Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

18 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

 

 

 

You guys obviously didn't even bother googling it before doubling down on your embarrassment, but in case you still haven't. 

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

 

 

Thank you Loof , maybe we have better bad guys than in 1974.

United States[edit]

What is believed to have been the first gun buyback program was in Baltimore in 1974. Gun homicides and assaults actually rose during the two-month program, and it was deemed a failure,

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Thank you Loof , maybe we have better bad guys than in 1974.

United States[edit]

What is believed to have been the first gun buyback program was in Baltimore in 1974. Gun homicides and assaults actually rose during the two-month program, and it was deemed a failure,

Incredibly pathetic post.

I can't ever tell if it's an act with you. 

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

13 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Incredibly pathetic post.

I can't ever tell if it's an act with you. 

Stated early in the thread resurrection that I do not care for the  all back forth on control after these events. Once again I am not going to pretend to have an answer. If feel that you have answers so be it.

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Stated early in the thread resurrection that I do not care for the  all back forth on control after these events. Once again I am not going to pretend to have an answer. If feel that you have answers so be it.

And yet you felt the need to call me out and mock me for what, as it turns out, is an idea that has been tried many times and been very successful some of those times. 

Again, I don't know if it's an act with you. I guess I kind of hope it is. Definitely preferable to think that people are as disingenuous as you act in here.

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

And yet you felt the need to call me out and mock me for what, as it turns out, is an idea that has been tried many times and been very successful some of those times. 

Again, I don't know if it's an act with you. I guess I kind of hope it is. Definitely preferable to think that people are as disingenuous as you act in here.

I don't feel like I called you out. guess I did in a sense by quoting you a letting you know that I put little faith in "buyback".  Sorry Loof. Probably should have kept my mouth shut. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I don't feel like I called you out. guess I did in a sense by quoting you a letting you know that I put little faith in "buyback".  Sorry Loof. Probably should have kept my mouth shut. 

Yeah, when you spend a couple sentences telling me how stupid an idea is and then use "Genius" sarcastically, you have thrown your hat in the ring. 

Apology accepted. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

11 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I don't feel like I called you out. guess I did in a sense by quoting you a letting you know that I put little faith in "buyback".  Sorry Loof. Probably should have kept my mouth shut. 

Why do you have little faith in "buyback?"  Such plans have worked well in placed like Australia to reduce the number of guns on the street and thus gun violence.  Their gun deaths have dropped dramatically.  Why wouldn't it work here?

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Why do you have little faith in "buyback?"  Such plans have worked well in placed like Australia to reduce the number of guns on the street and thus gun violence.  Their gun deaths have dropped dramatically.  Why wouldn't it work here?

700,000 guns. No mass shootings in 20 years. 

Different culture, for sure. But maybe we could at least go from "the children of an Australian ambassador who was instrumental in that program were scared to move to the United States" to "well, at least people don't get shot every 6 minutes anymore". 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Are  you saying legislation preventing bump stocks is unreasonable?

Does that mean you feel the same way about truly automatic weapons?

No. Read carefully. It’s the basis of the legisalation that is the concern. Sweeping reactionary-regulation based off of a single event is unwise. There could be a reasonable basis to ban bump stocks so long as it isn’t one event

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, it's not a fact, it's your opinion.

The wording of the 2nd amendment allows for a very wide range of limitations in scope, some of which have been already implimented. That's my opinion.

It is a matter of interpretation.

Bull. It is a fact. SCOTUS has defined the scope of the second amendment. What loofas proposes would require an amendment to limit its present judicially defined scope. We live in a Common Law country. SCOTUS interpretation matters, yours does not. Now go read Heller and start to learn something.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

If one stipulates the shear quantity of guns in the US represents a problem then a buy back program - presumably combined with restrictions on ownership - makes perfect sense.  And it has already demonstrated to be effective in Australia.

Regardless, It most certainly is a serious, viable proposition, not one that merits ridicule.

A buy back program? Seriously? Describe that buy back program and the procedural and substantive requirements that would have to be met. If you had an ounce of competence you would see how implausible it is.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

 

 

 

You guys obviously didn't even bother googling it before doubling down on your embarrassment, but in case you still haven't. 

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

 

 

Cool. It failed!!!

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

If one stipulates the shear quantity of guns in the US represents a problem then a buy back program - presumably combined with restrictions on ownership - makes perfect sense.  And it has already demonstrated to be effective in Australia.

Regardless, It most certainly is a serious, viable proposition, not one that merits ridicule.

 

12 hours ago, McLoofus said:

No need for the scare quotes. Buyback programs are a thing and they've been done successfully before.

*when liberals accuse Trump of being like Hitler, and but then they want him to have all of our guns.....

Thank god our founders created a living document to protect us against radicals such as yourselves

Aslo, see the link I posted for Titan to read below

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Why do you have little faith in "buyback?"  Such plans have worked well in placed like Australia to reduce the number of guns on the street and thus gun violence.  Their gun deaths have dropped dramatically.  Why wouldn't it work here?

Titan I have little faith in any legislation reducing this type of violence. The culture today?  A 'buyback" would not have prevented the latest event IMO. If reports are accurate this kid was to inherit a nice sum.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Why do you have little faith in "buyback?"  Such plans have worked well in placed like Australia to reduce the number of guns on the street and thus gun violence.  Their gun deaths have dropped dramatically.  Why wouldn't it work here?

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

Quit brining up Australia. You don't know what you're talking about.

Because such plans are ineffective here, Titan. The posted article below is separate than the one above. Read both. 

"The gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia."

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY

Have Obama and Clinton thought about how exactly this would work in the U.S.? If one takes the low-end number of guns confiscated in Australia, 650,000, then that works out to about one-fifth to one-third of guns turned over in Australia. There are about 310 million guns in circulation in the U.S., so the same proportion would work out to 60-105 million guns being confiscated. The left loves to mock the idea of rounding up 11 million illegal aliens, so how can they say that and yet claim it's possible for that many guns to be turned over?

Data shows that the gun buyback program didn't result in lower gun homicides and suicides, as Mark Wright in National Review points out using two studies:

Researchers at the University of Melbourne concluded in a 2008 study, "Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths."

A 2007 study published in the British Journal of Criminology determined, "The gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia." The gun homicide rate was already low in Australia and was falling prior to the Port Arthur shooting.

The study did acknowledge that the gun buyback did result in lower firearm suicides and accidental firearm deaths. However, the researchers note that there was an initial spike in non-firearm suicides for the next couple of years, followed by a decline. This led the researchers to conclude that "suicide rates in Australia were highly influenced by other societal changes, confounding the ability to discern any effect on firearm suicides" after the buyback program. On the lower accidental firearms death rate, the researchers point out that "over the time period investigated, there was a relatively small number of accidental deaths per annum, with substantial variability" which means the lower accidental firearms death rate "should be approached with caution."

In a written testimony to the Australian parliament, Lott noted that after Australia's gun buyback, the gun levels in Australia rose to the point where by 2010, there were as many guns in circulation as there were before the gun buyback. Lott wrote that if under the logic of gun control advocates, gun deaths would have decreased at first and then increased as guns came back into circulation. But that is not what happened.

"The rate of firearm suicides was falling at about the same rate after the buyback as they were before hand. After the buyback, there was no sudden drop and then an increase," Lott wrote. "But it isn’t just firearm suicides that fell after the buyback -- non-firearm suicides fell by virtually the same about as firearm suicides. That fits in with exist research and implies that something else is driving down suicides."

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

This further illustrates that the gun is only part of the problem.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/22/deputy-assigned-to-florida-school-never-went-in-during-shooting-sheriff-says.html

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

24 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Titan I have little faith in any legislation reducing this type of violence. The culture today?  A 'buyback" would not have prevented the latest event IMO. If reports are accurate this kid was to inherit a nice sum.  

You are right because you use common sense.

Titan is clueless about this issue. Though, like usual, he would claim to be an expert most likely.

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

20 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You are right because you use common sense.

Titan is clueless about this issue. Though, like usual, he would claim to be an expert most likely.

Nola, Titan just asked the question. Do know not that he supports the  "buybacks". I have no answer and not about to pretend. 

[japantiger 4,051]

12 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Those things are fulfilling a very worthy purpose the other 99.9% of the time. I can't even sarcastically say nice try about your post.

I don't know whether you are more douchebag or more idiot but you are quite a bit of both.  What a poor use of time this has been for me.

You know McDoofus, I could very well be both of the above as that's generally a personal taste thing....and let's throw in on some days a complete  a**hole... or well,  you pick it....but at least I'm not a 13 year hormonal  middle school girl masquerading as a collage educated adult American male who should possess the ability to make a cogent argument, support their points of view with at least a modicom of logic, and have the ability or at least the inclination, to debate a point logically.   Apparently your overpowering logic on this thread is you don't like guns because apparently you just don't like guns....and that's how you recommend we craft gun policy.    I think you must have hit the wrong title while searching for the Complete Prick forum... 

[japantiger 4,051]

22 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You are right because you use common sense.

Titan is clueless about this issue. Though, like usual, he would claim to be an expert most likely.

A buy back will be just as effective at stopping the acts of random madmen as an enema will be for treating ear aches.  It won't hurt; but you'll still have an ear ache.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Nola, Titan just asked the question. Do know not that he supports the  "buybacks". I have no answer and not about to pretend. 

He likes to play devil’s advocate 

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Can we not just dial it back a bit and try and have an adult conversation? 

[homersapien 11,366]

On 7/21/2012 at 5:45 PM, autigeremt said:

Anytime someone brings up "ban firearms", they really mean something else.

They are asking you "should we give up the current U.S. Constitution"? Guns are not the problem, but to a Liberal, it's not the guns at all. It's the law that is the problem.

Not to quibble, but who has bought up banning firearms?

I don't get the last sentence.  You'll have to elaborate.  Thanks.

[homersapien 11,366]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

*when liberals accuse Trump of being like Hitler, and but then they want him to have all of our guns.....

Thank god our founders created a living document to protect us against radicals such as yourselves

Aslo, see the link I posted for Titan to read below

Congratulations!  You avoiding addressing a single substantive point I made.

 You clearly lack game.

 

[homersapien 11,366]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Bull. It is a fact. SCOTUS has defined the scope of the second amendment. What loofas proposes would require an amendment to limit its present judicially defined scope. We live in a Common Law country. SCOTUS interpretation matters, yours does not. Now go read Heller and start to learn something.

Read the second amendment.  It is clear to any objective person there is a wide range of interpretations, using whatever principle of interpreting the constitution  existent.  The NRA is forcing it's own interpretation of the second amendment to sell more guns. 

It's always about the money.