[geyu29]

Well this is a political move, as well having more negative aspects involved to it than positive.
These people probably want more fear in the society, than there already is, more people will get shot, inexperience will cause mistakes/accidents.

Only enthusiasts and those involved with risky business should have weapons, thats my opinion, but if you feel you should own a gun, go ahead, with the relevant requirements met, psychological, physical, more co-ordination between institutions such as doctor's notes left on a patients file shared with police to help gun-sellers verify whether a person be allowed to have guns.

You must be Australian. I disagree with anything that would impose any loss of freedom. Forcing someone to own a rifle isn't freedom, but neither is requiring someone to jump through hoops or expose their medical records. Here in the USA, your ability to protect yourself is a right, including with any weapon needed to do so, be it a gun, knife, or Abrams tank. You need not meet any bar to exercise a right.

Then what about the risk of shooting someone by accident and inexperience, or causing fear into people by walking around like you own the town.
Or a disturbed person killing masses.

Thats why i say, atleast patient reports be shared with authorities, there is always an internal procedure to secure some information and pass on important information to an authority like the police to the end-consumer of the information like the gun seller which should say what kind of problem or whether they should be denied the gun sale through a computer system.

The same principle applies to convicts, which must report to parole officers to monitor them, and also support them.

Merely on the basis of 'freedom' to say that a person has the right to kill, doesnt sound very appealing, a risk should be controlled. As the British have shown time and time again.