Chicago’s Police Superintendent Jody Weis acknowledged that gun buy backs don’t strike at the heart of Chicago’s problems with gang violence. But Weis said the effort is a chance to prevent some shootings. “If we can get weapons taken out of the house. At least they can’t be stolen form the house. A child cannot get his hands on that gun.”
Who could argue with that?
Why do you think the gun buy-back programs meet with such antagonism from the pro-gun crowd? Could it be that these initiatives seem to demonize the gun? Although I don't think that's a fair description of this, I do think that's the problem from the pro-gun perspective.
The truth is, gun control folks aren't demonizing anything, any more than they're assigning animate characteristics to inanimate objects. What we are doing is acknowledging the crucial element of gun availability in the equation of violence. It's all about gun availability.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Every year Chicago has a gun buy-back or two and yet so many people still die.
ReplyDeleteGun buy-backs are only a success in the eyes of the "true believers" of gun control. In reality, they are inconsequential at best.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere's only one reason gunloons oppose gun buyback programs: they work.
ReplyDeleteAs such, it is a gun control initiative that must be opposed. You have to understand the mantra of the gunloon is that all gun controls do not work--regardless of what they are--and thus we may as well give up on any gun control efforts.
Now, this is not to say gun buyback programs will produce dramatic results (gunloon MO is to declare any initiative "useless" if it does not eliminate all gun crime) and certainly some of the features of such programs could be tightened up to make them more efficient.
The ever-clueless RuffRidr claims to be concerned about Chicago's budget deficit. Chicago's budget defict last year was about $520M. But RuffRidr fails to note the costs of a murder.Studies show the costs a non-death penalty murder case is just over $1M--a capital case costs over $3M. That's just the judicial part of a murder case and does not account for the costs associated with the victim, healthcare, police investigation, etc.
So, according to Ruff, $50 is wasted money but several million is acceptable.
--JadeGold
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletemikeb: "Why do you think the gun buy-back programs meet with such antagonism from the pro-gun crowd?"
ReplyDeleteThe "antagonism" in this case is more like derision.
That does not compare with the opposition that one sees with measures intended to discourage gun ownership by the otherwise law-abiding.
I am against buybacks because a lot of nice, historic firearms get destroyed.
ReplyDeleteAs to being effective, they are not. Usually, besides nice heirlooms and historical pieces, mostly junk is turned in. And lets not forget how "Compton Got All Of Those Assault Weapons Off Of The Street" with their buyback, you remember, the SUV load of movie props.
I hear y'all, but I still like the way Superintendent Weis put it.
ReplyDeleteYou guys who need studies that prove it works before you'll even consider it, should try using a little honest common sense. Referring to the functioning firearms which were turned in, the Superintendent said, "At least they can’t be stolen form the house. A child cannot get his hands on that gun."
You don't think that results in any reduction in anything?
"You don't think that results in any reduction in anything?"
ReplyDeleteYep, reduction in potential DGUs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"You don't think that results in any reduction in anything?"
ReplyDeleteFWM: "Yep, reduction in potential DGUs."
I dunno -- Maybe the kind of person who turns in a gun is not the kind of person to expect a DGU from.
And the kind of people who promote these things WANT to think that they're doing "something" about guns -- and maybe this is a relatively harmless way of letting them think that they're doing so.
What's ignored by our gunloon buddies is that in order for buybacks to really make an appreciable dent in gun crime--they need to be more extensive.
ReplyDeleteAustrailia had a gun buyback program a number of years ago where the Govt purchased some 700K guns. A study demonstrated this saved between 128-282 lives annually since 1997.
Of course, Australia's program specifically targetted certain types of firearms. This is what needs to occur in US buyback programs--we ought not be concerned about getting the .22 single shot off the streets and target assault rifles and the junk handguns.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: "in order for buybacks to really make an appreciable dent in gun crime--they need to be more extensive.
ReplyDeleteAustrailia had a gun buyback program a number of years ago where the Govt purchased some 700K guns."
JadeGold "omits" mention that the Australian buyback was MANDATORY (confiscation with compensation).
JadeGold also "omits" mention that the Australian confiscation went far beyond such as "assault rifles" -- also included was all semiauto hunting rifles and shotguns and all pump action hunting rifles and shotguns.
The pump action shotgun is one of the most popular hunting guns in the US. We now see what those like JadeGold really intend when thay talk about "buybacks" and "assault rifles."
FJ doesn't dispute the fact gun buybacks work. But he does throw up a lot of smoke and makes whistling sounds to deflect attention away from this fact.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is what you have to do when--as in FJ's case--the facts militate against your view.
Australia has managed to save nearly 3000 of its citizens. It's gun buyback program paid for itself in the second year.
Now, while FJ bloviates about shotguns and Aussie terrorists, he is unwilling to save any US citizens from needless death.
--JadeGold
I have to bring up a point about the term "buy-back". In order to "buy something back", wouldn't you have to have owned it yourself previously?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that "buy-up" would be a better name for it.
That is, of course, if they want to be honest about their nomenclature. As it stands, it feels as though they don't want you to think you actually own your private property.
Way to go, Kev. Let's discuss the inaccurate term instead of the issues. After we're done, we can go back to argue about the term "loophole" too.
ReplyDeleteJadeGold: "FJ doesn't dispute the fact gun buybacks work."
ReplyDeleteSometimes it's very useful to examine what policies gun control advocates CLAIM to work, as an indication of what they REALLY intend when they talk about gun control.
JadeGold: "But he does throw up a lot of smoke and makes whistling sounds to deflect attention away from this fact."
And JadeGold does not dispute the facts that I stated about Australia.
We learn an important lesson here: When anti-gunowner advocates like JadeGold talk about "buybacks," it's really CONFISCATION that they're claiming to "work." And when when anti-gunowner advocates like JadeGold talk about "assault rifles," it's really all semiauto and pump action hunting rifles and shotguns that they intend to ban.
If it's confiscation of America's most popular hunting guns that is required for "buybacks" to supposedly "work," let's get that out in the open. Despite his ranting about "smoke" and "whistling," JadeGold has done us a valuable service by raising the issue. There may still be some gunowners somewhere that don't yet know what gun control advocates have planned for them.
FJ uses an old tried-and-true tactic: pretend that some initiative employed in some other country will implemented here in exactly the same fashion.
ReplyDeleteWe saw this tactic during the healthcare debate when opponents claimed the US would get the UK's (or Canada's) healthcare system. Identically.
The problem with such tactics is that everyone with an IQ over 40 understands no initiative--no matter how successful or unsuccessful--can be replicated from one country to another.
--JadeGold
JadeGold: "FJ uses an old tried-and-true tactic: pretend that some initiative employed in some other country will implemented here in exactly the same fashion."
ReplyDeleteThe obvious implication of JadeGold claiming that a "buyback" is supposed to have "worked " in Australia is that similar results could be duplicated here. If not, then his post is without significance (although with JadeGold that's always a possibility).
Of course, we see that what JadeGold called a "buyback" was really the confiscation of popular hunting guns.
JadeGold does not actually tell us that the same thing is not what the goal is here -- nor how the same supposed results could be achieved WITHOUT the same harsh measures.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRuffRidr: I just want to add that JadeGold also omits that several other studies were done is Australia regarding the amount of lives saved. Not surprisingly many of them (including independent studies) found the "gun buyback" ineffective.
ReplyDeleteHere is one of them (although I hate to give JadeGold a opportunity to avoid the gun-banning can of worms that he was so kind as to open):
Buyback has no effect on murder rate
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html
FJ - Yes, the ultimate goal of Jade and his ilk is, and always has been the eradication of private gun ownership.
ReplyDeleteLogically then, confiscation is a part of achieving that goal.
Mike W: "Yes, the ultimate goal of Jade and his ilk is, and always has been the eradication of private gun ownership."
ReplyDeleteMike W, it is a favorite JadeGold tactic to attack gun ownership at every opportunity and to support or praise partial gun bans and confiscations, in the hope that you will claim that his goal is "the eradication of private gun ownership."
Then he can claim that you are wrong by denying that goal, and he will point out that no gun control groups admit to that goal. He has a point, as no country has actually banned all guns for everyone.
So since one cannot actually "prove" that as JadeGold's goal, he will deny it and claim a small victory (and he needs all of those he can get).
Mike W.'s claim that the goal "always has been the eradication of private gun ownership," is absolutely ridiculous. I don't believe anyone has that as a goal. I know I don't.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletemikeb: Mike W.'s claim that the goal "always has been the eradication of private gun ownership," is absolutely ridiculous. I don't believe anyone has that as a goal. I know I don't.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the eradication of private gun ownership is unlikely and may be hyperbole. However, that perception among gun owners is fostered by:
1) "Gun control" will not stop at keeping guns from the wrong hands, but will seek to reduce shootings by reducing legal gun ownership. Despite the denials from many gun control advocates, this blog has shown that to be the case.
2) Reducing shootings by an amount that might satisfy gun control advocates would require reducing legal gun ownership by a HUGE percentage. That's assuming the unproven assumptions that shootings CAN be reduced by reducing legal gun ownership AND that gun control advocates would EVER be satisfied. In any case, gunowner advocates know just how much Americans WANT to own guns, and they therefore know that reducing legal gun ownership by a significant amount would require laws so dracon...heck, DRACONIAN that legal gunowners give up trying to comply.
3) Most of the time, gun control advocates won't say where they will stop when in comes to restricting gun ownership and partial gun bans. And when they HAVE told us where they would stop -- they later reneged on that assurance.
And when they HAVE told us where they would stop -- they later reneged on that assurance.
ReplyDeleteJust look at what they did in the UK. They are blatantly dishonest. They told UK shooters & Hunters that they'd just ban "assault weapons" and handguns. UK gun owners went along, since they were assured their guns were safe. Once the gun banners had tasted success they decided to fuck over the hunters as well.
We've seen it here in the U.S. as well. CA retroactively banning guns and confiscating them despite the fact that they were legally purchased and owned.