There is no correlation whatsoever between the legal ownership of firearms and gun associated crime in Australia. In fact the opposite seems to apply.

Historically, gun crime has always been very low in Australia and the trend was downwards before Howard's spend and after.

There is no correlation whosoever between the incidence of crime in any other country and Australia.

Crime in Australia is continuing to drop and dropped substantially after the trade in drugs was interrupted and with simple changes to make cars more thief proof.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/half-as-many-murders-and-nobody-knows-why-20100611-y3fo.html

In this and in all other areas of regulation, government should base policy on evidence and rigorously measure the results. It is a fact that Howard's buy-back and gun laws were a complete waste of taxpayers' money and a continuing waste of police resources.

Policy makers should be concentrating on reducing violence, which ought be advised by a coordinated, national study of violence by professionals with appropriate training and skills.

The politics of the Greens are laughable: soft on drugs and criminals while pretending that the thousands of respectable, licensed, firearms owners - farmers, international competitors in shooting events and the like - are responsible for gun crime.

Shorter Cornflower:

"I like playing with firearms

And I hate the Greens"

*In this and in all other areas of regulation, government should base policy on evidence*

We did that, Cornflower. We took one look at the Americans and their
problems with guns. We decided that we didn't want to land up
like them. That was a wise decision by the Australian public,
despite the constant bickering by a the gun lobby.

Those who need guns in Australia, can obtain them. Those who don't,
well they don't.

End of story.

But keep bickering, if it keeps you occupied and the rest of us
amused.

Yabby,

Yet you still cannot provide evidence of any reduction in gun associated crime from Howard's buy-back and gun laws. No surprising really because no-one else can either.

It was and remains the most cynical political stunt in the history of Australia and the largest single wastage of public money and all for zilch return.

I have no interest in taking sides. My concern as I have shown here and in other threads is for evidence-based policy and the measurement of outcomes to ensure value for money is obtained from public expenditure. As I said earlier, this is a call for proactivity to treat the causes, rather than the usual reactivity and knee-jerk populist fixes promoted by cynical, lazy, short-sighted politicians and a grubby, sensationalist media. It is easier to pass more laws where laws already exist than be seen to be challenging public perceptions, even if they are wrong.

We have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a national, co-ordinated study of violence. It is overdue and crucial to advising social policy.

Cornflower, the evidence has been presented, of the drop in mass
shootings in Australia. You eventually sctratched together a
a single one, compared to quite a few beforehand.

Luckily we always had strict gun laws, especially in WA. The
Howard laws tightend things up Australia wide, as it should be.

The evidence is clear Cornflower. Nobody wants another US disaster
here. Looks like we nipped it in the bud, before it became a problem.
That might not have been the case otherwise.

Of course you take sides. You are hardly unbiased on this.

Yabby, "the evidence has been presented, of the drop in mass
shootings in Australia."

What absolute rubbish, that is an absurd conclusion given the infrequency of the crime.

First you foolishly claim there have been no multiple killings with guns after Howard's expensive political stunt, then completely unabashed by immediately being proved wrong you arrive at that childishly naive, unsupportable conclusion.

I have no interest in taking sides. My concern as I have shown here and in other threads is for evidence-based policy and the measurement of outcomes to ensure value for money is obtained from public expenditure.