If a buy back scheme was able to remove most of guns from the community do you think it would be a good idea?
I don't think that removing all (or most) of the guns from the community is a good idea in and of itself. The supposition that it would work implies that criminals aren't going to be able to replenish their supply of guns from some other source, which in turn implies that the black market is already held in check, which implies that efforts would be better spent on getting the remaining guns out of the hands of criminals.
Remember that the intention here is that the price of guns on the black market will go straight up.
And so the incentive for people to smuggle guns in to sell on the black market will go straight up. And so the supply of guns available on the black market will go straight up. And so we'll end up disarming law-abiding citizens while ensuring that criminals have arms galore. Without control of the black market, other efforts to curb guns are counterproductive. With control of the black market, they're unnecessary. Thus, the emphasis should be control of the black market, not disarming the citizenry.
A major difference between Australia and the United States in this regard is that you guys are on an island. It's much, much, much easier for you to exert control over guns being smuggled in. In that case, it can make sense to put stronger controls on gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, as that pool of guns is a significant contributor to the black market. The United States, on the other hand, has huge, unpatrolled borders that already host some of the world's largest smuggling operations. Curbing regular gun ownership is just going to ensure that even more guns come from the black market, where we have little chance of regulating them.
In the situation you describe, a criminal has sold several guns and replaced them with one. Even if everyone did that it would at least be a small step forward.
Not if they sell two old, rusty guns and buy one new assault rifle.
There are probably a lot of gun related deaths involving a law abiding person who lost control and unfortunately had a gun nearby in reach.
Indeed, most of the killing-spree type of murders are committed by otherwise law-abiding citizens with legally-obtained guns. The problem is that no gun control measures other than outright banning of all guns will prevent this.
Fear of increasing the value on the black market is not enough reason to avoid making something dangerous illegal.
It's not the feat of the black market value as such, but what said market will do in response to said increase in value. Which is to say, pump tons of guns into the hands of criminals.
Australia is very much like the US - except we are less religious and have better beaches.
Hmm... methinks you need to visit California... actually, the beaches are better on the Atlantic, but as far as the non-religious thing goes...
In one hundred years from now firearms will have advanced to be even more deadly. Think about how far guns have come in one century. Do you think these laws should still be defended then? Do you speculate that there will be a point where the law will change?
The laws change all the time, and they certainly change to keep up to date with changes in the lethality of the guns in question. There are plenty of guns that it's illegal to sell or possess in the United States. But, no, I don't think the laws will ever change to the point of attempting to disarm society as a whole.