Good post, Herr zDoktor,,
But something can be done about knives, if licencing of gun owners and gun weapons is the answer to gun crime why is not the same regeme applicable to knife owners and their weapons?
If it would work for one then it should work for others.
Mental health checks are desirable for all who have the means to kill easily.
Motor vehicle drivers are licenced and their vehicles registered yet murders and other homicides are committed with vehicles.

Mental health testing could be applied to many other aspects of society.

Politicians for a start, then bus drivers, train drivers, railway signalmen/women, boiler attendants, doctors, nurse and chemists and anyone else who has a job where mental
imbalance could cause deaths.
These are also positions where alcohol can also be a problem as it not only dulls the senses but can be the trigger for mental problems.

Herr Doktor, something can be done about knife murders, hard but doable, but those who have an agenda against the hundreds of thousand of licenced gun ownners would prefer to
ignore the weapon used for the most murders and the unfortunate victims.

ttbn,
Yes, I suppose that most people would not associate John and Laura.

John was a thorough gentleman and I was proud to call him friend.
He did a mighty jon for gun owners and others and for his country.

You're losing the plot Issy on this subject as usual.

Primary purpose, primary purpose Issy, the vast majority of knife owners have them for their primary purpose, cutting up the Sunday roast or buttering their toast on Monday mornings etc etc. Guns on the other hand have a primary purpose of killing things, humans and animals. So that is why we must licence the gun, and the owner of it, YOU for example!. And given that guns have a primary purpose of killing, vigilance should be to the fore when handing out licences, don't you agree?

My point is we have the case of an accused murderer with a gun, he was given a licence to kill, which was questioned by police, and now the police allege he done exactly that, kill people with his gun. Somewhere it appeases the system has failed yet again. You don't need reminding of the system failures with SSAA member John Edwards and farmer Ian Turnbull, here is possibly another one. What do you think government should do about it?

Sorry to hear of the death of John Tingle, he may have been screwed up forming the Shooters Party, but from memory he had a reasonable social conscience. Not like the nut jobs running the party today.

I thought the Shooters and Hooters party had gone all Commo, hearing of the "Five Year Plan", rest assured they're not Communists at all, but their plan is to arm five years old's with loaded guns, that's the five year plan

"Mental health testing could be applied to many other aspects of society."

Sounds good in theory, the linkely result is we'd have to euthanise half the country.

Bye-bye bat-shite crazy left, most of the Greens and a decent majority of the right.
Also, get rid of the dysfunctional kids with crap upbringings as well as the slightly up the ladder ones infected with 'they' / 'them' identity politics and critical race ideology, the spastic woke university types and all the weirdo trans people,
Throw in as well as the large number of single mums and middle age women bingeing on their daily wine and antidepressants,
- as well as most of the crazed youth and loser men in their mid 30's taking amphetamines
Don't forget those addicted to alcohol, and a large percentage of today's semi-retarded (but considered normal) millenials.
- That would have to be at least half the country wouldn't it?

But I agree with mental testing for gun owners and the sooner the better and the primary purpose of all guns is not to kill.
Guns designed to fire blanks only cannot kill, such as starting pistols but they must be registered, likewise the Zimmerstutzen, used in Bavarian pubs tp shoot at a target on the wall, much as the English play darts.
Darts, by the way, also ought to be registered their primary purpose was killing but they were adapted to target shooting; although that hasn’t stopped their criminal use on occasions.
All people who have the use of potentially destructive devices ought to be tested for their mental condition, it’s not what the things were designed for but the destructive use to which they may be put by the mentally unstable.
It’s about saving lives.

Hi FOXY...

You're so right, it is a complicated issue. The problem being police can deny an application - only for the unsuccessful applicant to go above the heads of the licensing police, to either the AAT or to an even higher authority? And more often or not, a license is granted. It beats me FOXY?

G'day IS MISE...

I totally agree with you; candidates should be closely screened to determine whether they, or a current owner, is mentally and emotional fit to possess and use a F/A. When I was in the job, it was essentially left to us to assess & determine the mental fineness or otherwise of an applicant. By his presence, behaviour, or demeanour, when asked to attend the F/A Registry. Hardly an efficient method to determine such a precise judgement, one that can have such profound consequences if we get it wrong?

And we (the police) are only the first line of scrutiny. And if the applicant didn't care too much for our adjudication (the lowest), he'd simply appeal to a magistrate, and so on, right up the judicial ladder, or until his money was exhausted.

I believe the ACT F/A Registry had it down best. If a designated police officer denied a licence or wished to seize a F/A, the appellant had to seek leave, from the F/A Registrar (a high-ranking commissioned police officer of Supt. or above) to even commence proceedings to have the matter heard before a court.

Personally, I don't know what further measures the authorities can introduce, as additional protection from those individuals with mental illness, accessing F/As. There, used to be a section in the application form that asks if the applicant is suffering any condition that might preclude them from safely and legally operating a F/A. But the answer requires a level of candour from the applicant.