Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: Gun buy back programs-- acceptable? good? or slippery slope bad?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293

    Gun buy back programs-- acceptable? good? or slippery slope bad?

    The LA area gun buy back program has recently returned to the news. Ralph's Supermarket donates gift certificates in this program, and anyone turning in a firearm receives a Ralph's gift certificate in varying amounts. I think it's $50, $100 and $200.

    This does not intrude on gun owners' 2nd amendment rights, as it is a voluntary sale on their part. Not a seizure or ban, in any respect.

    So, what do you think of such programs?

    1. A false sense of doing something but which is wholly inadequate, when what we need is a complete ban on handguns and 'assault weapons.' (strongly oppose, from the anti-2nd amendment left, er, sensible moderate gun regulation side, I mean of course. Reagan, did I mention Reagan?)

    2. A dangerous precedent, that will wrongly teach the public that firearms are the problem when they are the solution. (strongly oppose, from the pro-2nd amendment right)

    3. Not much value either way, but not dangerous in either way, so meh. (no strong opinion either way, whatever)

    4. A great idea that is totally worth it, with significant results, that ought to be modeled and it's only downside, not enough of it going on. (strongly support from the anti-2nd amendment left).

    5. Neither a great idea nor worth it, particularly, but since the public sheeple want some symbolic actions, and this isn't terrible at all, it's very much worth doing it for political cover reasons (strong support from the pro-2nd amendment right)

    6. Since all of the above are idiotic cartoon responses that totally miss the point, I'll tell you what REAL Americans think, to wit: (please explain another reaction)

    (Note: this particular program involves no public expenditure of money beyond perhaps some dedicated personnel already on salary being tasked to man the turn in stations. Some programs might involve public monies for the by-back. My questions apply to both.)
    A medium sized fish [...]

  2. #2
    Why would anyone oppose someone using their own money to buyback guns?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    Not a pertinent joke as to the Ralph's DONATION of gift cards usable there, by which the LA and other CA programs are 'funded.; Private sector donations.

    But if taxpayer funds were used, we might ask the non-snark/joke question, why would anyone SUPPORT using their own (tax paid) monies to buy back guns?

    Answer: it could be cheaper than the alternatives, including the cost of the loss of human life and the human suffering (and attendant police force and court costs for dealing with the aftermath of gun violence) that this might curb.
    Last edited by Soflasnapper; 01-04-2013 at 02:23 PM.
    A medium sized fish [...]

  4. #4
    The difference is that Ralph is using Ralph's own money ... state funds are always collected under threat of violence, and the entire purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the people maintained the ability to inflict violence against violence.

    The MAD theory stopped WWIII and has kept the US fre from tyranny ... which explains why statists have always wanted to undo it.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    All taxation comes with the implicit or reserved threat of violence to collect it. And yet that is a known allowed function and key reason for the creation of the federal government, per the COTUS. It is no more predatory to tax the people to pay for courts and prisons to deal with firearm-related crimes and criminals than to tax them for using that money for buying back firearms, which can reduce the money needed for courts and prison and the medical treatment of firearm injuries.

    I think your statement is a canard, and at least A reason, and I would argue, the key reason, for the 2nd amendment is found in the independent clause with which it begins.

    Meaning, the founding fathers were very much against any standing armies, even restricting appropriations for the military to a two-year term directly in the COTUS. So, how to ensure the country has the military might to defend itself, with no standing army around? The well-regulated militias would serve that purpose, as ground forces when called into action, and of course there would be a permanent 'standing' (floating?) navy for shore defense.
    A medium sized fish [...]

  6. #6
    Have you ever actually read the COTUS?

    Although the congress indeed has the power to tax, it most certainly doesn't have the power to spend on programs outside it's specified powers ... not that this has ever bothered a statist.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,815
    After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn't Had a Similar Massacre Since.
    By Will Oremus Posted Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012, at 10:00 PM ET

    Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard lays a wreath at the memorial site of the Port Arthur massacre on its 10th anniversary. The mass killing spurred Howard's government to pass sweeping gun control laws.
    Photo by Ian Waldie/Getty Images
    Read the rest of Slate’s coverage of the Sandy Hook school shooting.

    On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

    Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

    At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

    What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
    Read more from Slate's coverage of the Sandy Hook school shooting

    There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

    Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.

    There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.

    That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    Quote Originally Posted by LWW View Post
    Have you ever actually read the COTUS?

    Although the congress indeed has the power to tax, it most certainly doesn't have the power to spend on programs outside it's specified powers ... not that this has ever bothered a statist.
    Old question, tired memory perhaps on your part. Everything the government has done has a justification (which you think is wrong, but it is offered whenever questioned and it's wrong to pretend there is no answer), from somewhere in the general welfare clause, the commerce clause, or the necessary and proper clause.

    Besides, you raise a moot point, as the COTUS does not bind the state governments similarly to limited government. You'd have to find any restrictions on the states in their own constitutions. Maybe something comparable is there, but I think it isn't. Certainly I've not heard anyone make that general claim. The states are not bound by limited or enumerated powers, or if they are, not by the COTUS.

    So if it is thought by the duly elected representatives of the citizenry, be they federal or state representatives (or senators, meaning the term broadly), that spending tax monies for gun buybacks is a worthy plan that will add to the general welfare, I find no legal bar to this representative republican decision.
    A medium sized fish [...]

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,899
    Quote Originally Posted by Soflasnapper View Post
    The LA area gun buy back program has recently returned to the news. Ralph's Supermarket donates gift certificates in this program, and anyone turning in a firearm receives a Ralph's gift certificate in varying amounts. I think it's $50, $100 and $200.

    This does not intrude on gun owners' 2nd amendment rights, as it is a voluntary sale on their part. Not a seizure or ban, in any respect.

    So, what do you think of such programs?

    1. A false sense of doing something but which is wholly inadequate, when what we need is a complete ban on handguns and 'assault weapons.' (strongly oppose, from the anti-2nd amendment left, er, sensible moderate gun regulation side, I mean of course. Reagan, did I mention Reagan?)

    2. A dangerous precedent, that will wrongly teach the public that firearms are the problem when they are the solution. (strongly oppose, from the pro-2nd amendment right)

    3. Not much value either way, but not dangerous in either way, so meh. (no strong opinion either way, whatever)

    4. A great idea that is totally worth it, with significant results, that ought to be modeled and it's only downside, not enough of it going on. (strongly support from the anti-2nd amendment left).

    5. Neither a great idea nor worth it, particularly, but since the public sheeple want some symbolic actions, and this isn't terrible at all, it's very much worth doing it for political cover reasons (strong support from the pro-2nd amendment right)

    6. Since all of the above are idiotic cartoon responses that totally miss the point, I'll tell you what REAL Americans think, to wit: (please explain another reaction)

    (Note: this particular program involves no public expenditure of money beyond perhaps some dedicated personnel already on salary being tasked to man the turn in stations. Some programs might involve public monies for the by-back. My questions apply to both.)

    Outlaw the assault weapons, the high capacity magazines, and the blow up bullets, AND make it a felony to own any of it.

    That's what I want, and that's what I intend to put every free moment I have, into making it a reality.

    No Civilian should own any of these mass murder assault weaponsnow any high capacity magazines.

    Worse, the very kinds of people who are yapping about their BS skewed version of Constitutional rights, are the very same bunch who have proven themselves completely irrational for decades, and unable to READ the damn Constitution accurately.

    Send out the Marines and have them rip every single one of those mass murder Assault WEapons weapons out of the hands of the nutjobs.

    Go door to door, and search their homes, whatever it takes to pry those assault weapons, and high capacity magazines, and blow up bullets, out of their dead, cold, grimey hands, I'm all for it!

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    8,293
    So, I'll mark you down as undecided, clearly. LOL!

    More a 1) above, but a 1 (a).
    A medium sized fish [...]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •