Every time there is a shooting, we hear lots of debate about guns and gun control. Then we all face the reality that not much will change. The debate subsides and we turn to other topics until the next shooting. The shooting in Oregon brought two new topics to the table that hadn’t been voiced in the past. This time, for example, we heard about the need to implement “common sense gun-safety laws.” Some of us are waiting for what those laws might be. We already have significant background checks in Oregon. That did not stop the Roseburg shooter. His mother obtained the guns legally. So did the mother of the shooter in Sandy Hook. Common sense laws certainly couldn’t mean another so-called “assault weapons ban.” We tried that in 1994 and ten years later it ended. Every study done on the impact of the ban concluded that it did not reduce gun violence. Another new topic on the gun control table was Australia. President Obama cited the laws in Australia as a model for America. When he said that, I mentioned on radio that this could be a code for something more than extensive background checks. Most news outlets merely mention that Australia had a gun buyback and fail to mention it was mandatory. In other words, when the president made a reference to Australia, he was talking about gun confiscation. I didn’t hear many commentators pick up on that point, and I began to wonder if I had made a mistake. So I was glad to see that columnist, Charles Krauthammer did focus on that in his op-ed, What Gun-Control Advocates Mean but Dare Not Say: Guns Should be Confiscated. This is something you might want to remember the next time you hear someone calling for “common sense gun-safety laws.” If they say we should model our laws on Australia, they are probably talking about gun confiscation. If so, then we need some straight talk from them about what they propose.