That's what it looks like the Australians have been doing with their gun buy-back program:

Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns, Mr Howard and others predicted the removal of so many guns from the community, and new laws making it harder to buy and keep guns, would lead to a reduction in all types of gun-related deaths.

...Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.

Yes, politicians assume all kinds of idiotic things.

"Gimme that feel-good legislation
Gimme that feel-good legislation
Gimme that feel-good-legislation
I'll never have to say I'm wrong"

Logic and reasoned discourse are not very useful against the gun grabbers, whose main arguments are emotional and generally put forward by demagogues. It may well be that the best short term course for maintaining a civil right of self defense is to adopt the methods of the irrational left. Drawing an analogy between the various banned "phobias" and the hoplophobes, the folks with an irrational fear of weapons and armed citizens.

Gee, criminals not obeying the law. Who would'a thunk it? /sarcasm

How many self-inflicted gunshot wounds do you think our socialised hospitals treat now? How many kids have blown their heads off after they find daddys pistol in his wardrobe.

Yes, that's right. None. So why don't you just shut the frack up and deal with the problems in your own country.

Looks like Chris proved your point, K.

"How many self-inflicted gunshot wounds do you think our socialised hospitals treat now? How many kids have blown their heads off after they find daddys pistol in his wardrobe."

Hey Chris, I have a better idea! Why don't you know the frack what you are talking about before you open you pie hole?

You do know that accidental gunshot death by young children who find daddy's pistol is just about non-existant in the US don't you? It is a proven fact that more children drown in 5 gallon buckets?

Grow your small population by 280 million more people and you might have cause to crow.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel101800.shtml

"Loaded guns just lying around the homes of Americans, ready for action. A clear and present danger to the families in those households? Not according to current safety figures.

In 1994, fatal gun accidents reached the lowest annual level since record-keeping began in 1903. They've dropped even lower each year since.

What should have been "remarkable" to Wintemute is that there were just 20 fatal gun accidents among children under the age of 5 in 1998. Contrast this with phony claims you hear about "10 children a day killed by guns." The greatest part of that factoid comes from gang-related homicides perpetrated by inner-city, 17-to-19-year-old male criminals.

Also contrast the 20 fatal gun accidents for children 0-to-4 with the near 600 children in that same age group who drowned. In fact, more children under the age of 5 drown in 5-gallon buckets of water than are harmed in a firearm accident.

You'd never know this by reading the current fundraising letter from Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), which shrieks about parents leaving loaded guns on the dining room table within reach of small children. The letter doesn't point to any actual instances of such dining-room tragedy. Rather it complains that most states don't have a law specifically forbidding it."

I call for an immediate ban on 5 gallon buckets. Do it for the children.

This is a political portrait of party ideals. Dems want to create more gun laws for every possible offense. Conservatives want to enforce the laws we already have. Grabbing guns and destrying them is great for having actual numbers of weapons destroyed that you can show your constituants and prove how good a job you're doing. However, it has never proven itself to get weapons out of the hands of the lawless.

I call for an immediate ban on 5 gallon buckets. Do it for the children.

Nonsense. Just require air holes in the bottom of these buckets. That'll fix the problem for sure.

Thanks, Karl, now I have to clean diet pepsi from my monitor.

You guys seem to keep forgetting the basic tenent of on-line arguments: Facts have no place in these discussions. Just stick to knee jerk reactions and claim people who don't agree with you are all part of some giant conspiracy.

There's no need to go all draconian and ban 5 gallon buckets. There's also no need to make buckets useless by putting holes in them. Simply affix them with bucket-locks and store them in locked bucket-cabinets. Of course, bucket owners will need to take bucket safety training before they get their bucket licenses and purchase their buckets (no more than two a month) from federally licensed bucket dealers after the three day waiting period (time to cool off in case they have nefarious intentions).

Nobody but Terroists and Criminals need high capacity 5 Gallon 'assault' buckets.

Limit buckets to one gallon and prohibit handles and splash guards as these enable rapid refilling and accurate pouring.

Do it quick!

FO DA CHILDRENZ!!!

Don't forget to abolish using buckets as a bashing weapon. Once someone sharpens the edges of a bucket and hurts someone else, you can abolish buckets as a slashing weapon. Is there no end...?

Chris Mann - So why don't you just shut the frack up and deal with the problems in your own country.

Good idea, and I hold you to that notion on all US related issues.

PS I support the ban on assault buckets, and no bucket should be allowed with 100 yards of a school yard.

But Leland, don't you see the slippery slope? If you allow a ban on assault buckets, why, pretty the bucket ban brigades will just move on to ordinary hunting and sport buckets. Once those are outlawed, they'll try taking away even that antique bucket you have hanging above the fireplace in the den, the one Grandpaw used on the dairy farm and handed down to you when you were just old enough.

And even that won't be enough for the bucket grabbers...once they start down that slippery slope, why, even mop-pails, soup bains, latte mugs, and overly-large ladles won't be safe!

They'll take my bucket when they pry its bail from my cold, dead hands!

I'm in favour of gun control. People should have about the same degree of restriction on gun use as they do for automobile use. License for both owner and gun, education and periodic re-testing.

Suicide deaths from gunshot wounds, and murder-suicides have dropped. That's good. I see no significant increase nor decrease in the amount of violent crime in Australia committed using firearms, the Crims who carry guns weren't deterred by the miniscule chance of their prospective victim having weaponry before, they're not deterred by the lesser chance now.

Violent crime where no-one gets hurt, only threatened, is probably more likely. Violent crime that ends in a bloodbath doesn't appear affected - there's possibly more crime, but possibly less shootings per crime, so it balances out, roughly. No significant difference in victims shot, and I don't particularly care about the crims, as long as they're caught before re-offending. That doesn't seem to have changed significantly either. OK, I'd prefer them caught alive than dead, but really, as long as they're caught, I'll accept that.

Is the Draconian and in many cases unreasonable legislation in Australia good or bad, from a gun-control viewpoint? I'd say Botched, and Bad. The infringement on personal freedom has been far too great, we could have had the same good results (such as they were) with far less oppression.

Of Course the rate of violent crime didn't go down because the law-abiding folks handed in their guns. It's not they who are the problem. But law-abiding folks can go bonkers, a man who finds his wife cheating on him can all too easily kill her, then his kids, then himself, if a firearm is readily available. There's fewer of those incidents now, and I'm sorry, but they happened all too regularly here. But that appears to be the only benefit gained.

That kind of scenario appears to be the only benefit gained by not having an armed, gun-educated populace. The "temporarily insane" who have far too easy access to relatively efficient means of killing on impulse. There are obvious disbenefits re crime prevention, apart from the civil rights issues.

I just wish there was more data available so we could argue cost/benefits from a position of knowledge, rather than ideologically-driven guesswork. Because despite my pro-Gun-Control position, I'm even more pro-evidence and pro-fact, no matter how unpalateable I may find them.

That's why I consider myself on the Right, despite my views on Gun control.

If buckets are outlawed, only outlaws will have buckets.

Good idea, and I hold you to that notion on all US related issues.

No such luck. I have dual citizenship.

Rand I appologise for taking that tone on your blog, this is just a rather personal issue which got me a little riled up. About a decade ago my (then four year old) cousin accidently shot herself in the arm with my idiotic uncle's unsecured revolver. Fortunately she didn't do any major damage.

As for Mike, I hope that if you keep a gun in your house your child or relations aren't so lucky. We don't need your idiotic spawn in the gene pool.

Hey Chris, I am sorry for your cousin but I could hardly give a phuck about a low class emoting asshole such as yourself. If you want to come here and childishly play the victim card, you are welcome to go and phuck yourself. Your uncles actions in no way exonerates your insipid emotings from justified criticism. If you can't take it, stay the hell out of the thread in the first place. If you don't like that? Phuck you asshole!

If you ever decide to come to the states, I am more than willing to arrange for you to make those remarks to my face instead of hidden behind a keyboard like some childish chickenshit.

Guys, could we tone it down, here? Like no more expressions of hope for injury of commenters and their families, and no more foul language, even misspelled?

I agree with Rand on toning it down but given the "I hope your family dies" sentiment expressed by Mann I am surprised that Mike didn't go off even stronger than he did.

I can't recall reading anything more disgusting on ANY internet forum than Mann's last post above. And that is saying a lot.

I can't recall reading anything more disgusting on ANY internet forum than Mann's last post above.

You must not get out much, Cecil. Would that it were so.

Well Rand maybe I just stay away from the worst of the worst forums on the WWW, but I cannot recall anyone, anywhere, posting anything worse (directed at another poster that is) than "I hope your family dies". I've seen a very few posts in a similar vein, but never anything worse.