This is in response to Canem Malum's explanation about
talking about people in the third person?
I wonder how much fun we could have - if we all did it?
I'll give it a go:

This is for you Steele:

Canem Malum is an uncommon name
Being a watchdog is his favourite game
He's come on the forum to check every post
'Cause catching commies and Marxists
Is What he seems to enjoy the most

A British pug he's here to stay
And he wants all "foreigners" to just go away
Advance Australia Fair he doesn't voice
God Save The Queen is his song of choice

Putting the boot in is his favourite job
He likes to appeal to his favourite mob
They call themselves "conservatives"
But that's not simply true
They're just narrow-minded instead of true-blue

His most disliked poster just has to be
Yep, you've guessed it
The wiley, sexy, vulpine
The playful, mischievious and bushy-tailed
FOXY!

Salutations Issy,

I was wondering how long it would take for you to deflect to that silly old "SCRUB BULL" nonsense!

I absolutely agree every Australian, including 5 year old's, should be carrying a loaded AK-47, just in case "Scrubby The Bull" should make an appearance in their neighbourhood.

You say, school teachers should be trained in the use of a pistol. Will that training be carried out by the gun nut jobs from the Australian chapter of the NRA at their St Mary's gunnie HQ. The same mob who not only trained the child killer John Edwards, but also sold him the weapon he used.

So you support primary school children carrying loaded guns for self-protection, as per Shooters and Hooters policy.

Paul,
Why is the scrub bull analogy nonsense?
Please explain how the farmer should react under Greens’ policy.
Under their policy it would appear that a Police Officer would not be allowed to use his issue pistol for self defence.

As far as scrub bulls are concerned, I speak from personal experience; I was in the process of reloading my single shot muzzle loading percussion rifle when the bull charged out of the scrub, had I not been carrying a heavy pistol (on the old “possess, use and carry” licence) then I probably wouldn’t be here to regale you with a slice of real life.

SF&F policy on self defence is quite reasonable, it’s only your feeble attempts at “humorous” misinterpretations that are at fault.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Nah mate, finding that quote was a 30 second exercise. It is a good one from you isn't it.

As to me getting it wrong all I asked from you was evidence for what you were asserting and at no time did I claim that evidence, when provided, was not correct.

But as usual your deep hypocrisy on this matter was there for all to see.

Now to your idiotic assertion that: “Had there been staff, or even the threat of staff, inside the building who were armed or potentially armed, the shooter most probably wouldn't have even been there. As I said earlier, there are no examples, that I could find, of mass shootings in schools that allowed the staff to carry firearms.”

Texas already allows for armed teacher in its schools. Originally limited to one armed marshal for every 200 students that cap was removed after the Santa Fe shooting in 2018 and now allows for unlimited number of staff to be armed.

It did diddly squat.

To expect a lightly trained teacher with a hand gun to be effective against a suicidal youth with an automatic military styled weapon is just bonkers and puts you in that ideological sewer that characterises much of the US right nowadays.

Dear Canem Malum,

Little mousey squeaks from over in the corner are hardly becoming are they. Inane commentary is boring. Try to step up mate.

Guns are not a controversial issue to most people
in Australia.

It took one mass shooting for Australia to pass
gun reform. Whereas in the United States there have been many
mass shootings none of which have been met with successful
gun control legislation.

Most Australian view guns as only being needed to be used
by farmers or hunters and even then these guns are rightly
regulated. There's a huge gap in how the United States and
Australia views firearms - in part due to each country's
historical origins.

Both Australia and the United States were colonies of Great
Britain but only one (the US) fought a war to win its
independence and it has the right to bear arms enshrined in
its constitution.

Of course the United States is a much larger, and very
different country than Australia. However more guns is not
the answer - it should be fewer guns.

In our country it was a conservative leader - our Prime Minister
and his government who decided after the Port Arthur Massacre
in 1996 that Australia needed to restrict access to deadly
weapons and introduced the program called - The National
Firearms Agreement which banned certain firearms such as
automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shot guns.

They established a gun registry of all guns owned in the
country and required a permit for all new firearm purchases,
among other things.

This succeeded in Australia.

If the United States keeps on doing what they've been doing
they're not going to get any change. If their objective is
to really reduce - and hopefully to eliminate these tragic
incidents, then business as usual or tinkering just around the
edges is not going to work.

Be grateful we live in Australia and we should resist any
influence that the NRA may be trying to introduce to this
country. The US should look to Australia's model and learn
from it. We don't need people like the former US President
Donald Trump telling people what to do. One of the biggest
contributors to his election campaigns was the NRA.

Foxy,
You say more guns is not the answer but that it should be fewer guns; how do you explain that in the US, and Australia, that as the number of civilian guns has increased crime rates have decreased?