Did anybody else notice the pomp and ceremony of thousands of guns being destroyed, most held together by string and sticky tape? i.e. the government paid money for weapons that possibly werent functional anyway, in order to put on a show.
Theres an element of truth in the statement that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.
When one loony can cause so much grief and effectively change legislation, maybe its time to reassess the mechanisms of dealing with situations such as these.
I lost some friends to a tragedy involving guns, the perpetrator was legally licenced. The family law system has some responsibility, the mental health system does also, mainly the person involved is to blame. The weapon of choice is really beside the point.
I'm not into them myself, Though living in the country sometimes it would be practical, eg not having to bludgeon sick animals to death. The police have guns, but if I called them (assuming the station is open...) it would take some time for them to arrive.
There are some things that dont belong in the 'burbs- guns, large quantities of ammonium nitrate, 4wd's, pitbulls...to name a few.
I hope my loquacity is appropriate for this audience and my statements not dismissed as specious or spurious.

This article infuriates me for a number of reasons.

First of all, it is based upon research that has not even been published, let alone subject to peer review to check the validity of the methods used and inferences made. It is irresponsible of Online Opinion and the SMH to allow such material to be used for persuasive purposes.

Secondly, there are good reasons to believe the research is flawed. The Australian Institute of Criminology data on firearms homicides show absolutely no evidence for 70-fold drop in the rate or any of the other cited effects, and it is almost certain that much is being made of a statistical noise fluctuations. The lack of siginificant effects in reality ndicates that the gun buybacks had no measurable effect on crime. This interpretation is confirmed by reputable, independent sources including Don Weatherburn, the head of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Thirdly, apart from being a blatant attempt to appeal to anti-American xenophobia, John Howard style, the comparison of Australia to the US is misleading. The US homicide rate receives almost all of its contribution from gang-related crime -- a class of murder that is also on the rise in Australia, and which without exception in recent years is committed using weapons that are already illegally held. Discounting homicide for this reason and looking instead at the ranking of violent crime levels in developed nations, the US is in fact quite low, whereas Australia tops the list in several categories, followed closely by other countries with high levels of gun control. As they say, "an armed society is a polite society".

Finally, in response to DavidJS, did you know that Martin Bryant was not licensed to possess the firearms he used in the massacre? Does this change your opinion?

The attempt by Alpers and Chapman to prompt another buyback is shonky at best and dishonest at worst. Half a billion dollars would be much better spent on mental health and crime prevention than on harassing legitimate firearms owners -- it was true in 1996 and it is still true now.

"in particular, impulsive young people - might have more easily found a method of instantly ending their lives."

Indeed. Perhaps we should also ban cars, because now the impulsive youngster bent on offing themself, also takes out an innocent family in another car.

Martin Bryant could have done just as lethal job with a chain-saw. Ban those? He could have probably caused more damage with a cut-throat razor (suprise and undetected element) - ban those? And knives?

The gun buy-back was a total failure. Kids now shoot at police stations where they used to shoot at road warning signs. Armed robberies still happen. Home invasions have increased because the bad guys know that the victims are unarmed.

As a active member of a sporting shooter's group as well as a keen hunter, I did in fact hand in a number of legally owed firearm during the buy back. I would do the same thing today I would also band all and I mean all hand guns including police. I would also make it harder for people to get firearms. I'll pick up on what another poster said as well anyone who uses a firearm (or any other weapon for that matter) in a criminal act should have their sentence doubled.
All firearms are designed to kill and should only be handled by people with high levels of training and supervision.

I was not a gun owner in 1996, I gave them all up about 1988. But the vicious hate campaign against my old friends and sport was so blatant and disgusting that I swore to take it up again, and give my four kids the opportunity to do so too.

Did you know that the reason a person likes guns is that his penis is too small to satisfy his wife? The Weekend Australian says so. Did you know that women who shoot should not be permitted to breed? I know someone who was told that, and sexually harassed until forced from her job - because she was a shooter. Did you know that you are a redneck white male who should be castrated or killed so a woman can raise her children in a global village? I have been told so on an internet forum.

Anti-gun activism is a hate movement, and the rhetoric of the activists is nauseatingly vicious.

Even more nauseating is the way journalists repeat wild claims by activists and fake researchers, who keep their papers and data from release until the press interest is over. When the work is released you can see flaws in it a mile wide. It was true of Mouzos and Reuter, it was true of Sam Lee's dreadful Churchill Fellowship work. Anything by Philip Alpers needs to have its skin scraped with a caustic solution before you touch it. He was the one who trimmed his data until he had a statistic like '51% of gun murders were committed by licenced shooters.' Jenny Mouzos exposed him - in a footnote of an Australian Institute of Criminology Trends and Issues paper.

I think the worst of it is that media treatment actually kills people via the copycat effect, while target shooters are punished for the actions of mentally disturbed and criminals.

Russell asks me "Finally, in response to DavidJS, did you know that Martin Bryant was not licensed to possess the firearms he used in the massacre? Does this change your opinion?"

Not really. I understand he had no criminal conviction prior to the Port Arthur massacre. At any rate, nobody has a criminal record until they commit their first crime (obviously). However, their first criminal act may be with a gun. In other words, guns are not necessarily safe in the hands of law abiding citizens.

The problem with guns is their lethality - they simply have less margin for error when used than other weapons. Not all other weapons - bombs are more lethal. However, is there anyone out there willing to fight for my right to own bombs? I don't have a criminal record so why can't I have some?

People have objected here that their rights to own guns have been infringed since 1996. Well, I'm asserting my freedom FROM guns and thank goodness I don't live in a country like Iraq or South Africa where guns and worse seem to be freely available.