Hi there STEELEREDUX...

Ordinary licensed shooters rarely commit a crime with the use of a firearm. Mostly it's criminals, with F/A's that are not licensed to them and have been sourced illegally. The rising hysteria surrounding F/A possession in NSW does little for sensible debate. The media added to it, by announcing, there were over a million licensed F/A's in the State, more than the advent of Port Arthur. We have one contributor herein, who persists in adding to the frenzy, by telling us the success of policing, is measured by stopping crime and what precisely the police should be doing or not doing. I guess with a view to expunge all F/A's out of the hands of all private individuals. Or some such arrant nonsense?

Shooting is a legitimate sport in this country. Whether it's hunting, destruction of ferals, or target shooting, nevertheless it's legal. It's also true; guns are weapons, designed to kill. Therefore I wonder how many folk are killed in Australia p.a., by a F/A? As opposed to that of a motor vehicle, which is still, according to my understanding, is yet to be determined, a weapon?

Just one small criticism if I may. Contributors herein, who continually make use of 'citations,' 'quotations,' 'some source or other,' or draw on some 'reference' from elsewhere:- with respect, please desist forthwith. I would much prefer to hear your own 'personal views; your opinions; and arguments'. Rather than this endless array of quotations, extracts, references, and other meaningless excerpts. That has been attributed from other authors, who know no better, and who're a mere figment of someone's imagination.

Foxy,

"That only confirms that the value of fire arms in the
hands of law-abiding citizens needs to be
measured in terms of lives saved or crimes prevented.
Which is the point being made."

It has been measured see the post: Posted by Philip S, Sunday, 10 March 2019 11:12:55 PM

Dear Philip S,

I didn't fully read your post because it started with this;

“An unpublished Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study confirms Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s findings of more than two million defensive handgun uses (DGUs) per year.”

So some tosser is quoting from an unpublished report and making a claim that it supports his findings? And a quick glance shows not a single link in your post.

Why on earth would I bother. Both I and Foxy managed to post links, in fact I posted one for every single mass shooting I quoted. You managed zero.

You are just being a lazy flog. Go do your homework and get back to us. If adequately referenced I will take a look.

Dear Is Mise,

Bloody hell mate I gave you the response you wanted and now you are whinging about it being too sexual? Isn't there an inverse correlation between penis size and gun ownership, especially those who stockpile hundreds of them? It's my stock standard reply and you should be used to it.

You say; “Could you please shew me some evidence that gun laws are getting more lax?” Nope because we have done this dance before where I had clearly laid out a number of instances as examples yet you are regurgitating this same bloody question.

You claim that firearm crime is falling yet;

“MELBOURNE'S FATAL SHOOTINGS IN MARCH:
* MARCH 1: Cragieburn dad Ben Toigai, 30, was shot dead outside a Kensington boxing match. Two other men also suffered gunshot wounds in the same attack.
* MARCH 3: Mitat Rasimi, aged in his 50s, died after crashing his car into a pole at Dandenong, but police believe gunshots he received earlier caused his death.
* MARCH 4: Two men - Ali Ali, 28, and Deniz Hasan, 40 - died after being shot at Meadow Heights. One was being wheeled around in a shopping trolley calling for help before he died.
* MARCH 10: An unnamed man shot dead at Springvale allegedly by a 19-year-old Dandenong man known to him.”

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/melbourne-man-dies-of-gunshot-on-road/news-story/be46a1c9d6e371bce243f381c69c9cd2

Steele,

“Could you please shew me some evidence that gun laws are getting more lax?” Nope because we have done this dance before where I had clearly laid out a number of instances as examples yet you are regurgitating this same bloody question."

Well, regurgitate the same answers because as I remember it you failed miserably to shew where gun laws have become more lax.

Keep up the sexual references, they point to some deficiency.

Your references to shootings are irrelevant as what I was pointing out is that when a civilian uses a gun in successful defence there is never any mention of it in our press.

Why are you so down on law-abiding people who want to shoot and who comply with the law?

The recent Melbourne shootings, five in number, are irrelevant as they were by criminals, who, you might be surprised to know ignore the law.

Dear o sung wu,

Re your 'small criticism' first. I looked at my reply to you and it was opinion and personal anecdotal experiences without a link in sight. However I will say that if someone says something is fact when there is evidence to the contrary they will get as many references as it takes to set the record straight. So I'm afraid I can't give you any more than that.

John Edwards legally owned two pistols which he purchased with the intent of taking the lives of his daughters. He passed all the legal requirements to become a member of a gun club. It was Is Mise's associations club who took him in allowed him to purchase those weapons and trained him in their use.

Perhaps I could get your opinion on this farmers concern about the proposed ban on silencers being lifted.

Are you supportive of this farmer's stance?

“Sheep, cattle and grain farmer, Leonard Vallance, is the head of the Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) livestock group and is also a licensed firearm user.

He said that while most shooters do the right thing, illegal shooting on rural properties was a problem and he did not want that group having access to silencers.

"They shoot stuff that they shouldn't shoot, they leave gates open, they leave rubbish around the property, and they're generally a nuisance," Mr Vallance said.

"They are a safety hazard to the farmer, livestock and the wider community."

Mr Vallance said if more people could legally use silencers there would be other safety risks as well.

"My concern would be that if the firearms were stolen with silencers fitted to them they could then enter into the illegal crime market and that would be a problem for everyone," he said.

"In the last 12 months, two of my neighbours have had their gun safes broken into on their properties and they were locked away properly, bolted down and secured, and they still had their firearms stolen out of their gun safes."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-25/victorian-parliament-bill-to-legalise-firearm-silencers/10030892

I do not support weakening of laws to allow silencers. Do you?

Steele,

"I do not support weakening of laws to allow silencers. Do you?"

Emphatically no.

I have no desire to see silencers legalized beyond the present requirements.
But concerns that they might fall into the hands of criminals are absurd, criminals can already get silencers if they want them.
They are readily available and legally from most automotive stockists and I don't mean exhaust silencers.

Silencers don't work too well on most pistols and only really work on locked breech firearms and then they require the use of low powered sub-sonic ammunition.
Any gun that uses ammo whose velocity exceeds the speed of sound will still have the sonic crack of the sound barrier being broken and there is no way to stop that.