For naive Foxy's benefit, the axion is that, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'.

If Foxy you are claiming as you are, that any reduction in firearms in a country will have a corresponding reduction in deaths from firearms, you would wanting to provide considerable evidence to prove that. [As a tip, your linked source hasn't done that!]

However there is no need to look at that claim in any detail because the BS meter is going off the dial again.

First problem, Soros' 'gun control' is directed exclusively at banning and compulsorily confiscating the assets lawfully held and registered by lawfully acting citizens, the ones with licences.

Regarding amnesties, by far the greatest proportion turned in (In Howard's amnesty, going on 100%) are legal firearms that are not registered and as another tip, it is NOT criminals handing them in (Hey, they have to supply ID anyway. Not that a crim would be considering it, mind.)

The reason is simple, criminals do not turn in their tools of trade. They definitely wouldn't get a licence. As for registering their guns, no way! Their illegal guns, shortened and so on, couldn't be registered anyhow. This would be rather obvious to most thinking people who are aware that it is part of the modus operandi of criminals to break laws.

So, fewer firearms because 'gun control' has banned and compulsorily confiscated property of law-abiding citizens is most unlikely to result in lesser gun crime. Because the criminals still have theirs. So As Homer would say, 'D,Oh'.

I would say that the above would cause any worthwhile, independent researcher to reconsider that sus claim you were trying to give oxygen to.

BTW, would someone whisper into the prof's ear that no special law is required for 3D prints. Already illegal through the definitions in the regs that have been around for yonks. I will leave it that.

Dear Is Mise,

I've taken bits of this from the following link:

http://theconversation.com/the-arguments-that-carried-australias-1996-gun-law-reforms-58431

When someone plans to kill as many people as possible they
certainly don't choose a knife, axe, hammer, or a machete.
They also don't choose a single shot or bolt action rifle.
They prefer a semi-automatic firearm that allows rapid firing
fitted with a large magazine capacity to minimise opportunities
for them to be shot or overpowered during reloading.

Australians were revolted by the idea that military-style
weapons could be easily obtained by malevolent people.
A referendum question added to the ballot paper at the 1995
local government election in North Sydney (before Port Arthur)
tellingly saw 93.1% vote in favour of gun law reform.

The mantra that guns don't kill people (bad and mad) people
kill people. Oh really?

The simplicity of that National Rifle Association's mantra
certainly gets a good work out in this country.

I wonder how many people who committed gun violence have a
criminal or psychiatric record? Even Martin Bryant who
committed the Port Arthur massacres was only described as
being "strange".

Guns are ultra lethal. There is simply no comparing the
carnage of a person running amok with a semi-automatic gun
and another with a knife.

Anyway, there are more arguments in the article that I've cited.
They are worth reading.

Foxy,

You are just revisiting subjects that have already been discussed in detail much earlier in the discussion.

When patient posters set you right, you ignore their replies and Google anything to shift the goal posts again.

But you never even bother to read and understand the available regulations.

Issy, to expand on your confused logic, there is no need for road rules, because all licenced drivers. are good drivers, which was clearly demonstrated when they sat the test, otherwise they would not hold a licence.

Is leoj in favor of confiscating Hoon's cars, after all they are registered legal assets, as he likes to refer to.

Foxy, post what ever you like, don't be put off by leoj and his dictatorial attitude.

p/s I nearly missed it but, the grumpy old man made with a forum funny.

What is the difference between God and a doctor. God doesn't think he's a doctor.

Leo, if you should get run over by a steam roller we will take you to god, and not a doctor

No-one can dispel the simple truth that it is the:

- firearms licence that is the strong control over citizens permitted to own firearms; and,

- the import controls available to limit what is allowed into Australia and both were in existence before Howard as PM; along with,

- adequate trained police resources available to collar criminals;

that were already in place and are responsible for the long-term, further continuing reduction to the already very low incidence of gun crime in Australia.

Not only did Howard's 'gun control' NOT make any statistically reliable, discernible improvement beyond what was already the case and expected, but the LNP, along with Labor-Greens (who were far worse) have through their concentration on a 'Big Australia' and increasing record numbers of migrants actually imported a diverse range of criminal drug-trafficking gangs with their overseas contacts.

Also added are the migrants that import toxic cultural traditions that, for example, employ serious violence as the first option to resolve even minor disagreements.

Those are some of the unmentioned risks of that lauded, sacred cow, 'rich' and 'vibrant' diversity one supposes. Through its tight censorship, Political Correctness hides all manner of ills.

Some federal politicians have made it rather obvious that they are more than willing to trade the safety and culture of their fellow Australians for status roles for themselves at the UN, or simply to pose on international platforms.

The imported Soros' 'gun control' is the antithesis of efficient, effective regulation of people allowed to possess firearms.

No surprises there because 'gun control' is in effect, noxious retrospective law that is solely aimed exclusively at the banning and confiscation at the point of a police gun if necessary, of the lawful assets, lawfully acquired and lawfully used by ordinary licensed citizens.

Citizens who, by virtue of the their proven good character and crime free record are arguably the most likely citizens of all to continue to act lawfully. And who have most to lose by criminals being allowed by 'gun control' to operate with impunity while police resources are being diverted towards watching over the shoulders of lawful licensed citizens instead of chasing criminals.

Meanwhile, the imported dangerous criminal drug gangs grow in number and power.

And by some strange coincidence it is the Greens and Labor, especially the Greens, whose very first and most urgent priority is to protect and extend the criminals 'rights' (by trashing Qld's successful anti-gang VLAD law for example) against those 'nasty' police, the thin blue line, that stands in their way -along with of course the good citizens who support the policing efforts and the licensed firearms owners are among them.