Part of the gun legislation we need to be talking about: Buybacks.

[backscatter712]

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 04:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm trying to remember which radio show brought this up (Stephanie Miller?) They mentioned that in New Zealand, IIRC, after some horrible rampage shooting, the gov't enacted some firearms regulation. In order to deal with the weapons that were already in circulation, they set up a buy-back program. Turn in your carnage cannon, walk home with CASH!

That worked! Gun violence plummeted, as firearms became hard to come by.

I'm not in front of my desktop machine with access to Google Scholar and my university library access that let's me read pay walled articles, so I don't have links, yet.

[Recursion]

1. Australia. And we've had the exact same drop in gun violence as they have

even though we didn't buy back the guns.

Violent crime is a complex phenomenon.

We've had mixed successes with buybacks. To do a buyback on the scale of Australia's would cost a couple of hundred billion dollars, even if you could get the owners to agree with it. IMO that would be an awesome stimulus package, but again I don't know how many people you could convince to do it.

[PoliticAverse]

2. There was a gun buyback in Australia, it was mandatory...

Is that what she meant ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#In_Australia

[backscatter712]

5. I think that's probably it.

And I think the Australian model would work better than what's been done in the USA.

First, it'd be nationwide. Not city-by-city. And it would be large-scale. The goal should be to collect millions of high-powered firearms.

Yes, it would cost a lot of money. I would suggest paying out an amount close to what the gun's actually worth, not just $20.

The Australians actually had to impose a tax to pay for their buyback. And the polls there showed that most people approved of the program.

The Australian program was also mandatory. They were compensating owners of newly illegal firearms. The choice was to turn them in and walk away with cash, or take your chances and risk jail if you were caught.

[Ganja Ninja]

3. Register and tax all the guns and the magazines then offer a tax credit if ...

if an owner wants to surrender a gun to pay the taxes on his remaining guns.

[Fire Walk With Me]

4. Police and sheriffs in this country are paramilitarized and have no qualms against use of deadly

force even against the unarmed (Anaheim, California knows this all too well). I myself hate guns and violence, but I will not support any action which leaves the citizenry unprotected against the monsters known as "law enforcement". Many are obviously not that bad or rarely actually well-meaning, but they don't seem to do anything whatsoever about those of them who are nothing more than a gang of violence-loving and seeking thugs.

Until we can replace police with actual peacekeepers who are worthy of both the name and the respect of the citizens they are supposed to serve, I say gun ownership is required. And not just against the "police", but against the larger systems seeking to control the citizenry. And remember: I really dislike guns and violence. This does not mean I am against a check and balance against those who love guns and violence.

[backscatter712]

6. Do you actually believe a few armed civilians could take on a SWAT team?

They tried that in Waco. It didn't end well for the Branch Davidians.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Most people don't act like the Branch Davidians. :/

But so far as a 1:1 dynamic regarding "typical" encounters with police, as experienced by the quiet man in the video I'd posted above, it appears that there is need for some check and balance.