Two points for Agronomist. First Australia has five times the population of New Zealand which reinforces the case of our gun laws making no difference to mass shootings.
Second I suggest you Google "Myki" if you want the current pinnacle of public service waste and stupidity. Mate we are paying for Rhodes Scholars and we are getting Rhesus monkeys.
I take it very personally that I had my guns dragged off me and yet the legal sleazes and public servants are delighted that criminals keep their "Tools of trade".
You dolts complaining about "Shooters" but ignoring the criminals with guns getting bail and small sentences who actually shoot people! It beggars belief.

JBowyer,

Making firearms more freely available could do nothing to reduce the capacity for criminals, or potential criminals, to acquire a firearm; quite the reverse I would contend.
Sorry about your having to hand in your cherished firearms. Many very fine collectables and heritage firearms were unfortunately caught up in the buy-back. I personally think greater discretion could have been applied to enable competent persons to retain some such firearms as a 'collector'. (Strange also how the cash was very good for some junk, but well short for some prestige arms.)

Sorry ChrisPer, but we don't need a semi-auto .22 or shotgun to cull rabbits. If there is a real problem you would have to destroy their warrens. Otherwise, a pump-action .22 can be just as effective - in the right hands - and it's still legal without hassles.

Sorry Rhrosty, needing a quick second shot is not the right way to achieve a humane despatch. The right way is to be sure of your ability and of your shot, or let it go. One-shot kill is the only acceptable way, and it needs to be a genuine well-placed instantly-killing shot.
Too many people are also under-gunned, and think it's a bit of fun to shoot a large animal with a pea-shooter. Such miscreants don't deserve to have a licence.

If I had my way, every firearm owner would have to attend a target shooting club where they would have to demonstrate good proficiency with any style of firearm they wish to possess before being able to gain the required permit to buy it; and it would only be by such means that a person could qualify for 'recreational hunting/vermin-control or rural occupation, or Primary Producer' as 'Genuine Reasons' on their licence.
Just having 50,000 acres should not qualify someone for a licence without further proficiency, and attitude, evaluation, IMHO. It's not as though this would need to be terribly arduous, and some may well discover the enjoyment, and the challenges, involved in precision shooting.

Animals have rights too.

JBowyer, it looks like your math is faulty. The argument made in the article was that once the rate of mass killings was the same in both countries. The fact that Australia’s population is five times higher means that there should be 5-times as many mass killings in Australia as New Zealand. But, since 1996, the number of mass killings has been exactly the same in both countries (albeit 0). This little factoid that David Leyonhjelm trotted out did not support his case that the gun buyback had no impact on mass killings in Australia when compared with New Zealand.

Did I not suggest that if there was a problem with how much a regulatory scheme cost to run, the argument should be about the efficiency of the scheme not the policy? Oh yes, I see I did. Well there you go, who would have thought that?

If you think an armed populace is a better outcome, perhaps you should look over at the US to see how that is working out, or maybe Iraq. More firearms in the community means more opportunity for criminals to get hold of them and also tends to create an arms race.

Oh God this old chestnut again? Really? Oh well.

Dear David,

To paraphrase yourself I'm directly charging you with the following;

'To satisfy your conceit, you manipulate statistics to suit yourself and pretend that 'the science is unsettled'. This is an outright lie.'

In the 10 year before Howard's gun laws there were 8 shootings in Australia involving more than two people being killed by a single assailant with a gun;

1987 Joseph Schwab – Killed with a gun 5 human beings before being shot dead by police

1987 Julian Knight – Slaughtered with guns 5 people and wounded another 19

1987 Frank Vitkovic – Shot and killed 8 and wounded a further 5

1990 Paul Evers – Murdered with a gun 5 people

1991 Wade Frankum – Took the lives with a gun of 7 people and wounded 6 others

1992 Malcolm Baker – Blew away 6 people

1996 Martin Bryant – Massacred with guns 35 innocent people and wounded a further 21 people

In the 18 years since the count is ZERO.

That is settled science.

BTW New Zealand actually had brought in quite restrictive gun laws pre-dating Australia's in response to their own mass shooting in 1990 though they haven't been quite as successful at curbing them as we have. Here is some comments from an American attempting to get a gun licence there a couple of years back;

Quote;

The process for obtaining a basic firearms license is long, complicated and expensive. In other words, designed to weed out a broad portion of the population that the law deems unsuitable to possess a firearm.

After submitting your application to the NZ Police, you are signed up for a mandatory firearm safety course put on by the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council. The course runs about three hours.

Experienced instructors offer advice covering the handling, operation and storage of firearms. It ends with a written exam. If you fail the exam, you must go back to the police station to register for the next available class, with no exceptions.

Cont..

Cont..

If you pass, your results are reported back to the NZ Police Arms Officer in preparation for the next step, the interview.
About a week following the safety class, the Arms Officer rang us to set up a personal interview. He came to our house in the evening with a huge booklet filled with questions. He interviewed each of us alone; me, my partner, and our personal reference (which must be a non-relative who has known you for at least two years and can attest to your ‘good character’).

The interview was intense and personal. I observed the Arms Officer taking notice of the general state of our home as well as our demeanor. He confirmed we had a lockable cabinet for firearm storage, and separate lockable storage for ammunition. He asked pointed questions about alcohol and drug consumption, our domestic situation and our general mental health.

He also asked what we intended to use firearms for. Hint: personal or home protection is not an accepted rationale and would likely get you rejected – acceptable reasons are limited to hunting and/or target shooting.

Several weeks later, our New Zealand Firearms Licenses arrived in the mail.

http://www.seattleglobalist.com/2012/08/06/getting-strapped-in-new-zealand-shooting/5740

End quote.

Your article sir is a disgrace and promotes the supposed rights of a fringe group (those wanting access to automatic weaponry) over the safety and well being of the rest of us. You should be ashamed.

If we remove guns from the public then also remove them from Govt. Govt has the best track record for mass shootings and genocide. Starlin 40 million, Hitler 6 million, Mao 60 million. They also start wars as in Afghanistan,Iraq ,Somalia, Pakistan, Korea,Vietnam etc.

Perhaps we need a separate people's militia that is not controlled by the Govt and individuals won't need so many guns as in the USA. Obama is close to bringing in Martial Law. They have over 800 empty FEMA Camps there supposedly for illegal immigrants but the tally is way over 15 million and not one is in these camps. You can never trust your Govt especially when it is corporate controlled.

If chaos breaks out in Aust, the criminals will have all the guns and we will not have enough police to protect the people. Don't think that it cannot happen.