Turn in a gun, get a tax break.

[fuelair]

Obviously, you can't offer more than the gun's value in buyback. But you have to offer enough for it to be an incentive. It's certainly a dilemma, and that's why gun buybacks probably can't work on their own. They must be part of a broader strategy that offers additional incentives. Offering tax breaks for guns, in my opinion, gets around this somewhat by divorcing the incentive from the value of the gun. It's a good idea, but I think it requires some work before it's effective and useful.

Actually, in the past several programs doing buyback did, indeed, buy any gun turned in. A lot of very dead guns got their owners some nice fundage. That does not trouble me (absent it being my tax money used for the buy-backs) as I strongly suspect most of them were done simply for political expediency so the group sponsoring same could look like they were helpful pillars of the community.

 

[fuelair]

What is it about people on this forum who care more about their opinion than keeping themselves informed at least a little bit? What good does it do to make claim if it makes them look like a complete chump?

Ranb

They, here and out of here, and the reporters who quote them or state things incorrectly themselves ought to realize that gross inaccuracies (like referring to single shot at a time (squeeze of the trigger) rifles that look a certain way as assault weapons ) are equivalent to referring to the Treasury Department as a bank or to Obama supporters as right wing zealots. It invalidates what they are saying and makes them dismissable as tools and fools. It is interesting that the vast majority of persons everywhere who are against guns are or are attempting to appear to be seem largely ignorant concerning them in their variations.

 

[arthwollipot]

Actually, in the past several programs doing buyback did, indeed, buy any gun turned in. A lot of very dead guns got their owners some nice fundage. That does not trouble me (absent it being my tax money used for the buy-backs) as I strongly suspect most of them were done simply for political expediency so the group sponsoring same could look like they were helpful pillars of the community.

I understand that the buyback in Australia post-1996 was pretty successful, but not being a gun owner I don't know the details of exactly how it worked. It was certainly only a part of a strategy and not the whole deal.

 

[Jim_MDP]

I understand that the buyback in Australia post-1996 was pretty successful, but not being a gun owner I don't know the details of exactly how it worked. It was certainly only a part of a strategy and not the whole deal.

The political climate in the US is not even remotely near to allowing such a forced buyback by executive order.

Not to mention... the billions it would cost is many, many times the total it cost the Aus gov't.

 

[arthwollipot]

Who said anything about a "forced buyback by executive order"?

But you're right, there are way too many guns in America for a buyback alone to be completely successful. Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. A buyback is only part of a wider strategy.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Who said anything about a "forced buyback by executive order"?

Isn't that how it went down? That's all I was referencing.

A quick thought on the numbers and I think it would cost at least 50 billion USD to do the same here, possibly quite a bit more. Assuming it was done as a fair pricing scheme and not some low fixed amount, or worse... just a straight grab.

 

[arthwollipot]

Isn't that how it went down? That's all I was referencing.

Actually, sweeping reforms after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre made a large number of guns illegal to own - mainly semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns - so a limited amnesty and buyback was instituted. We have no "executive" so there's no such thing as an "executive order". The Prime Minister convinced the State governments to comply with the scheme as our Constitution did not allow for a Commonwealth gun control law. (Note: the Wikipedia link below uses the word "forced" where I have used "convinced" but inasmuch as that word applies the state governments were "forced" by political means, ie. making funding dependent on the states enacting certain laws, rather than by executive fiat.)

A quick thought on the numbers and I think it would cost at least 50 billion USD to do the same here, possibly quite a bit more. Assuming it was done as a fair pricing scheme and not some low fixed amount, or worse... just a straight grab.

The 1996 buyback cost approx. $500 million, which was funded by a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. It took in 660,959 guns. For reference, Australia has about 10% of the population that America does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_p...The_Port_Arthur_massacre_and_its_consequences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia

 

[Jim_MDP]

Actually, sweeping reforms after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre made a large number of guns illegal to own - mainly semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns - so a limited amnesty and buyback was instituted. We have no "executive" so there's no such thing as an "executive order". The Prime Minister convinced the State governments to comply with the scheme as our Constitution did not allow for a Commonwealth gun control law. (Note: the Wikipedia link below uses the word "forced" where I have used "convinced" but inasmuch as that word applies the state governments were "forced" by political means, ie. making funding dependent on the states enacting certain laws, rather than by executive fiat.)

The 1996 buyback cost approx. $500 million, which was funded by a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. It took in 660,959 guns. For reference, Australia has about 10% of the population that America does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_p...The_Port_Arthur_massacre_and_its_consequences

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia

Yes, my limited recollection was that the PM (whose name I could not recall and so did not make an accurate representation/comparison) was the prime mover behind the changes.

The wiki page I looked up to find his name also uses "forced", I'd agree "convinced" works better.

"Prime Minister John Howard immediately took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence[17] and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia


The "ten times the population but thirty times the number of guns" is a whole other philosophical discussion.

 

[arthwollipot]

The "ten times the population but thirty times the number of guns" is a whole other philosophical discussion.

Indeed.

 

[Ranb]

Ok, sounds reasonable. I, personally, would want more but I'm a gun control nut...apparently. How many gun related deaths would you guess this would stop, and what is the main area you would see a reduction in? Robbery, murder, etc? Your link in regards to Amazon stated an increase in a few areas, I am referring to statistics like those. Would you say it would decrease all of them?

I have no idea how it will affect the crime rate. From what I've heard only one denial at a gun show so far as been publicized; no arrest was made of course. As far as I know the new law is nearly universally ignored and the police are not enforcing the extremely strict prohibitions on temporary transfers as shown by a mass demonstration in Olympia a while back.

The Attorney General has thus far refused to do his job in providing an opinion of the new law when requested by the legislature. I heard the AG has deferred this to the local prosecutors. They are no help either.

Colorado passed a bkgd check law earlier, not much data there either as far as I know.

Ranb

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because that's way easier to remember.

Good work, you actually proved her point. You aren't hunting, you're using them to shoot at ****. AR's can be used for hunting, no doubt. Any gun can be used for hunting; however, that doesn't mean there aren't better choices. Whether she's right or wrong, it can be her opinion. I'm sure she had no intention on going up against gun-know-it-all's that will contest what can and can't be done with a gun.

Well, since you're anecdotal tale is obviously the end of the conversation then it's all good. Some say that even if they over paid getting guns off the streets could have saved a life, which isn't that far from the truth. Some even say that their programs were successful by their own terms.

On the one hand, I applaud you for such uncalled for use of snark.. Truly well played sir, getting a shot in before the other guy and all. Good job!

On the other hand... Who gives a bleep if I shoot at non-animal items with a rifle? In addition to ARs we also shoot at non-animal items with a variety of long rifles and pistols, as well as with *gasp* arrows!

Do you think that my use of these weapons for sport is superfluous and pointless? Do you think that someone else should have the right to take them away from me, simply because I'm not murdering bambi with them?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You think it's idiotic, I don't agree. I think the more assault rifles that are off the street the better.

Why? What is your reasoning?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I hope you don't go clay pigeon shooting with an AR-15! .223 fired up in the air has a range of around 2 miles. Unless its a rabbit thrower on the ground, I suppose that's OK.

I was not very clear, was I? We don't skeet shoot - the pigeons aren't in the air. They just make conveniently bright orange targets that can be scattered throughout our range at different distances.

 

[Emily's Cat]

assault rifle.

What exactly is an "assault rifle"? What characteristics allow one to classify a firearm as an "assault rifle"?

 

[Macgyver1968]

What exactly is an "assault rifle"? What characteristics allow one to classify a firearm as an "assault rifle"?

1. has select fire.

2. fires an intermediate powered cartridge.

3. has a removable ammo magazine.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To me, it's just a feel good measure for them. I'm all in favor of getting assault rifles out of the hands of gangbangers, drug dealers and criminals.

The problem is that gangbanger, drug dealers, and criminals don't usually go in for rifles. They're bulky and difficult to conceal. Almost no crimes are committed with rifles, and those are generally by mentally deranged individuals with no prior history of crime who snap and go on a killing spree.

If the objective is to get rifles out of the hands of criminals... then it's a solution without a problem.

++++

All things considered, I'd be more in favor of attempts to remove pistols from the world. Far more harm is cased by pistols and handguns than by rifles.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To me this is another "BSG" issue. (Big scary gun)

We've always used "SBR": Scary Black Rifle. Although with certain changes in the WA laws, we can't really use that acronym anymore. I think I'll suggest BSG as a replacement

 

[Dr. Keith]

The problem is that gangbanger, drug dealers, and criminals don't usually go in for rifles. They're bulky and difficult to conceal. Almost no crimes are committed with rifles, and those are generally by mentally deranged individuals with no prior history of crime who snap and go on a killing spree.

If the objective is to get rifles out of the hands of criminals... then it's a solution without a problem.

++++

All things considered, I'd be more in favor of attempts to remove pistols from the world. Far more harm is cased by pistols and handguns than by rifles.

Others have said this, but yours was the last one I read, so I'll just say: yep.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because I have no interest in it. I couldn't care less about guns.

For someone who doesn't care, you sure do feel compelled to tell us how much you don't care while simultaneously denigrating anyone who likes guns.

Methinks the plague doth protest too much...

I just think it's ironic that, whether feel good or not, someone is trying to do something in regards to a major problem(Maybe not specifically AR, but guns in general and you have to start somewhere), and people are degrading her cause she's not saying smart enough things about guns.

Do you also think that criminalization of marijuana was a good idea? I mean, they were trying to do something about the major problem of drug related crime and the devastating effects of drug abuse... and they've got to start somewhere, right? Why on earth would anyone denigrate politicians for not taking a smart approach to it and still having marijuana classed as a Schedule 1 Narcotic.

Like outside of gun nuts anyone really gives a ****.

Not everyone who owns guns is a nut, you know.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't have any statistics on law-abiding, tax paying citizens or what their contribution to the gun crime is, honestly.

Hmm. So you don't have any information... but you're quite confident that this is a great step in the right direction, and that your opinions are *right*.

It's always a good idea to accept belief as proof, don't you think?