According to research from the American gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, FBI data on mass shootings from 2009 to 2016 showed that in 54% of the cases, the attacker killed an intimate partner, like a spouse or former spouse, or another family member.

In the recent mass shooting at the Merrylands Capital Gazette where five people were killed, it has been revealed that the accused killer Jarrod Ramos had a clear history of harassment and stalking of a woman known to him. In 2011 a Merrylands woman, who had been a high school classmate of Ramos's revealed to the Capital Gazette that she had answered messages from Ramos, telling the newspaper she was just “being friendly”, but soon realized the situation was “turning into something that gave me a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach”. “He seems to think there’s some sort of relationship here that does not exist,”. “I tried to slowly back away from it, and he just started getting angry and vulgar to the point I had to tell him to stop.” He harassed her for more than a year.
Like the Capital Gazette shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter who killed 32 people also allegedly stalked classmates. The Pulse nightclub shooter who killed 49 people allegedly beat, raped and controlled his wife. The shooter who targeted a Parkland, Florida, high school allegedly abused his ex-girlfriend, before he killed 17 people.

American research reveals that in a high number of cases, gun owners often direct their extreme gun violence towards people they know, or harass other persons known to them before they commit their extreme acts. Like America, should Australia be concerned that not enough is done to determine the mental state of those who in the first instance apply for a gun licence, and then their ongoing mental fitness to hold such a licence.

“Like America, should Australia be concerned that not enough is done to determine the mental state of those who in the first instance apply for a gun licence, and then their ongoing mental fitness to hold such a licence.”

Thanks to the Green-like knee jerk reaction by John Howard, we have extremely draconian laws on guns. What goes on in America is not our concern. And, do you have any idea of the cost and practicalities of determining the “mental state” of even the relatively few people wanting firearms in Australia? For decent, law-abiding citizens, there is a virtual ban on gun ownership. Who wants to put themselves through the rigamarole of acquiring a firearms licence? Those wanting a firearm can get one illegally with no hassle from the law.

We are more at risk from drunks and druggies on the roads,politicians and a non-performing judiciary than we are from guns.

drunks, druggies, road accidents, don't necessarily kill.
Guns do.

Foxy,

"drunks, druggies, road accidents, don't necessarily kill.
Guns do."

Guns don't necessarily kill either; how would you kill someone with a Zimmerstutzen?
Haven't you ever heard of being wounded?

Paul, It's Maryland, not Merrylands, that's a suburb in Sydney.

Do be a good lad and get a free Spellcheck or, better still, Grammarly (which is also free and gives one a weekly progress report!)..

As far as I am concerned gun control was the best thing Howard did. I was an advisor to Senator Woodley at the time, and we would get "Lock, Stock and Barrel" sent to us' It was a publication by a pro-gun group, and they of course opposed the controls. Howard reacted to the Martin Bryant massacre the way a caring prime minister should act.

I totally agree that this was one thing that John
Howard did well. It was a responsible act that any
good Prime Minister should do.

Dear Is Mise,

I'll take my chances with being able to avoid road
accidents any day of the week as opposed to fending
off a gun-toting individual.

If we had a National Service we'd have a better mentality througout & fewer problems & definitely less violence. A lot of violence is stupidity based & some for want of a better description is harrassment based by authorities.
If someone "loses it" straght away it's mental illness. It is not, it is people being pushed too far by idiots who mill around doing a lot of harm & are fully protected.
I can't see why anyone ould morally justify owning a high powered gun for spot/target shooting. An air rifle is enough for that. Bushwalkers need something powerful for obvious reasons as do farmers & people frequenting areas of dangerous to humans wildlife. City dwellers should only have guns for target shooting clubs & they should be allowed to brandish & if the need arises use them as a deterrent to intruders. Self defence must not be a criminal offence no matter what kind of weapon is used.

More dangerous than guns is Green’s Adam Bandt congratulating Fitzroy High School for instructing 12 year olds on how to send nude pictures of themselves. The school has a course called The Art Of Safe Sexting as part of its ‘safe’ schools obsession. He and the Marxist wackos running the school are apparently not aware that sending or receiving naked photos of people under the age of 18 was a criminal offence.

Issy, is that your only concern in this matter, how one spells Merrylands, or is that Marylands, I write my own material. Obviously you accept my assertion that there is a need for stringent and exhaustive mental assessments of would be gunnies seeking a licence, and as well, on going annual mental assessments of all licence holders. I believe mental assessments are vital if the community is to be protected from these nutters. The cost is irrelevant, if it costs $1000 or more per year, per licence, then the new applicant, or the existing licence holder pays the full cost, even if they fail! You cannot put a price on public safety.
As a reasonable person I believe you will agree with me on this one.

Foxy you are very wrong on that one.

Drunks & druggies, causing road accidents do kill, & they kill a lot more people than citizens with guns, even in the USA.

I have owned one or more gun for 60 years now, & you know, not one of them ever killed anyone. Hell I have at least 30 friends who's guns have never killed anyone.

Many of them have put food on the table, protected young stock, in my case my foals, eliminated predators, put down injured wildlife, & injured, infirm or diseased pets.

In passing I did once have a vet give a much loved cancer ridden horse a lethal injection, & having seen the result, swore I would always use a gun in future. Believe me, the animals I have had to put down, & used my rifle, died with much less pain than that horse.

Our government used to believe they could trust me with a plane with 6 quite big guns, & 8 explosive rockets. Hell they even put me in charge for 4 hours at a time of 6 very big, [4.5" actually] guns, capable of knocking down quite a bit of Sydney quite quickly, yet some people think I & many others like me, can't be trusted with a pop gun or a pea shooter today.

david f Howard made the worst mistake of his life in disarming the population. Some of your decendents will pay a very high price for that bit of gutless stupidity.

And where did you read that ttbn, in your copy of the 'Volkischer Beobachter'? Do you have it home delivered daily?

Yes as much as my memory of Howard is tainted by work choices he did very well in this area, we will never sink to the level of Americas gun lobby and there and here the debate should be about the rights of gun victims first

Paul,

You don’t want to believe it, so you bring out the Nazi card as though it is my fault that one of the Gross Greens you support is sleazy. I don’t suppose your feminist girlfriends will be criticising Bandt either

Nor will you be criticising Ms Hanson?

Dear Hassie,

Your right to have a gun does not out strip my right
not to be shot by one.

Foxy,

"I'll take my chances with being able to avoid road
accidents any day of the week as opposed to fending
off a gun-toting individual."

That's not what you said.

Australia's road deaths per 100.000 population were 4.98 for last year and our total firearms-related death rate was 1.04.

Something drastic needs to be done about car owners.

Then there is the Medical Profession and related matters.

"The age-standardised avoidable death rate in Australia was 108.0 per 100,000 persons. The capital city areas that recorded the highest age-standardised avoidable death rates were Greater Darwin and Greater Hobart (150.7 and 120.8 per 100,000 persons, respectively). The capital cities with the lowest age-standardised avoidable death rate were the Australian Capital Territory, Greater Melbourne and Greater Sydney (82.8, 91.0 and 91.2 per 100,000 persons, respectively). Of all rest of state regions, 'Rest of Northern Territory' recorded the highest avoidable death rate (344.3 per 100,000 persons), which was 3.2 times higher than the rate for Australia as a whole. All ‘rest of state/territory’ regions reported avoidable mortality deaths rates that were higher than the rate for Australia."

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2014~Main%20Features~Potentially%20Avoidable%20Mortality%20~10043

Get your worrying caps on!!

Is Mise,

You tell me what I said.

Belly,

"...and here the debate should be about the rights of gun victims first"

Do you think that gun victims should have had the chance to defend themselves or are you of the same mindset as the Greens and prefer them to be death statistics to further the cause of gun control?

Is Mise,

Thanks to our gun control laws our cities
are much safer than those of the US.

And as police reports and FBI stats in the
US show - gun-owning households are much
more likely to suffer fatalities from their
own weapons than from outsiders.
One study found that only a small percentage
of all slayings in gun-owning
households were for self-protection; the
remainder were suicides, homicides, or
accidental deaths, almost all involving
family members, friends or acquaintances.

The reason given for the proliferation of
handguns in the US is the belief, deeply
held by many Americans, that gunownership
is an individual right. For granting this
liberty to the individual, American
society today is paying the price - especially
by those who abuse this right.

We certainly can learn a lesson from that.

I posted a statistic a few weeks ago that came from America, that more people were saved by people having possession of a gun than people killed by crazies with guns. Not one person commented on that.

People should have the right to defend them self and others.
Australia is becoming more violent by the year.

Foxy,
As your memory seems to be as poor as your grasp of logic, here's what you said,
"drunks, druggies, road accidents, don't necessarily kill.
Guns do."

But guns don't necessarily kill either, and some guns (that are classified as lethal weapons in Australia) could only kill if used as bludgeons.
Haven't you heard of being missed by a shot or of being wounded?
What you said in effect, in your poor English, was that guns necessarily kill.

Is Mise,

You're Irish aren't you?

Issy, 100% of people who jump off the gap die. Does jumping off the gap, like car accidents, make guns safer? When you have no defence for one terrible nasty, you point out some other unrelated nasty, and that supposedly mitigates the nasty you agree with. Strange logic.

ttbn, making up another porky trying to discredit the Greens. Fake news? Corny Banana wants to give loaded guns to five year old's.

Paul,

It's no porky. You are in denial. The Greens denigrate themselves. No help needed. Get out while you can is my advice.

'Volkischer Beobachter'?
Paul1045

If you want to write german then please beobacht it, it's völkischer :-)

Foxy,

Irish, English, Scots, Welsh, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Viking, Russian, Hungarian etc., etc.

What's your point, apart from being racist and trying to duck from your stupid remarks?

Paul,

Australia's licenced firearm owners are among the most, if not the most, law abiding of our citizens, so your topic doesn't apply to us at all.
How are you going on your quest to prove that the US NRA gives funds to the SSAA?
Did you ever find out where the three members of Gun Control Australia get their money from?

Individual,

"I can't see why anyone ould morally justify owning a high powered gun for spot/target shooting. An air rifle is enough for that"

Wow! You certainly don't know anything about air rifles, nor about 1,000 metre target shooting.

Foxy your not being shot has little to do with gun ownership by the general public. Very few people were ever shot by legal guns at any time.

The person who is most likely to shoot you, or any other innocent member of the public, is most unlikely to do it with a legal gun.

No amount of gun laws will ever effect the increasing number of illegal guns in the country. It is one of those, owned by a criminal, or maniac that just might get you.

Of course if I was there with my trusty 6 shooter, [or my concealed Glock], you just might be saved.

Naturally stupid people winding up slightly less stupid people are the #1 cause of people being killed. Natural disasters are cause # 2.
Howard's gun laws have made potential victims out of clear-headed folk by denying them self defence. Disarming the level-headed only gave the insipid & nasty more leverage.

Sooooory Indy,
I'm not a subscriber, but as the editor you should know. Thanks for that correction.

//Of course if I was there with my trusty 6 shooter, [or my concealed Glock], you just might be saved.//

Hassy, I think there are laws about flashing your glock in public. Although I'm sure ttbn will have some more FAKE NEWS that the Greens support 12 years flashing their glocks in public.

Anyway, I thought all you guys would have Luger's, or did you hand them in, in 1945. Field Marshal Rommel, aka Issy, would not leave home with out his trusty Luger stuffed up his dacks. You never know when you might be confronted by Al Capone!

ttbn, this has nothing to do with the Nazi's. How do you think George Christensen would go in a Hermann Göring look-a-like competition.
Indy I've put the little dot dots, on top of the "O" in Göring just for you.

Foxy, you can feel safe, in the knowledge that the Forums team of right wing geriatrics, there's about 6 of them, have formed themselves into a 'Vigilante Brigade'. If you give them your address they'll come down there, and shoot up the neighbourhood late at night just to let you know you are safe from gun toting ratbags!

Is Mise,

It was meant as a joke.

Dear Hassie,

The stats speak for themselves.

And we have the US as a prime example of what not to allow.

Hi There FOXY...

As a former licensing sergeant, it is quite true what IS MISE has asserted. Most licensed gun owners in NSW, are responsible law abiding individuals. The problem arises with the illicit market, currently controlled by the 1%'s, who manage to import many quality handguns into Oz through various means including corrupt Border Protection Officers, and sadly a few corrupt police.

It's hard for me to establish any real opinion on F/A's. I've seen both sides of it. Moreover for some inexplicable reason Guns are such an emotive subject, and when any new Reg. is introduced, to either further control a F/A or the licensee himself, emotions can run very hot indeed.

To illustrate this, I'm quite a big fellow and an ex pug. Rarely will any ordinary person try to verbally talk me down (I'm not referring to drunks, boof-heads or crooks) just ordinary folk. But when I was in the Licensing Squad, there's been many occasions where people of all persuasions, including a number of females, were quite prepared to take me on (verbally), and argue the point with me. Knowing having done so, there's every chance I'll disallow their application; meaning they'd need to appeal to the Magistrate in order to have my decision overturned?

I really don't know what it is about F/A's, it seems to bring out the best and worst in people. By the way, I've not owned a F/A personally for 15 -17 years, the last was a SS Ruger No.1 'Tropical' in .458W magnum. I was a member of the Big Game Rifle Club, putting little holes in paper targets. Given the heavy calibre, and without a muzzle brake, after several serials, my shoulder said enough is enough. I last carried a pistol, on my final day of duty, prior to my retirement - I've come to believe there's more to life than guns and killing FOXY.

Hi o sung wu //Most licensed gun owners in NSW, are responsible law abiding individuals.// I totally agree, any large group in society is mostly made up of responsible law abiding individuals. Its not gun ownership that makes them saints, they are good people to start with, but given certain circumstances even good people can change. The problem is the minuscule minority, and how we deal with them.

The problem is the minuscule minority, and how we deal with them.
Paul1405,
So, how do you suggest we then deal with the Greens ? Gun toting insipids share a very similar mentality.

Due to the high price of ammunition there will be no warning shot.

Dear Paul and O Sung Wu,

I too prefer my democracy unleaded.

G'day PAUL1405...

You're right. Even if every licensed gun owner were perfectly well adjusted, and responsible firearm owners - there's always the exception, after having some sort of domestic interruption goes rogue with his (licensed) F/A to exact carnage upon the community.

I guess it's a risk you've got to take. To do anything else would needlessly punish those 99.99% law abiding shooters, who do everything that's asked of them. Furthermore the sport of Shooting is very big and world wide, as evidenced by the number of events they have in the Olympic Games?

Paul, I've not got any 'Bright' ideas to help curb these massacres that we see all too often in the US.

I've heard Martin BRYANT has become a real problem in Risdon, Hobart. Though the man is hated and loathed by all the other Inmates, he's behaving in an utterly disgusting fashion, in his attempts to obtain chocolate, his favourite food/snack/sweets.

It would appear he'll do "anything" in order to obtain chocolate. He refuses to wash and shower, preferring to eat all his meals and more...and when all avenues of food sources has been exhausted, he retires to his cell and sleeps. No other inmate will have anything to do with him, save for the 'immediate' sexual relief he'll provide, given chocolate. His weight has burgeoned to over 20 stone or so, and he's capable of intimidating younger prisoners with his immense size.

What on earth can you do with a bloke like him?

Foxy Quote "The stats speak for themselves. And we have the US as a prime example of what not to allow."

BS as I have stated before statistics from US show more people have been saved by someone having a gun than people have been killed by a crazy with a gun. What part of that do you not understand.

What on earth can you do with a bloke like him?

o sung wu,

That is the moral dilemma western society has brought upon itself when life for them gradually became too easy & comfortable that they came up with the idea of compassion to make themselves feel less guilty & therefore better.
These laws did not evolve from natural compassion, they were guilt-driven. Now, of course this feel good compassion is bitting us in the butt & is making our society so vulneable to the point of ruining us.
I think those who are now sharing their days with him & relatives of the victims should be given the moral right & duty to decide his fate. It should literally be out of Government's hands.

Hi there Individual...

My friend I couldn't agree more with you. I've always been an opponent of Capital Punishment, but when it concerns Martin BRYANT, well I'm not so sure? Same as that fruit-loop in Victoria, Julian KNIGHT, killer of seven souls in that Hoddle Street mass shooting in Melbourne. A more arrogant, useless piece of flotsam you'd ever care to meet, a 7.62 cal. right between the eyes is a suitable despatch prerogative in my opinion! He's been nothing but trouble since his initial gaoling, costing Victorian taxpayers millions of dollars, and has now been declared as a 'vexatious litigant' by the Courts. A thoroughly nasty piece of work in my view. One that needs putting down.

Dear Philip S.,

This link is only one of many available on the web
describing how US gun deaths compare to other
countries:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/

o sung wu,
hi again.
There's another option I've put forward on several occasions but no response from anyone.
This option is to let the offender serve time to give them a chance to regret what they did but after a designated time give them the opportunity to get out of their misery & off our tax dollars.
Do what they do with Astronauts, have a glass container with a cyanide capsule inside when there's no other way out.
If offenders, after serving sufficient time feel they can't go on they're free to smash the glass & help themselves to the capsule.

Hi (again) INDIVIDUAL...

Not a bad idea at all. In Martin BRYANT'S case he's made several attempts at suicide; all to do with attention seeking. His problem is, nobody actually cares a fig, about the man, so he can do what he likes. Don't be surprised to hear he was successful one day, and that'll make everyone happy.

The more I think of it, the more I agree with you; give them all a cyanid capsule, only after they've served a minimum sentence or 20 years of a life sentence, and they can do what it is they wish to do? Your suggestion has definite merit INDIVIDUAL! Thanks mate.

I favour concentrating on prevention, and proper care for the victims, such as the families who are left behind to live with their grief for the years to come. Retribution on the perpetrators is of cold comfort to those who really suffer.

//more people have been saved by someone having a gun than people have been killed by a crazy with a gun.//

An illogical argument. If there were no guns, then the crazy would not have a gun to shoot people with in the first place. Then no others without guns would be required to prevent a crazy without a gun shooting anyone. Simply put there would be no shooting of anyone.

individual, to watch some pathetic human being do himself in, is only suggested by you to satisfy some perverted pleasure of yours, no thought for the victims at all. No doubt you pulled the wings of flies when you were a kid, for the same reason.

Paul,

"An illogical argument. If there were no guns, then the crazy would not have a gun to shoot people with in the first place. Then no others without guns would be required to prevent a crazy without a gun shooting anyone. Simply put there would be no shooting of anyone.".

An illogical argument, when there were no guns there were swords and those without a sword were at the mercy of those with swords.

If we could abolish all guns tomorrow then the sword would hold sway again.

Personally I would feel much safer around gun owners than antifa and Hilary dummy spitters who often hide behind masks while bashing anyone who disagrees with Marxism.

you pulled the wings of flies when you were a kid,
Paul1405,
Funny you mention that because that was one of the things that I could never fathom why kids did that sort of thing. It always did & still grates me when people get stuck into animals & torture them. I know plenty such sickos who under the pretence of ridding the bush of vermin such as wild pigs, go ape in the bush to get satisfaction for their perversion. I feel the same about the thousands of people leaving fish flapping on the jetty until they die. Or those sport fishing types who get their kicks out of hooking those beautiful creatures for fun. Just go to one of those fishing competitions & see for yourself what I mean. Or go & see sea turtles lying on their backs tied to a stake in the blazing sun for several days.
If people don't learn from kindness extended to them then we have not alternative but to be unforgiving. On the other hand you could always offer to do the work if you think you have better ways. Btw, how did you go in those refugee children camps we suggested you should visit & do your good ?

Foxy - You obviously do not understand the statistic because your link proves that.

Comparing gun statistics in other countries is irrelevant.

In simple English what it clearly showed was that having people around with a gun prevented numerically more people being killed than the numerically number killed by crazies with guns.

If those good people with guns had been unable to have them the rate of people killed by crazies would be substantially higher.

If there were no guns, people would still be killing each other just as they were before gunpowder was discovered, but in much more horrible and clumsy ways.

Trying to make one evil the lesser of two evils, and therefore mitigating the first evil is ridiculous. Thank god for guns, If it was not for guns people would be butchered by swards, and since no one wants be hacked to death by a sward therefore they would much prefer to be shot dead by a gun. As I said ridiculous!

Please indicate here all of those who want to be shot dead by a gun. The perverted who want to be hacked to death by a sward can also put their hands up. For me I'll choose neither.

Hard issue, we have seen each side deeply entrenched in its own point of view in such threads so many times, but John Howard, good Prime Minister I never stopped trying to remove, did it himself with work choices, got it spot on, well done and thanks! union boss once said you had been one of the out standing people he ever knew to have a beer with, he however died before work choices

Every US state has gun control regulations, they just vary from state to state. Gun control does not mean that people cannot own guns.

Even if every single person who was massacred at Las Vegas had a gun, they would still be dead. That's why so many US citizens want a ban on military style weapons like the AR15. If I remember correctly both Knight and Bryant used military style weapons. That was over 20 years ago and I may be mistaken but we have not had a similar style random mass shooting since. Nor has there been a rise in sword massacres to offset the reduction in gun massacres. That suggests the new laws worked.

Comparing gun statistics in other countries is relevant. Simple logic, you reduce the number of guns, you reduce the number available to “crazies”, you reduce the number of people they kill. The changes in our laws back that up. Or spin the logic, in simple English it shows that when you have more guns you have more “crazies”, so you need more guns to protect yourself, which then means there's more guns for the “crazies” to get hold of and on and on and on.

Both the US and Australia have car control. People get tested before getting a licence. People register and insure cars. People inform the relevant agencies when cars are sold or stolen. One reason for keeping a car registry is to reduce the likelihood of buying a stolen vehicle. I think these car controls have more positives than negatives. Similar regulations on guns across all states would satisfy the overwhelming majority of Americans seeking tighter gun controls.

Nor has there been a rise in sword massacres
unravel,
Knifings have become so everyday that they hardly get reported anymore. I suppose they're not as sexy as machine guns to report.

mitigating the first evil is ridiculous
Paul1405,
You wouldn't think so if you were to ermerge from your urban cocoon & watched some poor creature slowly succumb to painful stab wounds & another die instantly from a couple of shots.
Making statements based on no experience is even more ridiculous.

G'day there UNRAVEL...

You're right to a certain extent, tighter gun control both on the type and style of F/A, and the individual himself, has certainly reduced the type of crimes occasioned by Messrs BRYANT & KNIGHT. That said, if some 'intellectual pygmy' wished to massacre a group of people, it wouldn't be all that difficult.

The notion that, the HOWARD initiated gun controls have worked, is only partly correct, they've worked quite well, on licit weapons NOT on illicit weapons. It's all very nice for the coppers to know who's licensed and who's not, and who possess what F/A?

Unfortunately it's the illicit market that worries the coppers, even with good 'intel' and 'product' it's very hard to 'guesstimate' what, and how many illegal F/A's are in the community. And that doesn't account for the guns that were hidden away, prior to HOWARDS laws coming into effect. Firearms and firearm laws are a very difficult question for the authorities to embrace.

unravel,

"Comparing gun statistics in other countries is relevant. Simple logic, you reduce the number of guns, you reduce the number available to “crazies”, you reduce the number of people they kill. The changes in our laws back that up. Or spin the logic, in simple English it shows that when you have more guns you have more “crazies”, so you need more guns to protect yourself, which then means there's more guns for the “crazies” to get hold of and on and on and on."

Then, as there are now more guns in Australia than pre the Howard laws, how do you account for the drop in firearms deaths?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360

New South Wales gunnie, Keith Goodbun has been sentenced to a minimum 31 years jail for shooting dead his estranged wife Molly in her Maitland home with a Winchester .22 calibre bolt action rifle. Goodbun held a gun licence for his so called toy. Like the murderous Ian Turnbull who also held a gun licence when he shot dead environmental officer Glen Turner, or the gun licensed Peter Miles who shot dead his wife Cynda, daughter Katrina and four grandchildren at Margaret River. The above are described by some here as good law abiding citizens when they make their blanket claim that licensed gun owners are nothing but good folks, being unfairly targeted!

My ideal pacifist position on guns is zero guns in society, that goes for all guns. My compromise position is, I recognise that it is some what necessity for some to have guns, police officers, the military, some professional people. However I don't see the need for "amateur" people to have guns to play with, hunters, target shooters, etc. Maybe if they can't live without shooting something, there could be amusement parks set up where they could take out their frustrations on toy like targets, example; those tin ducks people shoot at Luna Park.

Issy, would you be happy shooting tin ducks at Luna Park?

Getting desperate now, Paul?

Issy, I take it you agree with the above. However, just a bit of a warning; I have long suspected those "Carny" people bend the barrel slightly on their pea shooters, so you wont hit too many ducks, and thus no 'Cupie Doll' for you. As a pacifists, I prefer putting balls in the clowns mouth myself (you can read something into that). What about you?

It is a crime if psychopaths sociopaths and narcissist get any sort of weapon let alone a gun.

As 98% of violent crime is because of drug abuse or the lack of medicinal drugs. As laws are there to protect the innocent it is bias privilege within wealth and towards people in positions of authority when it should be the other way round.

Just as if your kids vandalize or damage another or there belongings the parents are punished. Why is this not implemented upon the so called elite positions of authority?

As media vilification is segregated bias brain washing for the masses that continue to believe it. Or to finally realize that these ongoing issues are leading us down the garden path to become as stupid as Americans.

O sung wu, Is Mise

Drilling down into that ABC reference -

Increase in guns less than population growth - per capita gun ownership down 23%.
proportion of householders owning guns fell by 75%
People who already owned guns bought more – leakage from these enter the illicit market.

Since the population has grown from around 18 million to 24 million that's a 33% increase, it still supports the basic theory that less guns, (I'll add per capita here), means less deaths. That shows that the law changes worked. Criminality is a reality. To expect laws that are made to make society a safer place to be perfect imho is setting the bar too high. That's why I think there will always be illicit guns. But if we can minimise the access to the avenues from whence they come, it will assist those tackling the impacts of gun crime.

Hi there UNRAVEL...

You're of course right. The importation of illicit F/A's will continue, with a greater emphases on 'bespoke' weapons. That is to say, high demand weapons capable of full rock n' roll, together with modern, reliable pistols, like;Ruger, H & K, Glock, Sig, Colt, S & W to name just a few.

This particular market is albeit totally controlled by the Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs. As such, a very difficult group in which to, interact and penetrate. With their gang tentacles spread far and wide, both in Europe and the United States. Notwithstanding their rough appearance, and dangerous criminal links, they're a well organised and very well run group of 'businesses', with responsibility of each 'business' left with each Chapter, and overseen by that Chapter's 'President'.

The Local Chapter of say, the 'Overlords' might have responsibility for all cocaine distribution for their 'precise' area? So they'll rarely become involved in say, heroine or illicit guns. To become involved in something altogether different, creates a dangerous climate of disharmony, between the other Chapters of the Bikie Gangs, thus a gang war might well erupt, similar to that which we saw at Sydneys Kingsford Smith Airport, some years ago now. Hope this explains how they manage their affairs UNRAVEL.

Mentally insecure people apply for guns. Probably they feel insecure because of their apprehension due to crimes already committed.A honest person will not think of a gun for his protection.Leaving the psychology aside, guns should not be provided to any civilian however big. Weapons are only for military personnel. Only brutes and cowards use weapons to take revenge. Gun licence only will increase crimes in the society.It is a tragedy that Cinema promotes gun culture. Cinema should be censored not to entertain shooting scenes. Violence starts from cinema. Children are fooled to think that possessing a gun is a must for personal protection as shown in cinemas. Heroes wielding guns to kill his opponents greatly affect the mind of children.

unravel,

The USA has more guns than any other country in the world and more gun owners yet its violent crime rate is low by world standards.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

The USA ranks 99th for murder so, the inescapable conclusion is that more guns mean a safer place.

However, let's look at the United Kingdom, which has fewer guns than Australia but ranks 157th to our 164th.

So do fewer guns mean less crime or do more guns mean less crime?

" Gun licence only will increase crimes in the society"

Bakwas!!

Is Mise

…...................The USA ranks 99th for murder so, the inescapable conclusion is that more guns mean a safer place.

However, let's look at the United Kingdom, which has fewer guns than Australia but ranks 157th to our 164th.

So do fewer guns mean less crime or do more guns mean less crime?............................

I think you are making the point that the first two sentences are contradictory, therefore the double-barrelled question can be answered yes or no for each part of it.

From which I deduce that you are saying that you cannot simply compare gun statistics across countries.

Before I continue is that gist of the point your post is making?

unravel,

The USA has the most civilian owned guns, about 112 guns for every person of its legal population yet it ranks 99th, so it is inescapable that it is safer than 98 countries that have less guns, so more guns equals less crime.

Australia has more guns per head of population than the UK yet the UK has a higher murder rate than we do, so once again more guns less crime.

It is completely fatuous to equate more guns with more crime, the crime rate is falling in Australia yet we are getting more and more guns and more and more licenced shooters.

Is Mise

You proved the point that you can't simply generalise across countries when you compare number of guns with the crime statistics.

….so more guns equals less crime..... …...It is completely fatuous to equate more guns with more crime....

By your own admission both Australia and the UK have less guns than the USA and both Australia and the UK are safer than the USA. Saying more guns equals less crime is as fatuous as equating more guns with more crime.

So if a simple comparison of guns across countries does not work, then look at another comparator.

To me the most obvious one is gun legislation. That legislation is specific to each place, when it is amended you can compare the data before and after, at the same time allowing for other factors like population growth. Crime and homicide figures are shown either per capita or per a set number, usually 100,000. If you revisit that ABC data, it clearer shows that per capita gun ownership is down.

http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

Look at the stats, both the homicide rate and use of firearms in homicides is down. Use of knifes currently is down, but over the period listed the average is probably slightly higher. No one can definitively say that the gun legislation alone is responsible for the drop. Better policing and/or other factors could have played a role. But remember, even with domestic terrorism being more likely since the legislation the figures still have dropped.

Feel free to choose another comparator or another place to compare.

unravel,

If you look at the crime stats you will see that gun crime in Australia has been falling at a steady rate since before 1996 and has continued, Howard's gun laws didn't do a thing.

One wonders, however, how the Lindt Cafe incident could have happened; the firearm involved was unregistered, illegally modified and what's more, banned under the law; failure.

//One wonders, however, how the Lindt Cafe incident could have happened; the firearm involved was unregistered, illegally modified and what's more, banned under the law; failure.//

How does a failure of law enforcement to adequately police illegal firearms equate to an argument in favour of loosening gun control? I fail to see the connection.

And remember, two wrongs don't add up to a right.

Relying on statistics for safety or otherwise of guns and comparing nations is unwise.No crime should be committed by use of guns.After all guns are not essential items for any one's living and survival. Why should we give opportunity to any one specially the mentally deranged to commit a crime by giving him or her a gun.Besides many other means to commit a crime guns need not be added to the list. Civilized society should not allow guns at personal level. Gun culture signifies that the social environment in the society is one of large scale alienation. Urbanization and the consequential anonymity is an important aspect to be taken into account in this regard.
As civilized persons we must differentiate our selves by not attacking others physically like the primitive man.

Is Mise

I did look at the crime stats that's why I posted the link. Note the comparable fall in gun homicides compared to other methods, 63% fall guns, 38% fall stabbings, 24% beatings, 15% other. I'll let others judge if that is an above trend drop for gun homicides and if the gun laws “didn't do a thing”. As said previously no law is perfect. If we follow your logic we may as well repeal all laws that don't work 100%.

Follow the next link for a snapshot on multiple studies across the world and comparisons in general.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post

This is the link to the major study it refers to

http://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/38/1/140/2754868

Overall, introducing a combination of broad gun control legislation trends to a reduction in homicides. So from my perspective if the research of multiple studies shows that a drop is more likely with this type of legislation, I'll remain pro-legislation.

Is Mise said- "One wonders, however, how the Lindt Cafe incident could have happened; the firearm involved was unregistered, illegally modified and what's more, banned under the law; failure."

Answer- With respect- I think you are suggesting here that firearm crimes are often committed using firearms that are outside the legal framework- either stolen or illegally imported arms. We'd need to check the statistics on this of course. This would imply that tight gun control could reduce access to stolen arms used to commit crime but might need to be combined with better import measures. A tightening of gun control could just lead to greater illegal imports.

Issy, you put forward a complete fallacy, more guns equals less gun crime, and the inverse, less guns equals more gun crime, to simplistic. I would agree certain social conditions, such as the level of poverty and inequality, not related to the number of guns, are very much contributing factors to violent behaviour. What guns do is facilitate the shocking end result of all that pent up injustice, be it real or imagined by the perpetrator.

What is in the mind of the perpetrator of mass shootings is that he believes he has been so grievously wronged by someone, or some group, that he is fully justified, or believes he has no alternative, other than to commit mass murder. Making guns easily and readily available to such a perverted soul, is like giving petrol, and a box of matches to a pyromaniac.

Paul,

"Issy, you put forward a complete fallacy, more guns equals less gun crime, and the inverse, less guns equals more gun crime, to simplistic"

Bravo!!

You are starting to see the light, for years gun control advocates have had a mantra that "More guns mean more crime" and, as you say, this is just as simplistic as "More guns mean less crime", welcome aboard!!

However, the country with the highest murder rate in the world has tough gun laws.
Look up Jamaica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Jamaica
(looks like Green heaven).

and Ezhil said, "After all guns are not essential items for any one's living and survival",

Tell that one to a farmer whose land adjoins one of our feral carnivorous animal breeding grounds, our National Parks.

Ezhil, have you ever worked cattle, especially in Western Australia, where stockmen are allowed to carry heavy pistols for protection against scrub bulls?

No doubt most of you would've heard of the awful murder/suicide of three people in Sydney this morning? A thirteen year old girl, her 16 yo brother, both allegedly murdered by their 67 yo estranged father, who allegedly shot himself after having committed the aforementioned deed.

Interestingly, according to media reports, he allegedly committed the murder using two pistols, both of which were licensed to him. The facts are - the mother returned home, to find both her children deceased. Police attended, and acting on information received, police attended another premises, whereupon the estranged husband and the alleged murderer, had apparently committed suicide.

Moreover, this Domestic issue was all over, a long running dispute dealing with 'access and custody' of the children. I've never had much faith in the family law Court, they're far too emotive, and most of those individuals who preside on the family law Bench are poorly trained to deal with such dangerously emotive issues. Yet who suffers at the end of the day - the children of course?

Giving arms to to those who are at risk from animals is quite different from the general situation in a society.Even killing animals is not accepted by animal lovers.Instead of paying attention to the social conditions hat provoke illegal firing let us not arm the immature and the misguided which results in human as well as other catastrophes.Giving arms licence to all who apply for it citing some bogus reasons is sheer misuse of scientific inventions.Let us try to move to a better evolutionary level.Defensive strategies should not compromise on human values.

ezhil,

You said,"After all guns are not essential items for any one's living and survival."

"Giving arms to those who are at risk from animals is quite different from the general situation in a society"

Didn't you mean that which you first said?

How about the farmer protecting his livestock from Government owned feral predators?

Dear o sung wu,

I may well be misreading you but it seems you were not placing any responsibility on gun laws which allow a man in suburbia to own two pistols with which to murder his children. Rather you flag the Family Court as responsible in some way.

Now there may well have been issues which neither of us are privy to but increasingly easy access to weapons in this country must be considered a factor.

Dear Philip S,

You wrote;

“more people were saved by people having possession of a gun than people killed by crazies with guns.”

We now have two more children shot in NSW. Can you tell me the corresponding instances where people have been saved by weapon possession in the state this year so we can get some sense on whether you are talking out of your arse.

Dear Is Mise,

Two more kids on your list. Well done mate. Proud of yourself. I wonder in the dad's fetish was as pervasive as your own.

Steele,

"Now there may well have been issues which neither of us are privy to but increasingly easy access to weapons in this country must be considered a factor."

Evidence for this increasing easy access, please?

"We now have two more children shot in NSW. Can you tell me the corresponding instances where people have been saved by weapon possession in the state this year so we can get some sense on whether you are talking out of your arse"

Do you really think that if someone uses a weapon to save themselves that they are going to tell about it and risk prosecution for defending themselves?

"Two more kids on your list. Well done mate. Proud of yourself. I wonder in the dad's fetish was as pervasive as your own."

About up to your usual boorish ad hominem form, and you left the "?" out after "proud of yourself" and "I wonder...".

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

A terrible crime and an awful tragedy. I may well be wrong, but some of the decisions emanating from the Family Court are positively abhorrent as far as accessing the children, for the natural father.

If it's your wish to take me to task over this man being permitted to own and license handguns - please go ahead. I really have no grounds on which to rebut you or your argument.

However there was something rather odd, when one of the media outlets stated, the alleged perpetrator of this shocking crime, had no 'contemporary' criminal history? Should that be taken as, he's not known to police? Or he's not recorded at all (perhaps he's a S. 556A Crimes Act 1900, issue) or he's simply not known. Or he was an axe murderer, when in primary school, but his conduct has been exemplary ever since?

Had I been the Licensing Sergeant who granted this bloke a pistol licence - I'd not get another night's sleep I suspect?

Dear Is Mise,

I'm not sure why you see this as a ad hominem attack.

The definition is “a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”

You are the argument.

Dear o sung wu,

I wasn't so much looking to take you to task as to explore why your first reaction was directed to the Family Court rather than the fact an ordinary suburban dwelling father of two had access to pistols that enabled him to slaughter his kids. It just seems to have slipped under the radar, city homes with weaponry seemingly normative now.

Living in the country I know many people who own rifles or shotguns but the only one I'm aware of who has a pistol licence is my cousin who is a police instructor.

There has been a huge upsurge in both the number of firearms in this country and the number of people allowed to own them. We are going to be hearing more and more of this as the firearm lobby get their way.

Steele,

"There has been a huge upsurge in both the number of firearms in this country and the number of people allowed to own them. We are going to be hearing more and more of this as the firearm lobby get their way"

Evidence?

And shew me where the 1996 firearms laws have been weakened.

Hi (again) STEELEREDUX...

In my third paragraph I questioned why this bloke was granted a pistol licence in the first place? Apparently he was known to police. Which is a strict no, no, whenever you're considering the 'fit and proper person' test on an applicant? It's a way for police to abrogate their responsibility, by declining the application, thus placing it in the hands of a magistrate, if the applicant wishes to pursue his application for a pistol licence.

You're also quite correct when you aver, how difficult it is to obtain a pistol licence, either for sporting purposes or a carrying licence. I must say, well before my time in licensing, until now, it's been inordinately difficult to persuade police to issue a pistol licence of any sort. Whether for sporting purposes (a minimum waiting period of 6 months & the signature of the club Capt. that you're a regular attendee at weekend competitions), or a fully fledged carrying license.

I'd be most surprised if that situation ever changed, to be very honest with you. Coppers are fighting a loosing battle, with illicit importations of hand-guns, so I can't see them ever winning the entire battle altogether?

Concerning the dreadful events over the past 24 hours or so, involving murder and suicide. I really have no answer for you. Wasn't their a mother, somewhere in Victoria, who drove her M/V into a dam in country Victoria, killing two or three of her children, claiming it was an accident? A father who threw his young child from the West Gate-Bridge in Melbourne. STEELE, human beings; being what they are; under some extraordinary circumstances, will do just about anything at all, with the right provocation?

O sung wu,

A good summing up, this particular murderer had planned in advance and would have killed the children by any method that was available, at least the method he used was, probably, relatively painless; we simply don't know at the moment.

People intent on murder will do it any way, e.g. the grandfather who killed his wife and two grandchildren and seriously wounded their mother.
He used an axe and bludgeons and drowning.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/grandfather-axe-murderer-to-spend-rest-of-his-life-in-jail-20090807-ec4u.html

//and you left the "?" out after "proud of yourself"//

No, attaching the question mark would imply that it was a question. But it obviously wasn't a question, it was a statement. Because it's pretty clear to most of us that, yes, you are immensely proud of yourself.

And every time of another of these stories comes out you get a little bit prouder that you and your mates in the Shooters party have helped contribute to a society where these murders could be carried in a neat, gentlemanly fashion with guns instead of people having to resort to barbarism.

Because apparently the fact that some people kill their kids with axes makes it OK for others to kill theirs with guns. It's that whole thing with two wrongs making a right, which everybody knows is a sound ethical principle and not dodgy reasoning at all. [sarcasm]

Get help, Is Mise.

The very serious question being asked;
Was John Edwards able to exploit a lax gun licencing system which enabled him to without a legitimate reason obtain two legal guns, described as "powerful handguns" by police, for the sole purpose of committing these premeditated and horrendous murders.
"The information we've gleaned in the last 15 hours [leads] me to believe that this is something premeditated and planned," NSW Police Acting Assistant Commissioner Brett McFadden said.

Edwards was known to police, however Commissioner McFadden said he had no "contemporary" criminal record.
This puts the spotlight on the police to explain what they knew of Edwards, and what was his criminal record.

ttbn, I hate to say I told you so. Like the typical conservative you got it wrong again. Unfortunate events of yesterday prove how out of touch you are when it come to Australia's position on gun violence.

Posted by ttbn, Monday, 2 July 2018 10:10:07 AM

“Like America, should Australia be concerned that not enough is done to determine the mental state of those who in the first instance apply for a gun licence, and then their ongoing mental fitness to hold such a licence.”

The predictable, but rather pathetic response from the far rights ttbn.

Thanks to the Green-like knee jerk reaction by John Howard, we have extremely draconian laws on guns. What goes on in America is not our concern. And, do you have any idea of the cost and practicalities of determining the “mental state” of even the relatively few people wanting firearms in Australia? For decent, law-abiding citizens, there is a virtual ban on gun ownership. Who wants to put themselves through the rigamarole of acquiring a firearms licence? Those wanting a firearm can get one illegally with no hassle from the law.

We are more at risk from drunks and druggies on the roads,politicians and a non-performing judiciary than we are from guns.

Sad.

Good evening to you TONI LAVIS & PAUL1405...

Hi there PAUL1405...

Firstly I cannot account for this bloke obtaining a pistol licence, for not one, but two handguns. As for the police description of these two weapons as being 'powerful' I suspect, but I don't know, they're probably centre fire's in either 9mm, 10mm, .38 spec, .357mag or 44mag. These calibres are the most common, but not limited too other 'CF's' among those used in competitive shooting.

Those very few individuals, who have a handgun for hunting, might employ more powerful calibres. Competitive shooters would not necessarily need calibres outside those mentioned above, unless they shoot 'steel' using a Thompson Contender or similar, employing the more 'wildcat' calibres. As I said in an earlier contribution - what is meant by this fellow having no 'contemporary' criminal record? As I indicated earlier, when I was a licensing sergeant, he'd not be given a license by me, he'd need to appeal to a Magistrate - perhaps that's precisely what he did?

Hi there TONI LAVIS...

It's a fact of life, that F/A's have become part of our life, both professionally, vocationally and from a sporting viewpoint. Every time we're burdened with another senseless killing of innocents, we as a society cringe. I believe all of us do. Most certainly the police do! You cannot imagine the feeling you get, when you take a job over the car radio, to attend a possible homicide/ suicide/or report, shots fired?

Your imagination runs riot as to what ghastly vision await's you, upon your arrival? Can you hold your 'own emotions' together? The last thing you want is to 'break down' in front of strangers. So believe me when I say, guns can be a real problem for police as well? Yet many police (male & female) participate in gun sports when off duty?

TONI, if we tried to outlaw F/A's altogether, it take at least 60 to 80 years. Well before the community/politicians, and everyone else in Australia, was in full accord. To do otherwise, would plunge our Nation into Civil War?

The solution lies in the societal transformation. Never it can be settled by technology. Please understand guns are destructive weapons. Let us not misuse science to settle scores with fellow humans.Use of guns is no different from barbarism.

Hi o sung wu, you know my position as a pacifists, that there should be no guns in society, a rather Utopian ideal at present, given where we are in history. However I do recognize the need (now) for "professional" persons to hold firearms unsupervised, police, military and a few others. I do not recognize a need for "amateur" persons to hold firearms unsupervised, hunters, target shooters, what are classed as recreational shooters.
There should be far more control of amateur use of guns, and strict licencing arrangements in place, much tougher than we have now. It is my view that no guns should be held in the home of a person, except in exceptional circumstances related to their occupation. Amateur hunting should be outlawed, and target shooting heavenly controlled and supervised.
Those who engage in illegal gun activity, for those the penalties should be severe, if not draconian.

Ezhil,

Have you ever seen a Zimmerstutzen?

Steele,

"Now there may well have been issues which neither of us are privy to but increasingly easy access to weapons in this country must be considered a factor."

Evidence for this increasing easy access, please?
Just one small instance will be enough.

"Proud of yourself"
looks more like a question than a statement, but as your English seems to be on a par with your amateur psychology, I'll just be quietly amused, as for the rest of your dribble, well, it's what one has come to expect.

guns are destructive weapons
Ezhill,
That is a statement of irrelevance for the simple fact that literally anything you can lay your hands including your hands & feet, is a weapon.
The most dangerous weapon of all is stupidity & yet our education system is trying its hardest to enhance this dreadful outcome. Imagine if education were to focus on a healthy menatlity in place of working on indoctrinating future Lemming-like consumers in order to reap more taxes.
Let's collectively push to improve the educational standard & also push for a National Service. Now that would be a good fight !

'morning to you PAUL1405...

You very last sentence, I couldn't agree more! '...penalties should be severe if not draconian...'!
As you no doubt know, many States in the US have the three strikes Rule, as well as an additional (minimum) ten years penal servitude tacked onto their head sentence, where a F/A is used in the commission of an indictable offence.

Paul I understand you don't recognise those who you describe as amateur shooters. Only people who have a need to carry a F/A as part of their job description etc. Shooting is a very large part of the Olympic Movement, not only as an event in itself, but in other events where the use of a rifle constitutes part of the event.

Strengthening the licensing rules, is all well and good, but many crimes where a F/A is used, that F/A is illicit. This latest horror Paul, well I've not got an answer for you - as I suspect most other coppers won't have one either? A tragedy, where if one were to dig deep enough, you might find an answer somewhere within the archives of the Family Court.

Sorry STEELEREDUX, I'm not unfairly 'belting' the Court, but a number of Domestic Violence occurrences, have come from many of the abysmal judgements, made by that eminent Court, unfortunately. It's not the Justices who preside over the FC Bench, who have to attend them and attempt to sort them out, but the police.

You believe all amateur hunting should be outlawed, but it's these individuals that manage to curb the growth of feral animals. Without them, our graziers would be swamped with ferals, loosing valuable stock, water, and feed - there's where the problem lays, Paul.

Look, as I've said to you in the past, I respect your position Paul, however on several levels, I don't necessarily agree with you. Thanks anyway mate.

Hi o sung wu,

Just as we learnt a valuable lesson from Port Arthur, I hope the recent events at Margaret River, and now at Pennant Hills are not treated as "oh well sh#t happens" and nothing is learnt about the failures of the system. The positives that should come from all this tragedy is we learn and improve our laws to reduce further the possibility of such events happening again.

//Without them,(amateur shooters) our graziers would be swamped with ferals,// That is issue in itself, amateur hunting is not the only answer.

I have to admit if what I want in this area was to be introduced it would put a damper on some peoples "fun". I recognize that, if it saves just one life, so be it.

If I could wind back the clock and throw every gun in Australia into the Pacific Ocean and save the lives of those two children, Jack and Jennifer, I would not hesitate for a moment!

//Strengthening the licensing rules, is all well and good, but many crimes where a F/A is used, that F/A is illicit// Again we have to look at where we are going wrong and strengthen and improve the law.

//Shooting is a very large part of the Olympic Movement// I recognize some participate in target shooting sports, and that is relatively easy to control and supervise. I am not advocating a total ban on target shooting sport. Only control and supervision of the firearms involved.

Dear o sung wu,

This bloke already had an AVO registered against him but it was over a decade ago so apparently doesn't count. He obtained a licence for these two 'high powered' pistols and two other weapons this year and during the custody battle.

He was rejected as an applicant from several gun clubs in 2016. Is a gun club membership a higher bar than getting a licence? Why are they able to assess him as unsuitable yet the police ultimately give him a ticket to arm himself in order to slaughter his children?

It seems in order to get a permit for pistols you need to show a gun club membership. What should happen to the gun club which enabled this tragedy? In my mind they need to be deregistered immediately and all members assessed. Gun club membership rejections should be recorded in a database at a minimum.

It seems that the gun lobby has succeeded in having gun ownership deemed a right rather than a hard earned privilege.

You mentioned two other cases of parents killing their children in dreadful circumstances. We should acknowledge that shooting a human is able to be done at arms length so to speak. To get out of your car and physically throw your child off a bridge requires a type of mental breakdown that is thankfully very rare. Driving into a dam requires risking one's own life to a degree and while there are two cases I have heard of it too is also extremely rare.

But fathers or even grandfathers shooting their children is something we seem to be experiencing frequently.

This case screams lax gun laws and things need to change.

Dear Paul,

You say you accept that police need to have weapons yet in NZ they are not routinely armed nor in Britain or Japan.

I'm wondering if you see Australia as different and if so why?

Steele,

"This case screams lax gun laws and things need to change."

Which lax gun laws?

If you read the papers it would seem that there is a drastic shortfall in funding for family support where there are disputes over access/custody of children yet the Premier of NSW can sprout on about building stadia and the Lord Mayor of Sydney can find funds to finance protesters against a legal activity.
Then there is the New Years Fireworks Pollution Fest for which finance can always be found.

Tragedies, where children are murdered by one parent or the other in family disputes, can fairly be laid on the failure of Government to properly fund services, the means used in the killings is immaterial.

People, like yourself, that blindly focus on the means used are part of the problem.

Paul,

"...and target shooting heavenly controlled and supervised."

Oh! That it was always so, I often think that some of my best scores are a gift from heaven!!

Paul,

"Those who engage in illegal gun activity, for those the penalties should be severe, if not draconian."

Glad you see that you have come to realize that your Green mates in the NSW Parliament were wrong in not backing the SF&F Party when that party called for tougher penalties for criminal use of firearms.

Some people got the impression that the Greens were protecting their mates as in their earlier opposition to the use of sniffer dogs.

Hi (again) PAUL1405...

In principle I, and many other coppers would probably agree with you. I keep referring to police because they're supposed be the guardians of the law?

There's one question that I'd very much like to know the answer too...this alleged murderer had; 'no contemporary criminal record' - Let me be very clear Paul; if this fellow had any sort of criminal antecedents, a handgun licence, most assuredly would be denied to him by me! That's not to say, police may've refused him, but not the magistrate, on appeal?

I think this whole family were quite well off money wise, given the salubrious area in which they resided. *Best I not go there, I think*?

I'd really like to know the circumstances of him being granted a licence, at all? Paul, when you work in licensing, you're governed very precisely by the law, certainly not by your own prejudices or predilections. However a Licensing Sergeant does possess some 'limited' powers, only in regard to the machinery sections of the Act and/or the Regulations.

An example might be, the Club Captain or Armourer (both authorised persons pursuant to the Act) of a Pistol Club, might ring me and ask if I would extend the time a licensee is given to prove he's a regular attendee? So as Sergeant I might extend the time for the production of that certificate, essentially because he was running late with it. Nothing of any importance believe me, and well within the purview of the Sergeant and the Act and Regs themselves.

As I said, I'd still like to know, the circumstances of this man being granted a licence? Anyway, at the end of the day - nothing accounts for the lunacy of some, eh?

This case screams lax gun laws and things need to change.
Steele reedux,
The dumbing down of the nation & the treatment of the not dumbed down as idiots by our authorities has to be focussed on first then & only then can we start thinking gun control.
You can't get any sense into a mutt but once the mutt is house trained you can make him jump through loops & do his business outside.

'afternoon to you STEELEREDUX...

Mate I don't know anymore, I'm too old for all this I really am?

I'll try to address your questions, after all you're entitled to some sort of answer, as to why the laws seem to have failed?

I wasn't aware of the AVO or the fact he had been rejected by two gun clubs, for m'ship. Are you very sure it was police who granted his licence? Hand on heart; I wouldn't have. I'd refer him to the magistracy if he wanted a gun so much!

When I was a Lic. Sergeant, a person needed to be a (i) member of a registered Pistol Club for a (ii) minimum period of six months, involving (iii) regular attendance. An Attendance Certificate must be furnished, signed by either the Club Captain or the Armourer (both of whom are authorised persons pursuant to the Act & Regs) attesting to the truth of that regular attendance.

You can't punish a Club for the actions of one of it's members?

I've nothing to do with the 'Gun Lobby' S.R. Moreover, I don't have a gun of any description.

You, and many others (quite rightly) say the Gun laws are too slack '...and scream, Lax Gun Laws and things need to change...' Believe it or not, they're are pretty onerous as they are.

What further measures would you like to see, in order to further strengthen them; STEELEREDUX?

Hi Steele,

The mob down at Sport Shooters offer advice to those with AVO's against them how best to get a licence under the circumstance. They downplay the gravity of AVO's. A bit of editorialising by the gun freaks in question when giving advice to one;

"Secondly, many of the incidents giving rise to AVO’s are very low level, and are not what you or I would consider domestic violence. Many are little more than heated arguments."

In their response they spend much time slamming the AVO system.

"most experienced Family Lawyers will honestly admit that a significant percentage- that in my experience is as high as 20%, are maliciously motivated, and intended to:

"Improve a parties position in Family law proceedings involving Children, Get a party out of the home, Rubbish the other party’s reputation, vent anger, Disrupt the other party’s social activities by denying access to firearms."

Dear o sung wu,

Thank you for your response.

Here is the thing though. It appears the clubs have been set up as defacto approval or refusal agencies. If an applicant has a valid membership and a signed record of attendance then the rest of the procedure seems to be a bit of a formality.

Obviously this bloke went club shopping until he found one that was prepared to take him as a member, otherwise he wold not have been issued his licence.

This is why I deem whichever club it was worthy of, in the very least, having its operations suspended and a full audit conducted of all its members. In my opinion there is a reasonable suspicion that its assessment rules are somewhat more lax that those of other clubs, and it may well be that the less than savoury types have ended up finding it as a club of last resort.

You wrote;

“I think this whole family were quite well off money wise, given the salubrious area in which they resided.”

Turns out that many of those 'salubrious' suburbs have among the highest ratio of guns to people;

“THEY are some of Australia’s most prestigious suburbs, with sweeping views of Sydney Harbour and where even getting on the bottom rung of the property ladder will set you back several million dollars. But there’s another figure that these ritzy neighbourhoods are less keen on crowing about, a figure that runs contrary to the image they’ve taken so long to cultivate. New data on registered firearms has revealed some of the country’s most well-heeled suburbs have an eye-watering number of guns and in some cases surprisingly more than other, less salubrious, parts of town.”
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/new-data-reveals-the-high-number-of-guns-per-person-in-australias-richest-suburbs/news-story/9ee47e8a89e8700adda0d6bce51a2559

Lax laws promoted and lobbied by Shooters parties are coming home to roost and Aussie kids are dying as a result. If we are going to continue to foist this kind of responsibility on clubs then far better training is required along with far stronger penalties when they get it wrong.

Lax laws promoted and lobbied by Shooters parties are coming home to roost
SteeleRedux,
Yes, but this can only be achieved if education pulls up its socks. To talk sense you need a receptive mind. Presently the indoctrination in the education system is playing into the hands of the stupid who then go out & get guns.

Oops, that was pasted accidentally.

Dear o sung wu,

When you say you “don't know any more” I would consider that a good thing. It means that you are able to put aside an entrenched perspective (who doesn't have those over 50) and be open to rethinking your position.

You should celebrate it rather than bemoan it.

I did a major reboot on an issue recently and it can be a bit confronting. However continuing to learn throughout your entire life is something I consider a real blessing. I hope I am also still capable of it at your venerable years.

Steele and Paul,

How about some evidence or, at the least, a reference or two?

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Before I forget - When I mentioned 'this individual came from a well to do area' or similar language. I also added perhaps I shouldn't go there; *in asterisks*. My reasons were altogether quite different to what you thought I meant?

And as far as my bemoaning '...I don't know anymore...' Actually; what I meant to say, this topic arises every so often ad nauseam, and as usual the opposing parties square off against each other, and bring forth the same dreary arguments as they've done before.

My own position on guns is somewhat neutral. In the past I've enjoyed shooting paper & steel. My favourite rifle was a, SS, Ruger No 1 'Tropical' in .458W magnum (a big game rifle). Mostly I shot pistol, my service revolver. My point is STEELE, I could take shooting or leave it. I was neither mesmerised by firearms, nor fascinated by them. I look upon them as a necessary accoutrement that I was mandated to carry, and nothing more.

I will admit, after being sworn in as a probationary constable, upon returning home I eagerly showed the family my issue gun, after going through the exhaustive 'clearing drills' more for my benefit then theirs. And later that evening I'd shown my then girlfriend, thinking she'd be impressed or at the least, fascinated by it, but she promptly admonished me by saying "just put it away" and "it's not meant to be played with". Emmmm?

Furthermore, I consider firearms purely as an instrument of death. Nothing more, nor less. I can understand people's passion for the shooting sports, similarly I can appreciate the sentiments of those who totally oppose guns, in all it's forms.

The only comment I can make, apropos your assertion that the Clubs being de facto licensing authorities? Don't you believe it, they jealously guard their reputations, and procedures. And on the occasions I've attended a regular shoot as part of my 'unannounced' & mandated inspections; everything is always found to be in order, without exception.

Steele,

Thanks for that link to the SMH and the number of guns that some people hold.

"Mosman also falls in the top-100 largest private arsenals in NSW, with one person alone owning a staggering 278 guns."

Just guess why he has so many guns, well I'll save you the trouble of looking.
He's a noted antique gun collector and 99% of his guns do not have to be registered but his insurance company likes them to be registered even though it lowers the premium.

If he hadn't registered them, and remember he is not legally required to do so, then the number of guns owned would be about two.

The same goes for most, if not all, of the emotively labelled "arsenals"; the SMH is well aware of the facts, but why spoil a BS story?

Paul,

How are you going on your quest to prove that the US NRA gives funds to the SSAA?
Did you ever find out where the three members of Gun Control Australia get their money from?

Can't answer?

Ask your Green mates to invent something then.

How about some evidence or, at the least, a reference or two?

EVIDENCE! Jack, Jennifer, Rylan, Cynda, Taye, Kayden, Ayre and Katrina. REFERENCE OE TWO! Peter Miles and John Ewards

Will that do you Issy for evidence and references. I hope so!

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote;

“The only comment I can make, apropos your assertion that the Clubs being de facto licensing authorities? Don't you believe it, they jealously guard their reputations, and procedures. And on the occasions I've attended a regular shoot as part of my 'unannounced' & mandated inspections; everything is always found to be in order, without exception.”

Well mate there was an exception and that was St Mary’s Indoor Shooting Centre which is owned by the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia.

“The NSW Firearms Registry informed the Ku-Ring-Gai Pistols Club in January last year that under no circumstances should John Edwards, who shot dead his two children on Thursday night, be given access to a firearm, an official from the club has told Fairfax Media. Later Edwards was able to join the St Mary’s Indoor Shooting Centre, owned by the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, the country’s largest and most powerful gun lobby. He then obtained a firearms licence and permit before legally buying his weapons.”
http://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/john-edwards-should-never-have-been-allowed-to-buy-a-gun-say-critics-20180707-p4zq4o.html

This is an organisation I believe Is Mise is a proud member of.

Do you believe they have any responsibility for what happened? If so what sanction if any should be put on the club and possibly its members for what has happened? Do you thing an audit of its current members is warranted given that it seems to be a club used as a last resort by those who have been rejected by other clubs?

"The club said the application was assessed and processed in strict accordance with the legal requirements overseen by the NSW Police Firearms Registry. "Ultimately, all licence decisions are taken by the Registry."

So whose was the ultimate responsibility?

Dear Is Mise,

Yes that's right, keep trying to palm off responsibility.

This bloke was rejected by club after club until he got to your lot then he gets a ticket to kill and you want to run with 'he ticked all the legal boxes'?

Well that goes to show those legal boxes are failing us. They especially failed those two kids. The impact of your fetish and your defence of the indefensible is they now lie dead.

Either come up with a way to fix this or just get out of the bloody way.

Hear hear, Steele.

Your words are spot on, this association of gun freaks needs to fess up as to their culpability in this atrocity. Make no mistake, these are the people who facilitated Edwards licence to kill, despite his appalling record. There is no question that the licence of the St Mary’s Indoor Shooting Centre should be suspended immediately, an audit of the membership take place. A demand be made on the SSAA to explain what checks and balances if any, are in place within these shooting galleries they operate to determine the suitability of applicants.

Judging by their attitude to AVO's, (read my earlier post); Those pesky things sheilas take out against real men, just to put the kibosh on a fellas gun fun etc. That is the gun freaks organizations underlying attitude to AVO's.
NSW Labor has come out with a demand for a "review" of gun laws. A bit of a wozzie response in my opinion. Its time for tough action against the gun freaks!

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/08/john-edwards-murders-nsw-labor-calls-for-review-of-gun-laws-after-killing

Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Yup, there's obviously a failure in the system somewhere. Again, I wasn't aware of this blokes antecedents in seeking out a 'PISTOL' licence? The 'H' category (from memory) is supposed to be the most difficult licence of all? The applicant is supposed to convince you, of the need for just such a licence. With all the matters surrounding this bloke finally emerging, how in hell was he granted a Licence! Even a discharged AVO would give the copper some pause, most certainly sufficient reason for putting him through 20 questions as it were? Buggered if I know STEELEREDUX.

Its time for tough action against the gun freaks!
Paul1405,
Actually it's time for tough action for all freaks. Btw, how many have been killed with no gun involved ?

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4510.0

//how many have been killed with no gun involved?//
I don't know Indy, but you tell me, and while your at it, tell me how it relates to the shooting deaths of Jack and Jennifer, and the family at Margaret River, and doing something about preventing others in the future. Dose some bloke getting hacked to death with a machete somehow mitigates shooting deaths?

If the newspapers are to be believed Firearms Registry told some clubs that Edwards was not to have access to a pistol.

Did the Registry warn other clubs, were the SSAA warned?

Did FAR 'red flag' Edwards?

Why did FAR issue him with a licence and then issue Permits to Purchase?

The fact that one has a licence doesn't allow one to purchase a firearm, every purchase must be on a Permit to Acquire issued for each separate purchase by the Registry.

Issy, if it is proved the FAR have been as negligent as the SSAA have been in this matter, then they too can face the firing squad (figuratively speaking) along with the SSAA and any others as well.

Paul1405,
What on Earth are you on about ? Now you're even disputing questions ? Take a break old girl !
Dead is dead, gun or no gun. All I'm asking is for figures on how many murders had no gun involved. I tried to Google it but couldn't get an answer. Guns don't murder people, they're used by good people to kill & by bad people to murder.

Paul and Stelle,

Your desire for collective punishment of those who were not involved shews a commitment to Bolshevism and other anti-democratic regimes that set you apart from the "Fair Go" ethos of most Australians.

Hi there IS MISE and PAUL1405...

It would appear prima facie the Registry has failed badly with this individual. By not maintaining their standards, unequivocally failing to establish the applicants bona fides, and thoroughly checking his criminal antecedents; all of which have obviously declined since my time there. And as I said earlier, this fellow wouldn't have had, a snow balls chance in hell, of ever receiving a Licence for anything.

By no means am I attempting to raise any kind of defence for the F/A's Registry; however they're always 'flat out' busy, with phones ringing, and the sheer volume of Licences awaiting processing and final approval. Moreover most of the staff are Public Servants, with the few police available, actually placing their imprimatur on the successful applicants and arguing the toss with those they've actually declined. When I was a sergeant there, staff levels were always below strength, thus allowing the occasional mistake to occur.

As disingenuous as my remark may seem, this tragedy has been a wakeup call for all those involved in issuing an 'authority' for people to do anything that's mandated by law, of the vital importance of due diligence with all applicants. Otherwise a simple failure, may have catastrophic consequences.

o sung wu,

The Registry has been understaffed and underfunded for years; cynics have said that the move to Murwillumbah was an exercise of 'out of sight, out of mind'.

If the gun freaks such as the SSAA had their way there would be no need for FAR. Just another bit of bureaucracy getting in the way of the boys having fun with their guns.

It was some years ago that the gunnies got the AVO disclosure requirements on a licence application reduced down to 1 year.

"*You must be able to provide proof of current membership of an approved target shooting club."

The SSAA has how many of these approved clubs in NSW?

Issy, are you saying if there is no known "red flag" against an applicants name then the good ole' boys down at the gun club will rubber stamp membership?
How pro active are SSAA gun clubs when it comes to prospective new members?

Well, Paul, at the clubs to which I belong the vetting is strict.

"Issy, are you saying if there is no known "red flag" against an applicants name then the good ole' boys down at the gun club will rubber stamp membership?"

Membership will not be rubberstamped, it's a thorough process and, with most clubs, a black ball from a member finishes any hope of membership.

There is probation before a licence can even be applied for, the granting of the licence is up to FAR and is also at the discretion of the Poice Commissioner.

G'day IS MISE...

Yeah, it's always been a problem. Police consigned to these sorts of areas, are often undertaking rehabilitation from long term 'sick reports' where there's not much physical activity required. To impute there's a certain vocational lethargy or languor attached to the area, is probably unkind. Add to that a chronic shortage of staff, low morale among the Public Servants, and a few other police specific 'grumbling', doesn't augur well for a very efficient Branch within the Department. Still during my time there, we all tried to do our jobs efficiently.

//Well, Paul, at the clubs to which I belong the vetting is strict.//

Strict? In what regards, that could be a very loose term. It seems the SSAA operated St Mary's Gun Club have a different interpretation of "strict".

The State Government has finally spoken on this matter. Given their buddy buddy relationship with the Australian chapter of the NRA of America, aka SSAA, don't expect too much.

"If there's something we need to do sooner we will." Stating the bloody obvious was Primer Berejiklian.

Minister Troy Grant will enter into cries talks with Police Commissioner Mick Fuller today. Lets hope there's not a lot of platitudes, and no action.

Paul,

"Strict? In what regards, that could be a very loose term. It seems the SSAA operated St Mary's Gun Club have a different interpretation of "strict"."

Do you have an insight into the procedures used by the St. Marys Club?

Do you know how Edwards presented?

Why have you nothing to say about the statements that FAR had told some clubs not to approve Edwards but apparently did not tell other clubs?

After all, most club Secretaries can be reached on their computers and all that it would take would be a few minutes of someone's time.

" The State Government has finally spoken on this matter. Given their buddy buddy relationship with the Australian chapter of the NRA of America, aka SSAA, don't expect too much."

One hopes that there will be a thorough investigation and that it will be factual based and not emotional.

I see that you are still pushing the US NRA and SSAA delusional link; does this mean that you have come up with some evidence, or is it just the usual Green fantasy?

Issy, I will concede, if FAR did inform some and not others, you would thing a group Email would be all that is required, then that is gross negligence. I also put some responsibility on the gun club itself to exercise due diligence when taking on a new member. A call to FAR and police would not go astray as well, to do some back checking, after all it is the club that is bestowing privilege on the person seeking membership.

How about the way gunnies give advice to those with AVO'S, I did put up some quotes you did not respond. I'm getting the impression the whole gun mob are an old boys club, with macho values, and if that be the case they should be a-holed complete and have nothing to do with licences. That wild west mob you posted, well they are a screw loose and they hold gun licences.

Paul,

"How about the way gunnies give advice to those with AVO'S, I did put up some quotes you did not respond."

You gave no references, and gun clubs or anyone else's advice on AVOs cannot alter the Firearms Acts or the Regulations thereunder.

"That wild west mob you posted, well they are a screw loose and they hold gun licences."

That is only your biased opinion.

All would do well to remember that an AVO is an Apprehended Violence Order, it does not mean that the person against whom it is directed has necessarily been violent, it means that there is an apprehension of violence.
I know men who have been extremely violent in the past and they have firearms licences and no one has ever objected.

I should add to the above, that some of these men will possibly be extremely violent in the future.

"I know men who have been extremely violent in the past and they have firearms licences and no one has ever objected.
I should add to the above, that some of these men will possibly be extremely violent in the future."

Nice of you Issy to admit that there are more possible Ian Turners, Peter Miles and John Edwards out there in gun happy land. Are these ticking time bombs members of your gun club?

You have moved somewhat from your previous claim, that all gun licence holders are honest law abiding citizens. Now there is an admission by you that there are more nutters in the ranks.

//"That wild west mob you posted, well they are a screw loose and they hold gun licences."

That is only your biased opinion.//

Bollocks. I'm definitely of the opinion that those jokers are on a spectrum of some sort.

How many opinions are required before it stops being only the biased opinions of a few malcontents, and starts being common wisdom?

I reckon it's probably fewer than you think. I suspect that I'm not alone in my view that the people who go in for that sort of thing are a cut above your regular or garden variety of weirdo.

Paul,

I am speaking about the men of violence who killed that you might enjoy the freedoms which you currently enjoy; the Diggers of WWII are getting on but some of them are still keen shooters.

These were men of extreme violence who killed other men, but have never killed again and are trusted members of their communities.

The same goes for those who fought in other wars, up 'till the present day.

Some of our younger veterans may well be called to action again and undoubtedly will kill again if necessary.

Toni,

Would you disarm all the other folk who dress up as re-enactors?

Take away their weapons?

Spoilsport!!

Doesn't that say it all ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-10/the-murders-we-do-not-hear-about-and-why/9960688

Of worrying concern; //Diggers of WWII are getting on but some of them are still keen shooters//
Taking the old boys club to the extreme, got to be 90 if they are a day! Geriatrics, possible dementia suffers with GUNS!

Back tracking Issy, you didn't qualify your original post, I just assumed you were talking about some Ivan Milat types you know. Not old blokes from yesteryear.

Gee, a lot of the gunnies are trying to dodge a bullet on this one.

Hi there PAUL1405...

You speak of Ivan MILAT? I would (respectfully) ask you to wash your mouth out with soap and water! That maggot, that fly blown mass of rancid meat! You'll be pleased to know he's currently ensconced in Goulburn Gaol's 'Super Max'. This so called tough guy is nothing but an opportunist, who should've been taken out first time...? Even the boof-heads with whom he's confined can't stand the man! Got'a say something about his personality I suspect!

I might also point out to all you good people, Great Britain has some of the toughest gun laws in the C'Wealth, yet among the highest murder rate in Europe, occasioned by edged weapons? I've not bothered to source Stats. but I do listen to LBC Radio on my own Internet Radio, and knife crimes among black British youths in almost endemic.Police have generally found, if you remove one source of weaponry, illicit or otherwise, human ingenuity will replace it with another. Where this will all end, who knows?

Hi o sung wu,

"That maggot, that fly blown mass of rancid meat!"

In my opinion you're being kind. Should he die, what would I say, good riddance.

Paul,

"Gee, a lot of the gunnies are trying to dodge a bullet on this one."

You are getting desperate!

Yes, the WWII blokes are getting on but there are a lot from later wars who are still around and will be around for a long time yet.

What's your solution to these men, and women, who have been so violent in the past?

An AVO?

A good mate of mine, now deceased, used to go behind Japanese lines to rescue downed American flyers, he was a keen shooter and antique gun collector and a great family man; he had killed Japanese, with the knife, when there was no other way to get in or out on his missions.
The grateful US decorated him for his efforts; another AVO candidate in your book?

"Egg on Face Time"

"John Edwards, the man who shot his two children dead last Thursday, was able to pursue his handgun training because he was granted a so-called “Commissioner’s Permit’, overriding red flags raised by his answers on declarations about his background.

It is understood this permit reassured officials at the St Mary’s Indoor Shooting Centre that Edwards could legally undergo handgun training - the first step to getting a handgun licence and then a permit in NSW - despite his answers on a declaration form raising flags in the system.

"With a history like his there is no way he ever should have been given the Commissioner’s Permit," said Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party MP Robert Borsak. "Whoever did it, whoever it was who did the double check and the triple check on [Edwards] somehow failed on this occasion."

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/john-edwards-granted-commissioners-permit-to-begin-gun-training/ar-AAzQqcs?ocid=ientp

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jul/11/killer-of-teenage-children-got-gun-permit-from-nsw-firearms-registry

I was wondering why David Shoebridge of the Greens was quiet on this whilst other antis were waxing eloquent in their desire to use the tragic murders of the children to their own advantage; seems David was wise or got a tip-off.

Issy, the only ones with egg on face as you put it, are the gun freaks who have campaigned continuously over the years to white ant gun laws, The same fools who claimed gunnies are all good law abiding folk. Something you yourself have claimed many times on this form.

How about those idiots at the St Mary's Gun club who were teaching Edwards the finer art of hitting the target (his own bloody children). Are these blokes proud of themselves, contributing to the murder of two more innocent kiddies!

When I first started this thread, before these horrendous murders were even committed, questioning the mental state of gunnies, I quote myself;

"should Australia be concerned that not enough is done to determine the mental state of those who in the first instance apply for a gun licence, and then their ongoing mental fitness to hold such a licence." 02/07/2018
HOW PROPHETIC WAS THAT STATEMENT?

All you could come up with was stupid smart ass crap about the bloody spelling of the word Maryland!

"Do be a good lad (paul1405) and get a free Spellcheck or, better still, Grammarly (which is also free and gives one a weekly progress report!)"

Issy think about it, you now look totally stupid!

Dear Is Mise,

You wrote;

“It is understood this permit reassured officials at the St Mary’s Indoor Shooting Centre that Edwards could legally undergo handgun training - the first step to getting a handgun licence and then a permit in NSW - despite his answers on a declaration form raising flags in the system.”

They were under absolutely no bloody obligation to admit him into the club at all. This was something this club, owned by you and others, made a conscious decision to do. Others had knocked him back because first impressions flagged him as a problem. You lot said 'look here we have a waiver so come in spinner'.

Your membership of that organisation makes you culpable.

How about instead of working so hard to protect men's 'rights' to own a gun you look at your responsibility to the wider community, especially our kids, and promise to take it seriously for a change.

A Commissioner's Permit overrides all, the blame lies with whoever issued the permit.

Why don't you tell us all, Steele, how the gun laws have been weakened as you claimed?

There is egg on faces particularly all those who have tried to use these murders to further their ratbag attacks on law abiding citizens.

You wanted licencing of firearm owners and now that it is proving to be a success you rant about there being too many.

Reap what ye sow.

Dear Is Mise,

You wrote;

“A Commissioner's Permit overrides all, the blame lies with whoever issued the permit.”

Absolute A grade rot.

Is that how your organisation works? Are you really saying that the permit forced St Mary's to welcome him with open arms? Not on your life. They were under zero obligation to accept him as a member yet they did. Two kids now lie dead as a result.

Hi Steele, I suspect you could turn up looking like Rambo, and some do, and you would be welcomed with open arms. If you told them you needed gun training to rid the world of the invading space aliens they would agree, and fast track you to the front of the queue, given the understandable urgency of the matter. That's how it works Issy, you would agree.

Issy, how is your club member Wild West Willie going? Is he in the nut house yet, or still playing make believe cowboys with real guns. Maybe you can put up another silly YouTube of that bunch of fruitcakes.

Steele,

"“A Commissioner's Permit overrides all, the blame lies with whoever issued the permit.”

Absolute A grade rot.

Then tell us why it is rot.

Final authority, under the various Firearm Acts, lies with the Commissioner.
A licence may be issued or cancelled by the Commissioner for any reason that he thinks fit.
In this case, he thought that Edwards was a fit and proper person to hold a Pistol Licence and to be given permission to purchase pistols.

"He" of course not necessarily being the Commissioner, but the person to whom authority may have been delegated.

That say's it all, the gun freaks will train any nutter in the finer art of killing, providing the nutter has a scrap of paper from an undisclosed public servant giving him the okay.

I have a solution to that; why not take all the guns off all the gun freaks who have no legitimate reason to have a gun. The amateurs, the funsters, the cowboys, the fools and the freaks.

So many incompetent fools are ducking and weaving on this one, trying to shift the blame onto some other equally incompetent fool that if it was not so serious it would be laughable.

My, my,Paul, you are getting desperate!

The ultimate authority under the Act is the Police Commissioner; club officials cannot overrule his decisions.

There is no avenue of appeal against his decisions under the Act.

Just remember, before you start dribbling again, the club doesn't issue the Firearms Licence nor does it issue the Permits to Acquire, that is all done by the police.

Why do you think that Firearms Registry didn't tell their boss that he was wrong?

Come out into the real world for a change.

By the way have you found anything to substantiate your wild assertion that the US NRA send funds to the SSAA?

The following link on Japanese sword hunts are interesting in the context of gun control as well as that in Germany in 1938 and the US view in the constitution.

http://www.revolvy.com/topic/Sword%20hunt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

Issy, stop throwing out the furphies and the smoke screens.

THE FACT IS;

Your mob down at The St Mary's Gun Club were not forced by anyone, including the Commissioner of Police, to take John Edwards as member and train him to ultimately shoot dead his two children. The SSAA as operators of gun club training, a prerequisite for obtaining hand guns, have a responsibility to the community that those you are taking on are not mentally unstable dangerous people.

Do you think a dirty peace of paper washes the bloody of your hand? It don't. The fact is Edwards told the truth about his past history on his application form to the club. But like the bloody fools they are, they seen fit to take him on without any checks of their own being done.

Is your gun club the same, take all comers, providing they've got a scrap of paper. Not good enough!

Go back to my original post and answer the question;

Should Australia be concerned that not enough is done to determine the mental state of those who in the first instance apply for a gun licence, and then their ongoing mental fitness to hold such a licence?

Issy, how about a bit of honesty.

Hi there PAUL1405...

You and I don't often agree with each other on many fronts; however you've got a good point here. Much more care should be taken - 'By the Police' in order to determine the emotional or psychological fitness of all applicants for F/A Licences (not only handguns). If an applicant is flagged, or admits on his application, to having such issues, it should befall a qualified Psychiatrist to give an opinion as to whether a F/A licence should be issued.

After I was diagnosed with war caused PTSD, renewal of my F/A license 'always' had attached to it, a letter from my Psychiatrist indicating I was a fit and proper person to be in possession of a F/A. Yet I went through over 32 years of service with the police carrying a handgun. After retiring, I sought a civilian F/A licence and on the application; where you're asked; 'if I'd ever suffered from any mental illness', I had to 'fess up' to having PTSD, and I was in receipt of a 100% pension from DVA.

Anyone who wilfully conceals evidence of suffering from a mental illness, when seeking a F/A licence, should be banned for a significant period in my view.

News just in that Edwards used a .357 pistol along with another powerful semi-automatic to kill his kids.

St Mary's are still advertising this package on their site;

"TRY SHOOTING PISTOL
Participants will shoot 15 rounds of .22 Semi-auto, .357 revolver, 9mm Semi-auto, inclusive of personal instructor, ammunition, targets, hearing and eye protection. One-hour session $90.00 per person or $81.00 per person with a group of 10 or more people."

We also learned that his AVO had expired by the time he walked in the door at St Mary's so that flag was missing. Surely this makes the case for the 10 year limit before it is expunged from the process be extended.

Paul,

"Should Australia be concerned that not enough is done to determine the mental state of those who in the first instance apply for a gun licence, and then their ongoing mental fitness to hold such a licence?"

I agree but with the proviso that the same mental checks should also be applied to all politicians, motor vehicle drivers and anyone else who possesses anything that can kill.

Don't you think that that is fair?

It's not up to club officials to tell the Police Commissioner that he is wrong.
As far a the Firearms Act is concerned he is God.

Issy, your people without conducting a few simple checks facilitated the training of Edwards so he could shoot dead his own children.

//politicians, motor vehicle drivers and anyone else who possesses anything that can kill.//
A red herring, not worth answering.

//It's not up to club officials to tell the Police Commissioner that he is wrong.
As far a the Firearms Act is concerned he is God.//

No he's not. Its your mob playing God, with tragic results. Fess up old son the gunnies blundered badly, and the result is the death of two innocent children. The clowns who trained Edwards in the use of guns, do they sleep at night, knowing what they have done.

Paul,

"The clowns who trained Edwards in the use of guns, do they sleep at night, knowing what they have done."

Yes, soundly probably, as he was trained at Government expense in the Australian Army.

Does that make all Australians culpable?

You might not that a Commissioners Permit is not a filthy piece of paper but an official NSW Government document that carries a lot of authority.

Dear Is Mise,

I know you are determined not to address this but St Mary's Shooting Club, which your organisation runs, was in absolutely no way obliged to take this man as a member whatever bit of paper he might want to wave under their noses.

Your lot did. Thus enabling him to purchase the guns he slaughtered his children with. Plenty of other clubs refused to do so. You might have felt you personally would have been able to sleep at night if you were directly involved in that enabling, knowing you were complicit in these kids deaths, but you have a gun fetish which clouds your sense of decency. Most people, even those of other gun clubs registering new members do have a sense of responsibility and decency. In fact i'm pretty sure that even St Mary's club members involved with this man would have some sleepless nights recognising the part they played. But not you. Not our ol Is Mise. Would sleep like a baby. Do you understand that is not normal?

C'mon STEELEREDUX...

You've got no idea what's going on in IS MISE's heart and mind! I don't believe there's a man alive in this great country of ours, that hasn't felt the veritable horror, or the arrant misery, to do with this futile, and completely insane murder. A horrid crime that was perpetrated against two innocent young people, by their own selfish Father. It's got me utterly buggered that he could slay, his own flesh and blood.

Dear o sung wu,

Do I think if Is Mise was the one who trained this bloke in the use of the pistols he used to slaughter his children that he wouldn't have sleepless nights over it despite his obvious unseemly love of guns and his determination to see as much of the Australian population armed as possible?

Of course not.

However Is Mise attempted to divert the point Paul was making to instead raise Edward's military training.

All I was doing was employing the same technique to directly accuse him of not caring about these kids deaths. If that tactic is legitimate when he does it then it is legitimate when I do it.

For the record I don't think it is legitimate at all but in Is Mise's case if he lives by the sword …

Is Mise has been determined to build his case of guns in homes and accuses those who oppose this as uncaring and responsible when an unarmed person is raped or murdered. It has to work both ways.

Steele,

Are you as stupid as you portray yourself?

"Thus enabling him to purchase the guns he slaughtered his children with."

The club didn't enable him to purchase anything, FAR gave him the licence and the Permits to Purchase and the Commissioner's Permit got him past the clubs objections.

Does it not occur to you that the club officials would take the view that the Commissioner knew more than they did and act accordingly.

To be given a Commissioner's Permit is no light thing and is rather rare.

John Edwards- Sadly we've seen this soap opera play out many times now. It appears that John Edwards built up his career and in his sixties hadit all taken away through the family court by a woman of 36- thirty years his junior. Commonly women want sole custody from my limited understanding. It appears common for women who have the power in the system to try to manipulate the situation to their advantage by provocation, etc.

There's a lesson here for all men

1. Marry in your financial circle to a woman with a job that pays at least as much as you- not drawn in by a pretty face. If she quits her job divorce her immediately. At least if you divorce (>50% chance) you'll lose less of your assets.

2. if you are unwise enough to have children expect to become a slave to your ex-wife as she will likely get custody. There really doesn't appear to be any way to avoid this. Vasectomy seems to be the best option- though it's not completely risk free. A beautiful gentle woman can become an aggressive violent powerful pitiless demon in the family court. In chinese language the word "good" is made up of the characters for "woman and child". The UN has a convention on the rights of "women and children". If women are the "definition of good" what hope for men.

There are a number of NGO's that will help women through the Family Court System but few historically that will help men. Out of the large number of men in custody disputes only a small number resort to murder- I'm surprised given the stories that more don't resort to these terrible solutions. The more I hear about men in this situation the more I pity them- they are often very capable men that have been trapped by this situation. Reminds me of war. I'm sure most have seen hopeless situations where a good man is reduced to a desperate shadow- there has to be a better way.

Any animal that is cornered will fight or run.

//The club didn't enable him to purchase anything//

Issy that is a lie, and you know it. If the St Mary's Gun Club, or some other club, had not taken Edwards on as member, and given him the required training, Edwards would never have been able to purchase the guns he used to murder his children.

Greens MP David Shoebridge;

(commissioner’s) permits were a “legal loophole” that sat outside the national firearms agreement and “needs to be shut”.

“Having a gun is a privilege, not a right, and the law needs to clearly say if you don’t meet the test for a gun you don’t get one, with no exceptions,”

Shoebridge called on the NSW police commissioner, Mick Fuller, to “publicly state why this permit was issued and what, if any, third party representations were made in support of it”.

“Until an urgent and public safety review has been done no further special commissioner’s permits should be issued,”
“We need tough gun laws that protect women and children, not weak ones with loopholes that only empower men.”

Shoebridge said firearm laws should include notifications and veto rights when gun permits or licences are sought “at a minimum”.

“Gun violence prevention orders would allow family members who may be at risk to have a court order that a former partner’s guns be removed,”

This is the kind of sensible politics we need to stop the outrageous behaviour that is occurring right now.

I ask; How many more John Edwards's are there in the community, members of gun clubs, gun owners, who given the slightest prevarication, will explode with catastrophic consequences?

All because of lax gun control laws.

Paul,

"Issy that is a lie, and you know it. If the St Mary's Gun Club, or some other club, had not taken Edwards on as member, and given him the required training, Edwards would never have been able to purchase the guns he used to murder his children."

A Commissioner's Permit overrides all, even the decision of a Magiistrate and you need go no further than your own Sandalplank,

" Greens MP David Shoebridge;

(commissioner’s) permits were a “legal loophole” that sat outside the national firearms agreement and “needs to be shut”.

“Having a gun is a privilege, not a right, and the law needs to clearly say if you don’t meet the test for a gun you don’t get one, with no exceptions,” [which it does, except for Commissioner's Permits].

Shoebridge called on the NSW police commissioner, Mick Fuller, to “publicly state why this permit was issued and what, if any, third party representations were made in support of it”
[Go, David!!]

Might I remind you that Edwards was a former soldier and as such was trained in the use of firearms (in recruit training), so spread your vitriolic BS somewhere where it might be believed.

Steele,

"However Is Mise attempted to divert the point Paul was making to instead raise Edward's military training."

Not at all, no diversion intended, but a refutation.

Don't you feel at all responsible, Steele, as a citizen of Australia that you are partly responsible for Edward, the ex-soldier, being trained in the use of firearms?

Sleeping well?

How are you going with finding some evidence that the firearms laws have been weakened?

You don't need me to quote you again, do you?

It never ceases to amaze me how emotive the possession; ownership ; and use of F/A's can be. Personally I've never approved of the Commissioner's Permit. Though I dare say hundreds of police may do so. In my opinion; irrespective of who you may be, you apply for a licence in exactly the same way as everyone else, without exception.

STEELEREDUX; you might recall in an earlier post on July 07; I alluded to Mr Edward's obvious wealth and being well to do? Suggesting he might've had some influence with authorities? Which turned out to be right. As such he received extraordinary treatment above and beyond that, which any ordinary applicant must comply with.

You might also recall, I didn't want to comment any further on it - well there it is for all to see, the *Commissioner's 'friggin' Permit*. As a result 3 souls are now dead. Whatever bastard Commissioner who granted that Permit...well I hope it's assuaged your lousy conscience in some measure? Nothing like having a good mate in high places I guess!

All applicants for a F/A licence *MUST* go through the same scrutiny as everyone else. The Premier, should instantaneously cancel the Commissioners Permit. It's abuse is a step too far, and too costly in terms of human lives.

o sung wu,

You've hit the nail just where it's meant to be hit!!

//A Commissioner's Permit overrides all//

No, no it does not. A Comissioner's Permit overrides the P650 form; it does not require a club to accept anybody's application for membership.

When Edwards applied to join the Ku-Ring-Gai Pistols Club, it wasn't just the P650 that got him rejected - it was also because club officials did not find him to be of good character. At the end of the day, the final discretion to grant somebody membership to a gun club rests with that gun club. The buck stops with them. Even with a Commisioner's Permit, the St Mary’s Indoor Shooting Centre could have refused his application for exactly the same reason that the Ku-Ring-Gai club did. But they chose not to.

Which is interesting to say the least. Readers may be interested to note that the Ku-Ring-Gai Pistols Club is not affiliated with the SSAA, whereas St. Mary's is. And we know the SSAA wants its membership to be as large as possible, so that it has the numbers and more importantly the cash to wield politcal clout.

So as far as I can tell, they were happy to sign up a bloke who by all accounts had a few obvious screws loose so that they could add another member to the books. With their motivation for garnering more members being to increase their lobbying power so they can make it even easier for nutters like Edwards to get their hands on guns in the future.

Truly disturbing.

Toni,

The Commissioner of Police in NSW has overriding power under the Firearms Act, he can nullify a Magistrate's or even a Judge's decision to grant a licence/permit.
The Firearms Act is the only legislation in the Commonwealth, afaik, that gives this right to an individual.

Officers of a gun club have no legal right to investigate anyone beyond the word of mouth level, to do otherwise is to invite prosecution for invasion of privacy and possibly slander.

When one applies for a licence there is a 28 day cooling off period, during which the police conduct a thorough LEGAL investigation into the applicant.

If a licence is granted then the first Permit to Purchase is subject to the same LEGAL investigation and a 28 day waiting period.

This waiting period commences the day that the application is recorded and ends before the paper work is issued.

Such other LEGAL investigations may be instituted as the Commissioner requires.

It ain't a rubber stamp job.

//Officers of a gun club have no legal right to investigate anyone beyond the word of mouth level//

No, of course not.

But they're still allowed to tell 'em to take a hike if they can see that they're a wrong'un, even if they've got a Commissioner's permit and a note from their Mum to boot.

It just sometimes... when they're affiliated with the SSAA... they choose not to.

Hey, gotta get that membership up somehow. With no money and no influence you're just a bunch gun nuts that nobody will listen to.

Toni,

" With no money and no influence you're just a bunch gun nuts that nobody will listen to."

That's right, that's why some of us formed The Shooters' Party.

The SSAA has plenty of money, even their own insurance company, catering to their members but also doing general insurance.

Marvellous what John Howard achieved.

Issy, did we touch a raw nerve?

Why don't you rebut the point Toni is marking?

//the St Mary’s Indoor Shooting Centre could have refused his application for exactly the same reason that the Ku-Ring-Gai club did. But they chose not to.//

Put up the evidence that the St Mary's Indoor Shooting Centre was FORCED to accept Edwards as a member. Just who held a gun to their heads.

The culpability in this lies with all three, politicians for making weak laws in the first, the coppers for being incompetent and the gunnies for taking on an obvious nutter without question.

Call David Shoebridge what you like. The man has to his credit not wavered from the fight with the gun freaks over firearm laws, despite abuse and threats of all kinds.

The pair of smug bastards sitting in the NSW LC supposedly representing the gun freaks of NSW, could lean a lesson from David.

//The SSAA has plenty of money// I would agree Issy as the Australian chapter of the Yankee NRA they are well looked after financially by the parent.

//That's right, that's why some of us formed The Shooters' Party//

The pair of fruit loops they have sitting in the NSW LC make those wild west clowns of yours look normal.

Paul,

"//The SSAA has plenty of money// I would agree Issy as the Australian chapter of the Yankee NRA they are well looked after financially by the parent. "

There's that unsubstantiated furphy again; when are you going to stop
the BS and give some proof?

In a gun club, as in the police force, when the Commissioner says "Jump!", the only question is "How high?"

What threats have been made against David Shoebridge, and by whom?

I do note that Shoebridge does not seem to be blaming the gun club.

Just as a point of interest, why are people not using quotation marks ("...") for quotations?

Seems strange.

//In a gun club, as in the police force, when the Commissioner says "Jump!", the only question is "How high?"//

A Commissioner's permit does not require a gun club to admit anybody they don't want to. It just waives P650 requirements. You are talking bollocks.

//Just as a point of interest, why are people not using quotation marks ("...") for quotations?

Seems strange.//

Depends what I'm quoting. See, if I was to quote an excerpt from an external source I'd use quotation marks. But when I'm quoting from previous posts within a thread, I'm used to forums (fora?) with slightly more advanced web design than this outdated place. Most of them have a feature that allows one to easily and readily cite a previous post. Good example here, with 'glenwal' quoting a previous post from 'Rod' in a fascinating discussion about crushing grain for home brewing:

http://aussiehomebrewer.com/threads/how-to-crush-a-small-amount-of-grain.64087/#post-901522

But OLO was obviously created when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the Grahamosaurus Regina hasn't seen fit to update it. So I creatively adapt punctuation to serve my own needs.

Paul,

"The culpability in this lies with all three, politicians for making weak laws in the first, the coppers for being incompetent and the gunnies for taking on an obvious nutter without question."

But did they take him on without question?

Any evidence for that?

So the gun laws are weak, seems like you think that Howard's laws are a failure, not something that you conceded in the past?

Was Edwards an obvious nutter?
He seemed to present well to the Fire fighters and to the Financial community and had a successful business; hardly the outward marks of one of mental deficiency.

But then you and Steele found this to be a golden opportunity to savage the law-abiding with whom you disagree, pity that you lower yourselves to score points via murdered children; sleep soundly.

Toni,

"//In a gun club, as in the police force, when the Commissioner says "Jump!", the only question is "How high?"//

A Commissioner's permit does not require a gun club to admit anybody they don't want to. It just waives P650 requirements. You are talking bollocks."

If I'm talking bollocks then I'm in good company.

The Attorneys Generals, Commonwealth and State, are looking at the matter, according to the newspapers, and they haven't yet said anything about the gun clubs, but they have had a lot to say about the Family Court and the lack of exchange of information with the various police forces.

o sung wu spoke wisely about this (pp.13-14.).

Only that well known anti, Adjunct Professor Phillip Alpers NAQ (NZ), NDQ (Aust) has mentioned the clubs, and then only in passing.

This topic is one of the most emotive, I've ever seen, since coming onto OLO half a dozen years ago; worse with such sad consequences.

There's nothing inherently wrong with our current licensing legislations. Like anything, it's not foolproof, and when cracks occur, occasionally things just happen to fall through those cracks.

The fault here (no doubt the Coroner will invariably tease out *ALL*of the facts) seems to be, this bloke was issued with a Commissioners Permit, when clearly he shouldn't be trusted with anything. The Commissioner or his delegate who issued the Permit, will have many probing questions to answer, all of which will be under oath!

The SSAA Pistol Club at St Mary's admitted this EDWARDS as a member, when other Clubs declined to do so. Why?

There's no doubt in my mind, this individual had a successful business, as evidenced by the two dwellings he allegedly 'owned', on the upper North Shore of Sydney, a well to do area. It follows, with success, (generally) comes money, and with money comes influence.

Was that 'influence' employed in such a manner, as to become such a powerful form of leverage; for him to obtain his Commissioner's Permit?

What was the elapsed period of time; from the moment EDWARDS physically received the Commissioners Permit, until he actually took possession of the .357mag Revolver and 9mm Pistol. Was it hours, days, weeks, months even? And was he furnished with a quantity of ammunition at the same time he received the two handguns from the SSAA Club?

Another puzzling issue - what was meant when it was stated, EDWARDS had no 'contemporary' criminal history?

There's a stench emanating from the executive floors of police HQ, with many question marks still hovering about their heads?

Like the Lindt Cafe Siege, there are still many unanswered questions remaining?

o sung wu,

"The SSAA Pistol Club at St Mary's admitted this EDWARDS as a member, when other Clubs declined to do so. Why?"

Why indeed, possibly because they thought that the Commissioner knew more than they did and that the Permit was an expression of the Commissioner's confidence in Edwards and also an expression of how he wished Edwards to be treated.
One can only assume that the Commissioner's Delegate informed the Boss of what he was doing regarding Permits and why.

As you say, a lot will come out at the Inquest.

G'day there IS MISE...

Indeed there will. The Coroner will no doubt extract all the evidence germane to this bloke getting two handguns, ammo, and a Commissioner's Permit. There's a real stench surrounding this whole business with the issuance of the Commissioner's Permit?

Issy, everything you say is oozing with supposition and conjecture.

Possibly Commissioner Flick, got on the blower to the Chief Gunnie Freak down at St Mary's and demanded his good buddy Johnny be given gold plated club membership or "I'll be down there slappen the cuffs on ya before you can shout stitch up!"

You blokes are insinuating that there was some kind of undue influence exerted by unnamed persons on the St Mary's Gun Club to get Edwards membership.

"//In a gun club, as in the police force, when the Commissioner says "Jump!", the only question is "How high?"//

If the Police Commissioner is exerting influence (jump) through intimidation (how high) then that smacks of corruption and he should be prosecuted. The bad old days where coppers acted outside the law, and got away with it, because they could, are well and truly over. If a copper today thinks he's something special and can act as he pleases. Well we have news for him, when caught his career is shot and in some very serious instances he can expect to be on the wrong side of the bars quick smart. The parties over boys.

Please explain the ramifications if one fails to jump when the Commissioner barks jump!

//There's nothing inherently wrong with our current licensing legislations. Like anything, it's not foolproof, and when cracks occur, occasionally things just happen to fall through those cracks.//

Well howdy doody, we've had a couple of things (kids)fall through the cracks

There is something inherently wrong with a system that allows a murderer to legally obtain a gun licence, then as a consequence of that licence obtain a gun, and proceed to murder his two innocent children!

Steele can you believe these guys? I'm sickened.

Paul,

Grow up, please.

"There is something inherently wrong with a system that allows a murderer to legally obtain a gun licence, then as a consequence of that licence obtain a gun, and proceed to murder his two innocent children!"

There would be a lot wrong with a system that allowed a murderer to obtain a gun licence, but we have seen no evidence of that.

As I said to OSW, the issuance of a Commissioner's Permit would indicate to club officials that the Commissioner knew more about Edwards than they did and that to grant him membership was OK.

Remember that the club officials have no investigatory powers whereas the Commissioner has a whole police force.

What happened to the police investigation, when he applied for a Licence and when he applied for a Permit to Purchase?

It'll all come out in the Inquest, meanwhile sleep the peaceful sleep of the Ambulance Chaser.

Don't tell me to grow up, you are the sick joke who is comfortable with the system. As long as you can play with your "big boys toys", you have never grown up, you have scant regard for the consequences. Your comments are mostly ignorant nonsense trying to deflect. Two children's lives means nothing to you, as long as you can act the big kid and shoot something.

How about we start by disarming all the unnecessary gun owners, and fruit loops like yourself. You have no valid reason to have possession of a gun.

//As I said to OSW, the issuance of a Commissioner's Permit would indicate to club officials that the Commissioner knew more about Edwards than they did and that to grant him membership was OK.// A lie you are making up to suit your argument, provide the evidence!

//There would be a lot wrong with a system that allowed a murderer to obtain a gun licence, but we have seen no evidence of that.//

Two more dead kids isn't sufficient evidence for you sickos?

Just how many children do you demand as blood sacrifices in the name of 'evidence'?

Toni, please remember for some its seen as things falling through the cracks. Also according to these guys Edwards was okay, had dosh, business owner, knew the right people etc, there kinda guy. This Commissioners Permit, and according to them its not the Commissioner its a toady of his. You don't even have to know the PC himself, just his toady will do, and you're in.
Not only do the wallies at St Mary's Dumb Club jump when the Commissioner so orders, they also jump when his toady barks at them. They must do a lot of jumping.

BTW, in April 2017 one of the funsters at this same gun club shot himself dead inside the premises. What a fun club! Sure beats the RSL for excitement. Although we did have an old digger pass away in the toilets recently, a sad end for a decent old bloke.

Toni,

When Edwards obtained a licence he was not a murderer.

Paul,

OK, so issuing Edwards with a Commissioner's permit would not indicate that he knew more than the club officials; got any evidence for that?

Hi there Toni & PAUL1405...

Nobody laments more, the loss of these two innocent teenagers, then the attending police. I include myself in that statement having attended many murder/suicide scenes. When you get that call over the (police) car radio, requesting for the nearest (mobile) detectives car, to attend a possible shooting, you know damn well, you're going to be in for a powerfully poignant time. Not only at the scene of the crime; but advising the NOK; and if you're the 'Case Officer' the autopsy, at the morgue; and later on, the Coronial Inquiry.

Other than a few psychopaths I've known, sudden death affect's people in different ways, the most common is; incredulity and denial. One thing is always apparent; arrant shock. So when you Paul, with your, contemptuous and caustic tongue, make light of what the police have done or haven't done, in this very sad issue, I find particularly insulting.

It's as insulting as when I previously described you as a draft dodger, and a coward; over your actions during the Vietnam War. For which I've apologised, having recognised you're a legitimate pacifists.

Toni, none of us have garnered any joy from these dreadful deaths - all THREE of them. If I had the power, I'd be looking through ever single word, in every page, in every single transcript, that arose out of the plaint: 'Edwards v Edwards' listed in the Family Court.

I can't say positively - but if we look closely enough, we might just find the reason(s) 'WHY' this tragedy happened buried deep within the archives of the Family Law Court.

There's no doubt, one or two police are culpable herein. Those who issued the Commissioners Permit. Do we blame the entire police force for this tragic event, of course not.

Paul, instead of launching into some ferocious attack on all police - why not offer suggestions for better methods to licence shooters, in order to avoid where possible, crimes such as this from occurring again.

//Do we blame the entire police force for this tragic event, of course not.// agree unquestionably.

Nor do I blame the Family Court, which is tasked with a most arduous undertaking dealing with family breakup and all the nasty ramifications that go with it, particularly where children are involved.

I was a bit emotive when I read your comment "Like anything, it's not foolproof, and when cracks occur, occasionally things just happen to fall through those cracks."

It most likely sounded worse than you intended. I don't believe you are some uncaring oaf at all, just the opposite. If it was in reference to the system used to determine handicaps at the local golf club, I'd take it as, well that's okay, but when it involves the lives of two innocent children I just can't cop it, sorry for the pun. I even feel sorry for John Edwards, what a poor tormented soul he must have been, I can't begin to imagine the last 24 hours of torment in that mans life.

The system has to be FOOLPROOF, the consequences otherwise are just too serious to accept anything less.

Hi there PAUL1405...

Point taken - when the consequences are so high, all the checks & balances must be foolproof. I don't believe there's a person alive that wouldn't agree with you. In every instance when someone unfit for purpose, is rejected from obtaining a F/A licence, and the 'System' picks him up - well that's a win to the system and the whole of society.

Problem is, the 'System' must win every time. But with the criminal class; or the emotionally; or psychologically unfit applicant, who has an evil intent with that F/A - we've got to nail him, 'first time'!

That's despite how adroit we are, and how jolly clever he is. With masquerading and concealing those matters & issues that will clearly disqualify him from obtaining that licence.

Perhaps in time the government may mandate all applicants for F/A licences be (i) printed & (ii) DNA'd BEFORE making a formal application. Moreover a reasonable waiting period should be attached to that licence. Will that prevent any further homicide's with F/A's? No not really, but it might just give some potential perpetrator pause, to perhaps cool down sufficiently before committing another EDWARDS style crime.

Hi o sung wu,

//Problem is, the 'System' must win every time.// There's the rub, no system can get it right ever time. Given my position on F/A I'm going to demand a perfect system, or no system at all. For now politicians are going to need to bite the bullet, sorry another pun, and overhaul a number of aspects in relation to legislation and procedural matters which an inquiry will no doubt highlight.

Paul,

In light of recent events in Perth and Bringelly, what's your position on scissors and knives?

You really should consider moving to America, Is Mise. They seem like your kind of people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkXeMoBPSDk

Toni,

Not my types, too conservative.

Paul,

How are you going with the evidence for the US NRA and the SSAA alleged (tinged with Green) financial links?

Steele,

How are you doing with some evidence to back up your wild and imaginative assertion that the gun laws have been weakened?

Hi Issy,

My position on scissors and knives remains unchanged, my wife is still using her scissors for the purpose they were designed for, cutting sowing material, and I still use a knife to cut my steak.

The Romans murdered millions and didn't use a gun once, so what is your point.The purpose of guns is to kill, on the other hand knives and scissors, unlike guns, their primary purpose is not as instruments of killing, but something different. Your way to justify gun murders, is to highlight murders committed with knives and scissors. Other than the fact they were used to commit murder there is no other relationship, apples and oranges my boy, apples and oranges!

Paul,

It's called 'Selectivism', you couldn't care less about your fellow Australians who are wounded or murdered unless it's by a gun.
Gun crimes suite your agenda so you use them to attack law abiding citizens, just as you invent lies about the SSAA; found any evidence yet of financial collusion with the US NRA?

When the demented mother in Queensland murdered her eight children we never heard a peep from the Greens and there were no politicians calling for more funds for mental health, but if she had shot them then there would have been screaming headlines calling for something to be done.
http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/courts-law/cairns-mum-who-killed-eight-children-unfit-for-trial/news-story/79f6e1b3af2688f9aaa1edeed70123be

Hi there Issy,

//you (paul405) couldn't care less about your fellow Australians who are wounded or murdered unless it's by a gun.//
The couldn't care less attitude, is that of the selfish gun freaks such as you, who regardless of how many deaths guns cause are unwilling to accommodate any changes that would reduce the number of firearm deaths. You want less regulation, less control, so you can carry on with your silly perverted pleasure.

In your case society does not need YOU to have firearms in your possession. Like all armature gunnies you present an unacceptable risk to the community.

On the ongoing issue of mental illness, The Greens have a detailed policy, and have long been a voice for those so affected, and have always advocated for more resources to be channeled in that direction.

For all the years the Shooters and Hooters Party has been around in NSW I've been amazed at their general lack of policy, in all areas. They usually demonstrate a knee jerk reaction to most issues, and are willing to trade their vote in any direction for more concessions on gun laws. A lazy political party pandering to the two percent.

Paul,

Care to tell us why the Greens didn't back the SF&F Party when the latter tried to have the firearm laws stiffened in regard to criminal misuse of firearms?

When you do get around to telling us you might also let us in on the secret of your success in finding a financial link between the US NRA and the SSAA.

Steele,

How're you going finding all those instances of weakened gun laws; Paul might give you a hand, or ask Toni, he knows about Police Commissioners giving firearms licences to murderers.

Hi there DAVID F...

Perhaps I misread you when you said you were an advisor
to; Sen. WOODLEY over proposed laws for gun control?

//tried to have the firearm laws stiffened//

Ha! youa' trya to maka with de funny ah? The Greens like others, did not support grandstanding and smoke screens put up by these yokels. A piece of sloppy legislation that was not supported by the parliament.

The evidence is all there Issy, have a read.

Paul,

"The evidence is all there Issy, have a read."

How can I; you didn't give a reference?

The Greens have a policy on everything, including telling lies about the involvement of the US NRA with the SSAA and about weakened gun laws.