HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Hillary Clinton Says A Na...

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 08:51 PM

Hillary Clinton Says A National Gun Buyback Program Is 'Worth Considering'

Source: Huffington Post

It's "worth considering" whether the United States should emulate Australia by instituting a national gun buyback program, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said Friday at a town hall in New Hampshire.

A man in the audience asked Clinton whether she thought it would be possible for the U.S. to enact such a program, and if not, why. Gun buybacks have happened at the metropolitan level in the U.S., but any effort at the national level would be sure to run into intense political opposition.

Clinton, for her part, seemed open to the idea.

"Australia is a good example, Canada is a good example, the U.K. is a good example. Why? Because each of them have had mass killings" she said. "Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago, Canada did as well, so did the U.K. And, in reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67



One of many reasons I'm voting for her.

One of many reasons she will be our next President.

56 replies, 5306 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton Says A National Gun Buyback Program Is 'Worth Considering' (Original post)
onehandle Oct 2015 OP
SusanCalvin Oct 2015 #1
GGJohn Oct 2015 #5
SusanCalvin Oct 2015 #11
GGJohn Oct 2015 #12
SusanCalvin Oct 2015 #13
Hoyt Oct 2015 #26
beevul Oct 2015 #35
Hoyt Oct 2015 #36
beevul Oct 2015 #37
GGJohn Oct 2015 #40
MyNameGoesHere Oct 2015 #16
karynnj Oct 2015 #28
GGJohn Oct 2015 #41
krispos42 Oct 2015 #2
DustyJoe Oct 2015 #8
forthemiddle Oct 2015 #21
Travis_0004 Oct 2015 #3
JustABozoOnThisBus Oct 2015 #18
NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #24
hack89 Oct 2015 #34
morningfog Oct 2015 #4
GGJohn Oct 2015 #6
Geronimoe Oct 2015 #7
bluestateguy Oct 2015 #9
Ichigo Kurosaki Oct 2015 #10
tularetom Oct 2015 #14
SunSeeker Oct 2015 #15
OakCliffDem Oct 2015 #17
24601 Oct 2015 #19
santafe52 Oct 2015 #20
GGJohn Oct 2015 #23
EL34x4 Oct 2015 #25
GGJohn Oct 2015 #42
NobodyHere Oct 2015 #38
INdemo Oct 2015 #22
TM99 Oct 2015 #27
TheBlackAdder Oct 2015 #29
Paladin Oct 2015 #30
EX500rider Oct 2015 #31
GGJohn Oct 2015 #43
branford Oct 2015 #45
Paladin Oct 2015 #52
hack89 Oct 2015 #54
branford Oct 2015 #56
hack89 Oct 2015 #48
Indepatriot Oct 2015 #32
n2doc Oct 2015 #33
bvf Oct 2015 #49
angrychair Oct 2015 #39
GGJohn Oct 2015 #44
branford Oct 2015 #46
ileus Oct 2015 #47
EndElectoral Oct 2015 #50
TeddyR Oct 2015 #51
TexasBushwhacker Oct 2015 #53
TeddyR Oct 2015 #55

Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 08:54 PM

1. Bernie supporter who wants to see this.

We need to follow Australia's lead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SusanCalvin (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:25 PM

5. So do tell us how you get around the 2A?

The SCOTUS? The American people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #5)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:12 PM

11. Probably not. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Don't agree with everything the Founders did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SusanCalvin (Reply #11)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:14 PM

12. You may not like it, and, for the record, that's your right,

but, it's the law.
There are a lot of laws I hate, but, if they're constitutional, then I follow them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:20 PM

13. Ditto. We agree. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:07 AM

26. The law does not say you HAVE to fill 4 gun safes with gunz and ammo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #26)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:13 PM

35. Nor does it say you have to use free speech to speak out about "gunz". N/T

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #35)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:20 PM

36. Why not. Something needs to be done about armed up yahoos.

You want to ignore the sickness?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:22 PM

37. Don't ever change hoyt.

 

You're the pro-gun sides best asset.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #26)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 05:44 PM

40. Ahh, but the law says I can, and I choose to do so. eom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 12:52 AM

16. The constitution

was and is a flawed document from the beginning. We get "around: it maybe by creating one that wasn't designed for protecting the rights of the privileged. Somehow throwing your hands in the air and saying game over doesn't seem like a solution to anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:21 AM

28. Buying back guns does not impact the 2nd amendment - as long as it is voluntary nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #28)


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:06 PM

2. Mandatory confiscation

It's not a "buyback". It's mandatory confiscation.

a) The government never owned privately-purchased and privately-owned guns in the first place. Private ownership is not a lease or a loan. Ego, the government is not buying them "back".

b) Local programs are voluntary. Canada's, Australia's, and Great Britain's were mandatory.


In other words, "she's coming for your guns".


I wonder if all the people that quoted that, to mock the paranoid delusions of the gun nuts, will now admit that the gun nuts were right to be worried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:31 PM

8. buttons

If she's going to push the confiscation button it will be great for her opponents.
They will urge her all the way to keep pushing this vote killer option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:17 AM

21. Who's the delusional ones?

The Republicans that say she is coming for your guns, or the Democrats that say Republicans are just using fear tactics to get votes?

The truth is that "She is coming for your guns"

Does anyone besides me remember just 2 years ago (after Sandy Hook) that Colorado RECALLED members of their legislature because they supported even minor gun control laws, yet confiscation of guns is going to play well?????????
Last I checked Colorado was a swing state that was needed in the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:06 PM

3. Agreed

 

I like gun buybacks.

The only person who has ever been willing to overpay for a rusted out gun that hasn't fired in 20 years is the government.

I've got a few old guns in my safe, I'm just waiting for a buy back so I can get rid of them. I got 300 dollars that I put towards a new glock at the last buy back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 06:36 AM

18. Hilary likes the Australian program ...

... which, according to the HuffPo article, bought back semi-automatic weapons. This probably doesn't buy back the old rusty Mosin-Nagant bolt gun.

If the program is mandatory, then the government will dictate the below-market price for the buyback.

How about $100 for your Glock, Travis-number-four.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #18)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:47 AM

24. The government cannot dictate a below market price for a forced taking.

They have to pay the full market value for property taken per the Constitution. In addition, they cannot take any property without due process (also per Constitution), so it would either be voluntary or every person they forced to hand over the weapon would have to have their day in court first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #18)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:05 PM

34. It can't be mandatory

it will never pass constitutional muster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:17 PM

4. Cut off the flow, buy up the stock.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #4)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:27 PM

6. Cut off the flow?

How?
Even if the govt bought up the stock, there would still be business people who would just start up new firearm manufacturing companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:27 PM

7. This was done before in cities

 

The guns got sold to Mexico and then smuggled back into the US. The guns were supposed to be destroyed but weren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 09:36 PM

9. I prefer gun buybacks be done by the cities and states

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:06 PM

10. Not with my tax dollars....

There are better things to be done with tax money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:22 PM

14. If she somehow gets to be our next president and tries this stupid idea

She'll never get elected to a second term.

"Buyback" is a nice way of disguising the true intent - confiscation of all privately owned firearms. She's going to lose a lot of Democrats over this issue. Not me, she lost me a long time ago. But it will bite her in the ass.

The one good thing about it is, I don't think she really has any intention of actually doing this. It's just more Clinton bullshit to get her past the nomination. Once she is the nominee all this feel good crap about gun buybacks will disappear because she'll never get elected if she keeps talking like that.

It's one more example of why she can't be trusted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Oct 16, 2015, 11:48 PM

15. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 05:01 AM

17. " 'Australia had a huge mass killing about 20, 25 years ago' "

The date was 1996, nineteen years ago.

Hillary is proposing to limit citizens' Constitutionally guaranteed rights, but she will not even get the facts correct. I have reservations about a person who just throws out generalized concepts when the topic is restricting my rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 06:41 AM

19. Wouldn't that be a better use of all the the Clinton Foundation $ instead of unnecessary

things like luxury travel on private jets?

I'll let her "buy Back" a .22 rifle that she has never owned for the bargain price of just one her $200,000 speeches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 07:42 AM

20. Sue the NRA!

 

The American people need to file a $20 Trillion class action suit against the NRA.

We sue polluters and other corporations for environmental damages and (try to) hold others responsible for wrongful death and injury.

The NRA has created and promoted serious endangerment to all Americans. Let's take them to court and break them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to santafe52 (Reply #20)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:06 AM

23. Did it occur to you that if it were feasible,

some gun control org. would already have done so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GGJohn (Reply #23)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 09:59 AM

25. Suing the NRA into bankruptcy might feel good

 

But it wouldn't take a single firearm off the streets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EL34x4 (Reply #25)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 06:19 PM

42. Exactly,

and the NRA are babes in the woods compared to the GOA, or the SAF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to santafe52 (Reply #20)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 02:54 PM

38. Sue them for what reason exactly?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:54 AM

22. Listen very closely to what she says

She mentioned a couple major shootings in Australia and then went on to talk about a buy back program for the US.

Hillary didn't really say anything. She is dancing around this issue and she failed miserably.
This is one of those issues where if she should be elected President she will forget what she said..
You know kinda like Obama when he talked about walking a picket line with union members..

Hillary's response was quick and long drawn out and she immediately knew a lot about Australia program as if this was a planted question.

Ok So what did she really say and I would ask her what she sometimes asks Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail about some of his proposals?
Hillary how would you ever get something like this buy back program through Congress?

Give me a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:15 AM

27. If she is seriously considering

 

adding this to her weekly stump speeches not only in the primary, but gods forbid also in the general, then she and the Democratic party has already lost.

This will not work in the United States for so very many reasons.

I don't believe she is being real on this anyway. After all, 'Annie Oakely' will pander which ever way the winds blow in order to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:27 AM

29. This is like that South Park 'Cash for Gold' episode.

.


Unless the manufacturing stream is stopped, this is what you get:





.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 10:38 AM

30. We get it, pro-gun militants. You're not voting for Hillary.

As is usual when election season rolls around, I question whether a lot of you DU gun enthusiasts will be casting votes for any Democrats at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #30)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 11:02 AM

31. It's less whether DU will vote for her and more it will bring the other side out in force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #30)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 06:23 PM

43. As was already pointed out,

it's not a matter of voting for Hillary, it's a case of motivating pro 2A voters to come out.

You can question all you want, it's irrelevant what you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #30)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 06:58 PM

45. Pro-gun rights Democrats also have the option of just staying home on election day.

 

No Democrat need cast a vote for a Republican. However, whoever our candidate, they have to earn our vote, it must not be taken for granted.

In the last few elections, pre and post-Obama, voter turnout was extremely important given the margins. Promoting the Australian mandatory gun "buyback," i.e., outright firearm bans and confiscation, is guaranteed to keep many needed Democrats home on election day in important states like Ohio, Colorado, Florida, and Pennsylvania, and similarly energize Republicans nationwide (and act as a fundraising windfall for groups like the NRA and SAF).

Guns are an electoral loser in most states and districts, no matter your level of disgust.

In fact, as we come closer to the election, as every candidate before and including Obama, they'll make sure to have ample photo opportunities with firearms to remind Americans how they support our historic cultural traditions and the individual right to keep and bear arms.

THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM
Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.


https://www.democrats.org/party-platform



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to branford (Reply #45)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 09:12 AM

52. Threats like that aren't working anymore.

And you can quit posting that part of the Democratic Platform (and that photo of Obama with the pretty over & under). I've been viewing the remarks of "pro-gun rights Democrats" such as yourself for years and years. I don't believe you people have any interest in adhering to a single word of that platform which suggests a means of dealing with gun violence in this country. Not even an initial dialogue. Any discussions about gun policy get hijacked at the earliest possible opportunity by your side, with gripe sessions over issues like what the differences between "magazines" and "clips" are. Time and time again.

You want to stay at home on election day because of the Democratic candidate's stance on firearms? Have at it. This old gun-owning Democrat will cast his vote with you in mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #52)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 11:16 AM

54. We will all end up voting for the democratic nominee

Gun owners understand that both HRC and Bernie need to pander to an important Dem constituency for the primary. But the issue will go away for the general because they want to actually win.

Gun control is irrelevant to the general election so there is no point in fighting over it. Any Dem in the White House will be good to gun owners - Obama taught us that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #52)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 05:01 PM

56. I will continue to post the excerpt from the Democratic Platform,

 

as well as the picture of Obama shooting a gun, until people like you realize the political and public relations importance of such exercises, and just why most gun control proposals (such as gun banning and confiscation like Australia) are great big electoral losers in very large swaths of our country. I'm sorry if cognitive dissonance if causing you difficulty accepting this tried and tested fact, or that a great many Americans, including millions of Democrats, have a significant divergence of opinion from people like yourself.

I also find it both sad and ironic that you claim that gun rights proponents like me have don't "any interest in adhering to a single word of that platform." As you appear to have been paying attention to my posts, you can dispense with the straw man arguments. You know perfectly well that I would indeed support certain restriction such as universal background checks, although any such regulations must still be constitutional (there'll be no "creative" interpretation of any amendment to the Constitution, as that will lead to disaster in areas other than guns). If you and others support a "mandatory buyback" of virtually all firearms like was done in Australia, and suggested by Clinton, or similarly strict or pervasive measures, it's you who actually has no interest in adhering to the Democratic Platform concerning firearms.

As to whether I will vote and who for, you can rest easy. I'm a lifelong NYC resident, virtually all Democrats on the ballot are strongly anti-gun, I'm not a one issue voter (and by choice don't own any firearms), and I've had no problem voting for virtually every Democratic candidate since I first registered to vote. Nevertheless, I don't bury my head in the sand, and acknowledge that other Democrats and independents are not me, firearms rights for them is often a make or break issue, and these individuals tend to reside in very important and contested states and districts that are important to win, lest we risk the entirety of our progressive agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #30)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 08:27 PM

48. I would happily vote for HRC or Bernie

Neither is a threat to my guns. To think so is delusional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 12:18 PM

32. She'll tell Wayne La Pierre to CUT IT OUT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:37 PM

33. Such strong leadership


Lose the weasel words and I might be impressed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #33)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 05:49 AM

49. An idea "worth considering"?

 

Yeah, "weasel words" is the perfect term here.

Like a parent responding to a five-year-old asking if he can just have cake, ice cream, and candy for dinner:

"Well now, that's an idea worth considering, Honey! We'll see, OK?"

" 'kay, Mommy. I love you!"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 04:25 PM

39. No honest conversation about guns

From "gun rights" advocates

"Gun rights" advocates want nothing less than unfettered access to all the weapons they want, all the time. I admit that may seem broad but in my experience and observation, any talk of any limits is shut down or met with name calling or ridiculed.
I counter that strong regulation on the distribution, ownership and use of firearms is reasonable on a product that was created for the express purpose to kill.
We are the only OECD nation that does not do that. These regulations, some in place for decades, have not left there respective countries as mad max wastelands of crime and death. The opposite actually. Those laws don't prevent hunting or target shooting but do often regulate where and how.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #39)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 06:26 PM

44. ....

Those laws don't prevent hunting or target shooting but do often regulate where and how.


The 2A has zilch to do with hunting or target shooting.
That's Civics 101.

The name calling happens on both sides of the issue, but here on DU, the name calling is almost exclusively from the pro control side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #39)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 07:21 PM

46. If that's the extent of your "experience and observation,"

 

I suggest you get out more, read information other than from gun control groups which confirm your own biases, and most importantly, speak with some of the millions of Democratic and liberal gun owners and their supporters.

By suggesting you have some special insight into the minds of the 80-100+ million legal American gun owners (over 1 out of ever 3 American adults), or those who support gun rights, but don't own any firearms such as myself, you're presenting nothing more than a self-serving, strawman argument that's barely worthy of a substantive rebuttal. The level, nature and type of firearm restrictions that would be considered acceptable to these people vary considerably.

Moreover, I care not one iota what other Democratic countries choose to do or not do. We live in a democratic republic, Americans have our own unique culture and history, and firearms, for good or ill, are a part of it supported by a majority of Americans, and the numbers are growing (besides being an actual enumerated right protected in the Bill of Rights!).

For instance, among the western and advanced nations, our free speech, press, and religion jurisprudence is by far the most liberal and expansive. We'll tolerate virtually anything to ensure the government is never in a position to censor unpopular opinions, something that has people from across the political spectrum in our history. "Hate speech" and similar laws are anathema to virtually all Americans, yet standard virtually everywhere else.

Moreover, guns do not cause violence or even suicides, which represents two-thirds of firearm deaths. In fact, despite the wide availability of guns in our country, our suicide rate is comparable to most other advanced nations, and much less than gun control havens like Japan and South Korea.

We have our pathology of violence, and since violence and crime often tend to be very regional/urban or demographically-linked to certain groups, many areas of the USA are much safer overall than similar regions in these other OECD countries.

Lastly, as others have noted and despite you broad contention, the gun laws in many of these other country sometimes drastically affect hunting and sport options and opportunities. In any event, the Second Amendment is about self-defense, both from other and the government, not hunting and sport (which can be, and is, regulated more broadly in the USA).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Oct 17, 2015, 07:25 PM

47. I'll pass...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 07:10 AM

50. Without serious gun control like those countries have, a serious waste of taxpayer money

Essentially, you're giving money to people to trade in old guns to buy new guns. Imagine if they said, we'll buy your old car and now you have no car. What would you do? Simply take that money and buy a new car. And if you own a new Ferrari or have a hot car you're less likely to trade in that old car.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/

"Researchers who have evaluated gun control strategies say buybacks – despite their popularity – are among the least effective ways to reduce gun violence. They say targeted police patrols, intervention efforts with known criminals and, to a lesser extent, tougher gun laws all work better than buybacks.

The biggest weakness of buybacks, which offer cash or gift cards for guns, is that the firearms they usually collect are insignificant when measured against the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens.

The government estimates there are more than 310 million guns in America today, nearly enough to arm every man, woman and child in the country.

"They make for good photo images," said Michael Scott, director of the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, based at the University of Wisconsin's law school. "But gun buyback programs recover such a small percentage of guns that it's not likely to make much impact."

The relatively small number of guns recovered isn't the only problem, Scott said. Buyback programs tend to attract people who are least likely to commit crimes and to retrieve guns that are least likely to be used in crimes."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 08:50 AM

51. I often hear that Hillary is a "seasoned politician"

 

But this was just a politically naïve statement. First, a voluntary gun buyback bill is never going to pass the House, which it would have to do. Second, a mandatory buyback program wouldn't pass constitutional muster. So this idea is dead on arrival, but now the NRA and Fox News can run around yelling "Hillary wants to take your guns," and pump up Republican turnout in the general election while at the same time potentially alienating pro-2d Amendment Democrats. In short, Hillary just handed Republicans a major talking point, where they can actually quote her, on an idea that she will never get passed.

The proper response would have been "No, we are not considering a national buyback program, because there would be serious Second Amendment implications, but we want to work within the confines of the Second Amendment to limit gun violence by keeping guns out of the hands of felons and providing mental health services to those who need it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 10:32 AM

53. Really saying "Vote for me, not the guy that voted

against the Brady Bill."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #53)

Sun Oct 18, 2015, 03:02 PM

55. No

 

That's not what she was saying, no matter how hard you try to stretch her statements. What she said was that she'd consider a gun buyback program. Not sure how you equate that to the Brady Bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread