gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 9
th, 2015 at 1:03pm:
Really??? One of them (the licensee of the post office) is already out, and his partner will be eligible for parole in December his year.....Very harsh punishment

.
Ah, so now you're attempting to broaden the discussion, Gizmo. I expect the punishment was within what the Courts normally hand out for such a crime. I don't second-guess the Judicial Process, unlike most commentators, Gizmo 'cause I don't know sufficient about the case to actually make a judgement. Only fools like yourself complain about the judgement based upon the sketchy reports they have to hand.
Quote:The point is, we 'gun nuts' would prefer that the laws were designed to actually target the illegal weapons, not the legal ones.
Laws target people, not objects, Gizmo. You have a gun, if it is legally owned, then you're not going to be punished unless you misuse it. If it is illegally owned then you'll be punished if you're caught with it. Rather simple really, don't you think?
Quote:Bear in mind, this (the Australia Post thing) was only one of a large number of groups bringing in illegal weapons. Restricting legal ownership will not reduce the number or availability of black market firearms in any significant way.
If you have any evidence about this "large number of groups bringing in illegal weapons" have you reported it to the authorities? If you don't, then you are again leaping to judgement, not based on evidence but rather sketchy media reports. Restricting legal ownership makes sure that weapons are more highly valued and hence less likely to be misused. How many gun massacres have we had since the introduction of the UFL? None. QED.