. A man has been taken into custody in relation to the matter and charged with three counts of murder.

Paul1405,

The deceitful, opportunist NSW 'Watermelon' Greens are the perfect 'Useful Idiots' for 'Gun control' aren't they? It is a match made in heaven, or more likely that other place.

'Gun control' is about confiscations and bans affecting lawful, licensed citizens. It is NOT about deterring or collaring criminals, or even higher penalties. The last mentioned was proved by the refusal of the NSW Greens to support harsher penalties for the illegal possession and use of guns.

As well and as if anymore proof is needed of the breathtaking mendacity of the Greens, there they are along with Qld Labor Premier Anastasia Palaszczuk white-anting and promising to trash the successful Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 (VLAD). This Act that survived an expensive Bikie appeal to the High Court of Australia is an act of the Parliament of Queensland, enacted to "severely punish members of criminal organisations that commit serious offenses".

This is a regular occurrence, but NOT a problem for the Greens or 'gun control',

<Hells Angels bikie found with gun, cocaine: police
May 30 2016
A semi-automatic handgun and cocaine have been seized from the car of an alleged senior Hells Angels bikie on the Gold Coast.

Police said they pulled over two men on the Gold Coast Highway at Broadbeach on Saturday night and found a .22 calibre gun and silencer.

Police say an alleged Hells Angels bikie had a gun and drugs in his car during a traffic stop on the Gold Coast..>
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/hells-angels-bikie-found-with-gun-cocaine-police-20160530-gp70h0.html

tbc..

Paul,

"Of course the ordinary citizen should be able to have a firearm for self defebce; he/she has a natural and legal right to self defence therefore it logically follows that there exists a right to possess an adequate means of defence."

Debate that statement; do you not believe that people have a right to defend themselves against unlawful attack?