Thanks to everyone so far for their input to my original post and it's clear to me, if no-one else, why politicians have been reluctant to involve themselves with gun laws in the past.

Unfortunately it's impossible to respond to every contributor on a singular level, due to to time constraints and restrictions placed upon each of us, concerning this site.

There's no doubt the arguments for or against suitable gun laws could go on forever, but I would in particular like to thank ChrisPer for their input. Well balanced comments put far more eloquently than I.

Aime -- Relax. I didn't mean to imply that legal gun owners would become criminals. I suggested only, that the opportunity to become one, is a lot easier if one owns a rifle. I hope from the comments I've submitted on the various issues surrounding this blog, I've never given the impression that I might tempted to use any weapon, at any time, to help solve a problem. Do you see that applying to everyone on this blog? I don't.
Can I tell you a tale? Yes I can, but here's another. There are many more legal gun owners out there who should not be allowed possession of a firearm, than we could ever know or give credit for.

On another note. I must confess I don't see a connection with the suspicion that politicians are wanting to disarm the nation. Why?Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

aftfnc. Your query about my 'rock collector' handle. Easy if you think about it.
I've collected a few wouldn't you agree? Probably collect a few more.

Sorry ChrisPer...... 'God help us' not the best choice. 'God forbid' should do it. Frustration, not panic, at the apathy and complacency of the general public not getting involved. Well we deserve what we'll get I suppose.

You seem to have a little more faith in our politicians than I have. I hope you're right, but Mr Beattie needs every vote he can muster on this one!

rock collector wrote "There are many more legal gun owners out there than we could ever know or give credit for."
Where does this delusion come from? Can he/she back it up with facts, not "tales"?
To have a licence (requirement for a legal gun owner), one has to pass police background checks. A pistol licence has to be renewed once per year, so checks are ongoing. Also, a doctor can recommend cancellation of a licence if he thinks that the holder is a risk. A licence and any firearms will be confiscated if the holder is involved in any dispute that involves restraining orders etc. In view of all this, it's virtually impossible to believe rc's statement.

Yep! JSP1488 Completely dilusional.......Must be the answer to everything!

You see eftfnc! There goes another one.

rc...great comeback. There goes another what?

You still haven't backed up your statement, "There are many more legal gun owners out there than we could ever know or give credit for." with facts. I bet that you can't.

Or maybe you think that avoiding the question makes you right.

I think I know where you keep your rocks.

Just reviewing past posts and read Country Girl's "Currently, you dont need to even sign a declaration that you have all your guns, let alone have the weapons inspected to verify that you still have them.". I must have missed it previously. CG, I don't know where you are writing from but I thought that the gun laws were universal across Australia. Here, in SA, the police can arrive at your door without warning and inspect your guns, ammo, reloading consumables and safe storage arrangements. If you don't have all your guns that are on the register, you are in deep s---. This also applies if you have ammo of a calibre different from those of your guns. I thought that this was the case in all states.

Steady on JSP1488. I've got feelings.
Got a lot more demands on my time than this thread don't you know. But you had your chance.

'There goes another one' refers to one of my previous posts. It means 'rock' and if you care to go back and read them you'd have made yourself aware of what I meant. My particular brand of humour I expect.
Not surprised you didn't get it though, and if you'd continue to read my posts a little more thoroughly you'd also be aware that what you stated I'd written is incorrect. Have a look at it and you'll see what I mean. There is a little more attached to it.

Smarten yourself up JSP1488.
Damn, I spelt the the word delusional wrong in my last post.
No wonder you're confused JSP1488.