Well let's try these for size.
Don Wedderburn of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics who initially supported the 1996 laws has come to the coclusion that they did not work.

There now exists, as a direct result of these laws, a political party that has one member in the NSW Upper House and which has had passed some significant changes to NSW law.

There is now a 'gun lobby' as a direct result of the Gun Buy Back; something which never really existed in this country prior to 1996.

The gun owners of Australia now are better armed in terms of more accurate and more powerful weapons.
The main thrust of the 1996 laws would appear to have been the reduction in semi-automatic firearms and some repeating shotguns.

This was achieved except that firearms with a high and often higher cyclic rate of fire were not affected. Very many semi-automatic firearms actually have a relatively slow rate of fire compared to repeating firearms both in actual speed of exhausting a magazine and in cyclic rate. So what was the gain?
There are also more pistols in private hands than at the end of WW II,
both in numbers owned by individuasl and on a per capita basis.

One particular firearm with a cyclic rate of at least 700 rounds per mnute is still around, still legal and suffered no reduction in numbers.
The renowned Vickers Medium Machine gun has only a cyclic rate of 250/minute and they were never allowed in civilian hands.

I guess the Governments advisers were a bit slack/dumb/didn't give a hoot,or was their agenda something different?

Now I'm totally mystified, are we talking about the gun laws or gun buyback?

Where can I independently verify these statistics? Especially the ones about gun ownership. I hope they didn't come from some "gun lobby" newsletter. The identity of this 700 round/minute weapon would be helpful also (with a handy reference of you please).

Did Don Wedderburn actually say that the gun laws didn't work or were failing? Or did he say that the laws possibly had "no effect" because gun death rates were falling before the laws were enacted? Which is of course difficult to say one way or another, because in statistician speak this means the trends are not marked by a particular event and so causality is hard to argue. But the fact remains that gun violence rates are down on historical averages. Anyway, a reference for this statement would be good too. Thanks.

The discussion was about the Buy-Back (see initial post) however these things tend to stray and the one is interwoven with the other.

That shooters today have more accurate and more powerful weapons is not easily verifiable from statistics but a visit to any range where sporting arms are used will demonstrate the fact.
Shooters used the buy-back money to upgrade equipment.
Much of the stuff that was sold to the Government was old and cheap.
For example,I sold back two semi-automatic Russian SKS rifles, that I had bought for curiosity/experimental purposes. These were bought for $50 each from the 'Armoury' in Sydney.I was paid $250 each. I also sold two 'Gevarm' semi-automatic .22 rifles for which I had paid $150 each, complete with scopes and mounts, I got $250 each for these as well.I kept the scopes and mounts.
Had I had fore warning of the buy-back I would now be a millionaire.
(To digress; this makes me wonder why there are still clairvoyants plying their trade).
There are anectdotal stories of Victorian fishermen meeting their NZ oppos in the middle of the Tasman and buying 7.62mm SLRs for far less than the price that was being offered by the Buy-Back.

The identity of the 7oo rpm cyclic rate firearm is simply the common double action revolver.I was being deliberately misleading of course, but cyclic rate is the figure always quoted by the media when fooling the public on firearms '...could fire 600 shots per minute...'.

Statistics are what they are, but Don Wedderburn's statements are matters of public record. What is also a matter of record is that the biggest benificiary, in money terms, was the character in the Northern Territory who sold back all sorts of prohibited firearms from a WW II weapons dump.
Just how much of the 600,000 'taken off the streets' were junk we will never know, likewise we will probably never know just how many were re-cycled back into the community but the SMH reports of the court case (in the primary post) say at least 700 in this one case alone.

And so, in other words, there is nothing of substance to your claims. I cannot find any of Don wedderburn's statements indictaing that he no longer supports gun laws. The statements I see indicate that other factors, like the heroin drought, have been more easily attributable to the lowering of rates of certain offences such as armed robbery. The rates of homicide have been lowering for some time, but nothing in the statistics or Don's statements indicate or justify a relaxing of gun laws, or that the buyback had an opposite effect of it's intention. That is always stated by the Shooters Party, but has no substance to back it up.

Likewise, I cannot find any stats on gun ownership, from ww2 on. If they are out there, letting me know where they are would be a start.

If what you have claimed is true, and gun ownership has increased, and you have been able to upgrade your weapons, aren't you happy about this? For you, and the Shooters Party, the buyback would be labelled a success!

The stats on pistol ownership are there for all to see.
I have no idea of the numbers in private ownership but as such ownership was not allowed for target shooting and that there were no pistol clubs in the country prior to the 1956 Olympics and there are now many such clubs and thousands of members then I guess the number of pistols in private hands must number many thousands.
At the time that I gave up pistol shooting, around 1998, I owned three percussion muzzle-loading revolvers, one single shot percussion M/L pistol, one .22rf semi-automatic pistol and two breach loading revolvers. That's seven pistols and many shooters own more.

As Don Wedderburn was widely quoted and hasn't come out and said that he didn't, which could be expected from a person in his position, I'll stand by my what has been said.

The shooters'/gunowners' main objections to the Buy-Back are that it was not needed, was vindictive or ill thought out, wasted resources and money that could have been well spent on other things and continues to waste police resources.

One little example of the lack of thought: a Minor's Permit, which if issued at the minimum age of 12 years must last until 18; that's six years.
Now in this modern day and age most licences that have to be carried, especially if one is on a camping trip and roughing it out in the field, are made of a long wearing, tough ,waterproof plastic.
Not so the Minor's Permit it's an A4 piece of absorbent paper, which can be replaced for a fee.

The latest rankle is that some Americans about whom the Australian Government can know nothing (American policy on it's 'Minders')were given licence to carry concealed firearms in this country when our own citizens can't, there ought to be one law for all.

The trivialities and contradictions just keep coming.

So, the need for a 50c sealable plastic sleeve or a $1 lamination has become a cause to suspect vindictiveness on the part of the licensing authorities.

Don Wedderburn (or is it Weatherburn?) has been quoted as saying a lot of things on a lot of subjects, I just wanted to know which statements you are using, as yet I am in the dark on that.

As to the "unnecessary" cost of the exercise, by your own arguments to date the net beneficiaries of all that money seem to have been responsible shooters, like yourself. You have been able to upgrade outdated weapons at higher than market value, and those weapons have also been removed from circulation. As has been stated by spokespeople from the Shooters Party, only the responsible shooters obey the law and so therefore the responsible shooters would be the majority beneficiaries of the policy. And yet somehow this is a "bad thing" for shooters in general? Where's the victimisation?

Also, if the statistics you have "quoted" on increasing gun ownership are actually true (as yet unverified) and seems to have been caused by the buyback (which has been implied), it seems that becoming a gun owner has generally become attractive, which doesn't seem to fit your argument. Also, it would seem that the Shooters party would benefit greatly from such increasing firearm ownership.