I think StG has it about right.

As a former sporting shooter who has owned several different rifles, I find the whole topic a bit of a storm in a teacup. While I sympathise with those who have to go through the hoops, shooting is not a necessary part of most Australian lives and the ubiquitous presence of firearms is not a necessary part of the Australian urban environment.

Having said that, I know that many of the people I used to shoot with have "black" firearms that they bought during the Howard "buyback" or which they failed to hand in. I also know that if I wanted such an unregistered weapon, I could purchase one in about a day, possibly for less than a registered one would cost me. Still, it's not as easy as going in to Kmart and picking one off the shelf, as I did with 2 of my rifles.

I have a small business milling timber and making joinery. There are all sorts of regulations pertaining to my business that seem mostly designed to stop idiots becoming ex-idiots, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to apply similar regulation to other dangerous tools of business. They may not be strictly necessary in an ideal world, but they do help protect idiots and others from the consequences of idiocy.

I should also mention the suicide factor. I lived in small communities for a long time and I watched many young men being carried in a box into churches. You could always tell when it was a suicide, because noone wanyed to talk about it. Nearly all used a firearm of some kind, usually a shotgun.

Suicide rates for men have been falling steadily since the Howard buyback http://www.livingisforeveryone.com.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/LIFE-Fact%20sheet%203.pdf.

I'm sure the reduced availability of firearms is a strong factor.

I don't own a gun nor do I like them but John Howard's leglislation went way over the top.It was just another intrustion into our lives.

Get this clear.Govt will never protect you.They steal and waste your money with impunity under the guise of social responsibility,yet never have we had so unequal income distribution both here and the USA.DOCS in NSW have helped create all the social problems which they are now incacapable of handling.

We have no infrastructure,in debt up to our eyebrows with a shortage of housing since Govt taxes/charges make up 38% of a house/land package.They have made it too expensive to conduct business and restricted our civil liberties.

We were never in danger of becoming a US gun toting mentality.You don't get responsible people by treating them like children.

Just to say from the outset that I don't mind government taking taxes from me and spending same but like everyone else, I want to see some proof of positive outcomes and that value for money was obtained.

Regarding the Howard gun buy-back, there is abundant scientific, peer reviewed evidence that the half a billion dollars spent buying back guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no appreciable effect on the homicide rate. The 'initiative' was a waste of money.

The report by two Australian academics, published in the British Journal of Criminology, said statistics gathered in the decade since Port Arthur showed gun deaths had been declining well before 1996 and the buyback had made no difference in the rate of decline."

The prestigious Time magazine had a lengthy article saying there was no evidence of any benefit from John Howard's gun buy-back.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

Suicide
The numbers prove that the Howard inspired gun laws achieved nothing. Firearms are just one among numerous available deadly methods. Firearms were always unpopular for suicide, whereas hanging is common. Cars seem popular for men too and it is likely that deaths through that means are under-reported. However banning or restricting any instrument such as guns can only reduce the number recorded against that instrument, it doesn't address suicide cause or prevention, the overall numbers remain the same.

Reference: Recent Australian Suicide Trends for Males and Females at the National Level: Has the Rate of Decline Differed?
McPhedran, S., & Baker, J. (2008). Health Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.01.009

If the gun laws are supposed to have reduced suicide, how then can it be explained why the large rump of male suicide by other means has fallen appreciably, whereas the fall in male suicide with a firearm as the tool has had only a miniscule change?

The answer of course lies in the national campaign aimed at reducing male suicide and that is where the credit should be given, not to a cynical political 'gun control' stunt by a (ex) Prime Minister, who relied on emotional scare campaigns in lieu of science.

if the suicide rate actually reduced since the forced confiscation (the government calls it the 'buy-back - even though they never sold us the guns), it must be coincidental.
The confiscation-with-compensation scheme took my 40 calibre semi-auto pistol because the calibre (0.40 inch diameter ammo) was deemed deadly and the magazines held 16 rounds each.
I used the cheque they gave me to buy a 38 calibre semi-auto (0.38 inch diameter ammo) as the government decided that it was still safe to let me own. Also, the 10 round magazines were not as dangerous as 16. Just go to an IPSC match and see how quick a mag change is.
In fact, if I was a member of a metallic silhouette club, I could still legally own a 45 calibre pistol.
Looks as if they pulled the figures they used for the 'buy-back' out of where the sun don't shine.
As for the Port Arthur incident, read 'Deadly Deception at Port Arthur' by Joe Viallis then see what you think.

"As for the Port Arthur incident, read 'Deadly Deception at Port Arthur' by Joe Viallis then see what you think."

Don't. The reader will be stupider after reading it. He is now long dead, probably as a result of his brain being eaten by zombies.