...Get real Andrew! Laws always impact most adversely on the innocent! In this article, the innocent are the people that are (statistically) saved by current gun control, which included the facility of gun buy-back, (which if my memory serves correctly, was a dogs breakfast for farmers exchanging old weapons for new, with a tax payers subsidy).

...But, of course the real issue with weapons and their uses in our communities, is who actually holds the weapon, legally or illegally! Daily, news is broadcast of another drive-by shooting in the two major crime cities of this great country (that once was ours), Australia.

...As loudly predicted at the time, criminals operating in the “one third zone” of the black market economy, will always have the availability of a weapon if desired, and will not hesitate to use them.

...Here is a link in support of the counter argument:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-gun-crime

diver dan
The do-gooders have innocent blood on their hands. The innocent are not allowed to defend themselves & what's theirs, yet the criminals have easy access to guns & when a tragedy occurs they get legal aid paid for by the victims & their famailies. The Left has got it so wrong that no sane mind could ever comprehend how the mentality of Left works. If there were a gauge for measuring sanity from 1 to 10, a gauge for the Left would need to read 0 to .5.
Magistrates are the worst offenders.

Have to agree with Diver! It's not the gun that is the problem, just the hands that hold it!
Apply the same logic to road deaths, and nobody would be able to get a licence to drive!
Had we had a prohibited persons register years before Hoodle street, then Hoodle st or Port Arthur may well have been averted!
The port Arthur tragedy, was carried out by a virtual moron, able to get his hands on an SLR, and then use it at pointblank range.
As Diver has already pointed out! We see plenty of drive by shootings by criminals armed with illegal weapons!
Make laws where no legal guns are able to be held by any law abiding citizen, and guess what?
The drive by shootings, by criminals armed with illegal weapons, will not only continue, but increase, with impunity.
I mean, if penalties would prevent this behavior, why hasn't the death penalty, stopped all the killings in the states?
Perhaps because, simplistic thinkers like Andrew, reject as they always have, a prohibited persons register.
And weapons fairs, where any gun sold, and then used in a crime, makes the seller an accessory before the fact!
Those folks, would make dam sure, that they had the very latest copy of a prohibited persons register.
And indeed, all licensed firearms sellers, would contribute to it! And there'd be both a cool off period/mandatory police check!
Conversely, what simplistic anti-gun thinkers like Andrew, need to contemplate, is a legal firearm, [now quite hard to get,] ought be able to be used, for self protection purposes, particularly, by properly trained homeowners, the subject of drive by shootings.
I mean, if you can't identify a legitimate target, then no trigger should be pulled! That's how professional soldiers/police persons are trained!
The average crim is not a hero, but a rank coward, who, if he thought, there was any possibility, that the trained, intended victim, could fire back and perhaps with lethal consequences, he will either desist, or go out and make a threatening phone call?
Rhrosty.

In the decade after the 1996/97 NFA, we did have a mass shooting. SEVEN people were shot, in a school (Australia's first school shooting). Of course, you might say well ONLY two died (too bad if you're one of the two, or one of their family members?) and 5 were hit, but lived. How is the poor aim of the shooter, and/or good fortune on the part of the victim, plus a lot of bravery from unarmed students and teachers, an indication of GOOD gun laws?

There was never a massacre every year, but there was about a 5 year period where we averaged one per year (three happened in the same year). Prior to that year there were 3 in 13 years, if you include the one incident where a person only killed their family, not the general public.

Queensland had, for a long time, some of the most relaxed firearms laws in the country. Yet it never had any massacres. By your logic, one could argue that having relaxed laws also stops gun massacres. Sure, QLD had shootings... but so did everywhere else... typically at a higher rate. But no massacres.

Its an interesting, and probably convenient statistic that you use the numbers of firearms brought back, versus the number of deaths in that state. The number returned has little bearing on the availability of firearms, just an indication of those that did have firearms that were prepared to comply with the law.... the people we least had to worry about.

I will give you credit that you admit (where convenient) that most of the reduction in gun deaths were from reduced suicides. Levels of method substitution are argued about, and its impossible to eliminate that in the wake of a massacre by a mentally ill man, authorities and even families would pay more attention to troubled individuals, perhaps giving them the support needed before a final act is taken. It may have had nothing to do with the lack of firearm availability at all.

I find your articles mostly concerned with specious reasoning. We change gun laws this way, and we had no massacres, therefore it worked. New Zealand also had a gun massacre about the same time, and did not make anywhere near the draconian changes Howard made, and also had no massacres... despite retaining greater numbers of firearms per capita. Hence why to say as you say that the NFA stopped massacres, is specious reasoning... because if what you said were right, without the overbearing laws that Howard introduced, New Zealand by rights, should have had another mass shooting. It didnt, whereas Australia did.

The Australian model DOES undermine sports shooting - even in your own electorate. Service Rifle shooting, is a competition which - on almost every other level in the world - uses semi automatic rifles. This is a traditional competition that has been around for over a century. When we go to New Zealand to compete, we are hopelessly outclassed. It is even worse in the US.

Also in your electorate, there would be IPSC practical pistol shooters. Everywhere else, this competition is run with firearms over .38 calibre - the limitation imposed by the NFA for target shooting, and with magazines typically around 15-17 rounds - also restricted to sports shooters in Australia. Again we have little opportunity to practice to a sufficient level to compete on a world scale in some classes (in other classes we have WORLD champions). This is a classic undermining of my ability to compete in a safe, internationally recognised sport.

If you talk to almost any shooter in the US, they too would be equally concerned about teens taking firearms out on a saturday night, since in almost every state the minimum age to possess a handgun is 21, and similarly with permits to carry a firearm in public, its minimum age is 21. I am sure you will argue this still happens, but it only highlights that laws dont stop them, but they do stop those that can obey laws, leaving them at a significant disadvantage, just for complying with the law. Fortunately in most states in the US, the law doesnt penalise you in this way, and actually recognises and supports your right to have the advantage - or at least a level playing field, in a defensive situation. In Australia, we cannot even carry pepper spray, except in WA.... and then with restrictions.

I would also note that in Australia, I can do a 10 day course, get a background check, and pay some license fees, and be lawfully allowed to carry a handgun openly, or in some cases concealed, in order to protect money or valuables over about $2k, or in some cases a VIP like a judge, an MP, or even a rock star. Why is it, Mr Leigh, that John Howard, the present government, and you, see my family, and myself, as worth less than 2 grand... or less worth of protection than say, a member of the Rolling Stones, or a judge? Why is it that I cannot do the same course, the same checks, and the same licensing, and suitably protect myself and my family?