Here we go...Clinton urges Australian-style buy-back

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

Yep....it had to come sooner or later....

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/17/clinton-suggests-shed-consider-mandatory-gun-buy-backs-sparking-fears/?intcmp=hplnws

 

LL

[Dubious Don #56333]

It's not about safety, its about control. For decades there have been those in power pushing some form of gun control as a means to make us "safe". Hasn't happened. In fact, in every place where strict confiscatory style laws were tried, crime went UP. And stays up.

 

A politician who continues to push a failed agenda has other goals in mind. WHY would they wish to disarm America?

 

Ben Carson recently mentioned that had the jewish people been armed the nazi's wouldn't have had such an easy time rounding them up. He was right and villified in our "fair and unbiased" media.

 

Every chance I guess I point out the above facts (and more) and am constantly surprised at how uninformed people are. But they're willing to listen.

[Subdeacon Joe]

That wasn't a "buy back" in Australia, it was a partially compensated confiscation.

See: http://static.infowars.com/2013/02/i/general/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf(I also have this in a thread farther down).

Basically, it is a DOJ memo that the NRA got hold of somehow.

 

In part:

 

Gun buybacks

Twitter summary: Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban

 

Goal: Reduce access to firearms by incentivizing owners to dispose of their unwanted guns rather than transfer them to a more risky possessor

 

Evidence: Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented.

1. The buybacks are too small to have an impact.

2. The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime.

3. Replacement guns are easily acquired.

 

Unless these three points are overcome, a gun buyback cannot be effective.

 

The 1997 Australia gun buyback and its associated regulations is an exception to this.

1. It was large, buying back 20% of the firearm stock.

2. It targeted semi-automatic weapons.

3. It coupled the buyback with a ban on certain weapons and a nationwide registration and licensing program.

 

There is strong evidence that it reduced mass killings (before the initiative massacres occurred on average once per year and none have occurred in the 15 years since).

 

The Australia buyback appears to have had no effect on crime otherwise. One study (Leigh & Neill 2010) has proven confusing in that its abstract suggests that Australia’s gun buyback reduced firearm homicide rates by 80%, but the body of the report finds no effect.

Others (Reuter & Mouzas 2003) have used the same data and also found no effect on crime although they also noted that mass shootings appear to

have disappeared in Australia. A third study (Chapman et al 2006) using Australian data from 1979 to 2003 shows that the firearm homicide rate was already declining prior to the firearm reforms and that there is no evidence that the new legislation accelerated the declines. This remains true when data through 2007 are added to the analysis (conducted by G. Ridgeway on 1/3/2013 at NIJ.)

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

Just one more example why we can never relax our efforts. As was said many years ago, the price of liberty is ETERNAL vigilance.

 

There will always be someone with designs on taking away our freedom...Obama and Clinton are just two in a long line of such politicians!