is Mise, I have asked you to comment on what I see as ideal. All you do is prattle on about Greens policy.

Do you, or do you not, support the granting of firearm licenses to people FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN SELF DEFENSE, American Style? A question you keep dodging.

Paul,

US citizens do not need a licence to have a firearm for self defence, I do wish that you would do a bit of research.
Do I think that the system that pertained in NSW before the introduction of the current firearms laws should be reinstated?

That is licenced "Possess, Use and Carry" of pistols and no licencing of long arms, then the answer is "YES".

I believe that self defence is a fundamental right of all Australian citizens, and that therefore they also have a right to have an adequate means of self defence.

John Howard didn't think so but that didn't stop him from enjoying the security of having armed bodyguards, hence the nick name "Howard the Coward".

Now do tell me why the Greens are against a farmer's wife USING a gun to defend her child against a wild dog?

Only recently, near Tenterfield, NSW, a child was savaged by a fox, why would the Greens want to stop the father from USING his gun to save his child?

Answers, Paul.

Is Mise, i cannot agree with giving people guns, willy-nilly, US style. It can only lead to massive numbers killed for no reason.
Another gunnie has gone off the rails, this time in Germany, where a Ali Sonboly has opened fire, killing 9 people and wounding 27. Guns in society has to be stopped, wherever possible.
Do you favour over the counter gun sales for self defense, with little or no checks?

Paul,

We adopted the Canadian model of firearms registration which Canada has now abandoned because it didn't work.
Tell me about all the crimes that have been solved because of registration and all the criminals that have registered their guns.

Tell us all how Monis was stopped from getting an illegally modified prohibited weapon.

Hi Paul,

At the risk of keeping this side-issue going any longer - and to hasten to add that I agree with you about reducing the number of guns in any country, especially automatics and repeaters - it's all so easy to declare that ' .... Guns in society has to be stopped .... ', preferably by next Thursday at 2 pm. The problem is 'how' ?

There are three hundred million or more guns owned by private users in the US. Even in Australia, I would venture to suggest that the number of guns out there would be in the millions.

In the US, the Constitution protects the right of all citizens to carry guns (of course, if you're Black, for Christ's sake, don't wave it around). Taking baby steps, is it possible that the Supreme Court could be persuaded to slowly bring this under tighter control, for example, by requiring that:

* every, say five years, a gun-owner must renew a Certificate of Safety for each of his weapons, or surrender them as 'dangerous' or 'unreliable' weapons;

* every five years, a gun-owner must renew a Certificate of Competence, that he or she is considered by, say, two doctors to be mentally and temperamentally competent enough to own a gun;

* that anybody convicted of an offence incurring imprisonment for longer than a year to be barred from owning a gun for a further five years - if imprisonment for violent crimes, then barred for ten years;

* that the definitions of 'arms' and 'super-lethal weapon' (i.e. automatics, machine-guns, bazookas, cannons, etc.) be differentiated, and authority for their use be also defined, and confined to certain categories of users.

The Supreme Court could gradually ratchet up the strictness of conditions for gun use.

Something like that ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

The Supreme Court could do the same about cars and trucks and save even more lives, social engineering can have wide applications.

Gun crime in the US is declining anyway.