They're at it again. First Australia, then the rest of the free (HA!) world

> I think this recent buy-back initiate was
> sparked by university shootings where the
> shooter was a legal owner of his guns, and
> not a crook.

I mentioned crooks in my post because there was also an episode with crooks.

Of course, the gummit (and media) will ignore the crime element, because it might make people realise that crooks have illegal guns which aren't even supposed to be in the country. And they might then question a gun buy back. And may even begin to want guns, for safety.

> So what's the point of making many guns
> illegal?

The gummit's point, regardless of what they tell you, is to remove POWER from the people and give themselves more POWER. More control.

> I think the main point is that it decreases
> the supply of guns in the community. Not all
> murders are carried by career criminals with
> underground connections.

True. Not all murders are carried out by criminals. Then again, not all murders are done with a gun either, are they?

Shining example is the guy who had his throat cut as he arrived home one night. Remember, it was all over the news. (Lets ban knives, eh?)

A person intent on killing will find a way to carry out whatever he wants to do - gun or no gun.

Remember Bryant... the guy in Tassie? At the time Tas had the toughest gun laws in Australia... he was unlicensed. And yet, despite these two things, he managed to get hold of guns - guns the general public would have difficulty getting hold of at the time.

> Perhaps you have a person who is very
> stressed, very anxious, or going through a
> crisis. Perhaps they're just going through a
> divorce, and they're on the edge and about
> to snap.

> Such people may feel the inclination to kill
> themselves, or to kill others, and I believe
> that limiting legal gun ownership would
> decrease the probabilities of such events
> happening.

Nope. Stats show it has no bearing. People find other ways to kill themselves and/or others...

Like the woman who locked herself in the car with her kids and ran the exhaust inside - killing herself and them. Just so her husband wouldn't get the kids (she wanted to kill herself and not let her husband have the kids).

> On the flip side, you're taking away the
> enjoyment derived from owning a gun from
> potential gun owners (whether that enjoyment
> is from feelings of protection/self-defence,
> or recreation, etc).

> So it's a trade off between these two. Is it
> a worthwhile trade off? I think it is, but
> I'm biased due to having no desire to own a
> gun.

Just so I know I understand you correctly...

You're saying, ban all guns because it might stop someone from taking another person's life if/when they become so unstable they decide to kill themselves/others. Is that right?

And despite all evidence that proves taking guns away does not prevent these things.

Michael Ross