| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Gun 'Buybacks" don't work. So, make them mandatory! |
| 2014-09-23 |
| A bit of fisking, low hanging, easy pickins from New Jersey. There's little harm in the bill our state Assembly just passed, to expand gun buyback programs across New Jersey. It comes at no cost to the taxpayers. It would be paid for with forfeiture funds and private donations. Nothing from government comes at "no cost". It costs someone something: their rights, dignity, etc And who knows? It may even do some good. Having fewer guns lying around could mean they won't end up in the hands of a curious child, abusive spouse or suicidal person. Having a gun at home makes it three times more likely that you'll be murdered by a family member or intimate partner, or successfully attempt suicide. Greater good argument. But let's not kid ourselves: Gun buyback programs are not going to reduce murders in cities like Newark and Camden. Studies have found that buyback programs don't have much effect overall on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates. So, why do them? They don't directly target the guns that are more likely to be used in violence, and in general, the guns collected haven't overlapped much with crime guns. These are old weapons that some middle-aged guy found in his basement. What criminal is going to trade in his $700 Bushmaster for $250 from the state? Those programs specifically target individuals who know nothing about guns, or who grab them in order to defy a family member, and sell them to the state. It is the crime of theft underwritten by government. See my argument that nothing the government does comes without cost. The biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it tiptoes around the one reform that could really make a difference, but that Americans would never accept: Mandatory gun buybacks. That's what Australia did, after its own version of Newtown. Let's become like Australia! Following a mass shooting in Tasmania that left 35 dead, Australia banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns, and required all the newly banned weapons to be bought back by the government. This cut the number of gun-owning households by as much as half. Love it. "As much as half" which is a rhetorical device which means the statistical reduction in gun ownership may have been reduced to a statistically insignificant amount. The mandatory buybacks were also accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registering firearms. Gun owners have to present a "genuine reason" to buy a weapon. A claim of self-defense isn't enough unless you have an occupational need to carry a gun. The claim you have something to print in a newspaper isn't enough. You must have a compelling argument (see: greater good) for advancing free speech. See how easy that was? Using the "greater good argument" I managed to advocate the use of the one weapon fascists would reach for once guns are taken. We understand this is not going to happen. Neither American courts nor most of the public would support it. As a nation we remain wedded to the delusion that gun ownership stops crime. Just as the editorial writer remains wedded to the illusion that keeping and bearing arms is a public safety issue. It isn't, despite all the claims to the contrary. It is a basic right, property in an individual's possession that no other individual or government can take away no matter how much of a greater good it may serve. But guess what? It worked in Australia. The gun homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the suicide rate fell 65 percent. It virtually eliminated mass shootings. Bully for Australia. We do things differently in America, and that is why this land is the arsenal of democracy. And there was no corresponding increase in homicides or suicides that didn't involve firearms. In other words, people weren't just switching to other methods of violence -- when guns weren't as easily available, they weren't acting on these impulses at all. See: Bully for Australia above. So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over "gun confiscation," don't expect it to make much difference. The only "hysteria" being generated is that which comes from near constant threats to take guns and the soothing lie that more and more restrictive gun laws don't mean confiscation. They do and they always will. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #3 These are old weapons that some middle-aged guy found in his basement. Wellshitgoddamm, just the other week I went downstairs for the backup roll of paper towels and found an assault rifle shotgun with a high capacity tactical optic bayonet lug. Must have got in through the window well. Criminals aren't going to trade in their trade tools; they will turn in other peoples' firearms. And set your martini down buttercup, because criminals use thug guns when hunting scrilla, no matter how much Bushmaster makes your cocktail dribble. Nice capital M on Mandatory, really makes your ass show, but other than the excellant example of lazy parlor writing, there is no call to disarm criminals, in fact let them be them, but to disarm or criminalize those who follow the law. And what is the right occupation? How about Guard of the Family? Put the iTingle down and step away from your boyfriends sipping coffee and come wrestle this 80lb dog of muscle who occasions our path. Citizen Patrol/First Responder? I am at 50/50 was a drug deal going on next to the school - what if that had gone bad or dipstick was short so robbed a kid. Cashier? The out of town crazy dude who forced himself into my business after hours during z-out who wanted to buy a butterfly net. In January. I live in a great town. One week I noticed one of our then resident meth heads at nearly the same spot at the same time for the week, he would call somebody every time someone passed him on the way to work or whereever. Sure enough, stuff started getting stolen in daylight, so don't bring that capital M to my dinner table buck-o. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2014-09-23 18:31 |
| #2 Mandatory means you are forced to give up your gun. Isn't that a bit unconstitutional? |
| Posted by: JFM 2014-09-23 10:58 |
| #1 Mandatory buy back program? NO! |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-09-23 10:29 |