They have had them in cities I have lived in. The police department ran them, there was no role for civilians.
Private buy-backs would be ones in which you organize a funding source and work with your local law enforcement agency to help you receive and document them.
Two shootings at Texas Southern University (Houston) at a housing/apartment complex today. Not sure if this is on or near campus. One dead. One wounded.
Fixed it for you.
The parents of dead and wounded students, at Texas Southern, and Umpqua Community College, and Sandy Hook Elementary School, and Columbine, are no doubt proud that their kids died or were wounded in service of the inspiring ideal that 150 years from now gun-toting nutcases can defend themselves against a US government gone rogue.
You missed my point. I do not think the government should have that sort of power to be able to see the transactions between private people. I was pointing out that such power could be used for all sorts of things.
I have made no secret that I believe government should be very limited, and private transactions is one of those limits that I see as none of government business. Anyway, government cannot stop private gun sales, so it is only pie-in-the-sky talk to think other private sales which are made illegal can be policed in any effective way.
Oh, I get your argument, but your anger is misplaced.
Basically, if gun control advocacy groups can petition congress, so and any pro-gun group. If the gun control advocates are electing easily bought congressman, why are you blaming the NRA? Your problem is you have a loser congressman who are not listening to you.
Has it not occurred to you that your representatives do not take you as seriously as the NRA? Suggestion - run yourself or get someone to run who will not cow, but it seems like being a sore loser to blame the NRA for exercising the exact same rights to petition Congress, as gun control groups. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You can solve this issue cry easily by electing congressman who would listen to you and take you seriously. I do not get it why you are upset at the NRA because gun control advocacy groups are ineffective in that basic task.
I did mention that specifically it was an altercation, not a random shooting. I even mentioned that it is possible the gun was used defensively. And as more facts come out, it seems that it was a frat against other non-frat boys, so it is shaping up to be a a basic fight between two different groups of boys.
The CDC did a study on these and reached the same conclusion - ineffective and has no change in the use of guns and crime rate.
But, it really does not take much analysis to know that would be the case - the only people who would partake in these programs are people who would not use their guns anyway, so it is like taking an already “never to be used” gun off the street. Well, essentially the gun was not effectively present anyway.
I recall a sheriff friend of mine years back telling me that gun buybacks are the best ways to get old relics off the street, nothing else. People bring in old family guns for the money. And most of them did not work and were dangerous if fired because of their bad condition.
Makes sense to me that buybacks wouldn’t be effective. They need to be paired with licensing/training/registering requirements, so it would be illegal to have an unregistered gun, and illegal to have a gun without a license.
For everyone blaming the NRA for exercising its right to speak, here is the way to enact full gun control, all guns off the streets, in 5 steps.
If you cannot do the first 4 steps, maybe you should rethink your power to persuade congressman.
2 minutes long video with one bad word.
https://reason.com/reasontv/2015/10/07/how-to-create-a-gun-free-america-in-5-ea
Of course buy-backs work. A successful buy-back can take in thousands of guns. Many of them are in the hands of people who didn’t want them and didn’t know how to care for and secure them in the first place.
Which poster in this thread has sought a gun free America?
I’d sure like to see us get rid of many types of guns that are currently legal for civilians.
And… going back to post #785, the student in Arizona was not in a “defensive” mode in spite of the hopeful fantasies of gun enthusiasts everywhere. He got into a fistfight, so went to his car to get his gun and shot the guys he had been fighting with. Not a defensive act according to the DA. One dead, three injured, and a kid going to prison for a long time because he (and possibly his parents) thought that taking a gun to college was a good idea.
awc:
You say you favor better background checks. The vocal input of gun owners like yourself who agree would have far more impact than my voice in CA, which already has some of the toughest laws.
This issue kind of reminds me of the accusations that swirl around moderate Muslims when radicalized Muslims kill people ---- why don’t the moderate ones speak out and condemn the miscreants…why don’t they crack down and control them?
Well, why don’t law-abiding, responsible owners speak out forcefully for measures such as enhanced background checks? At least that if nothing else. They only seem to intone “prayers for the victims” as though that actually accomplished something. Then, nothing.
You and other gun owners have far more power to institute some control over changing laws to crack down on people who misuse guns egregiously but you don’t for reason you don’t.
No, that’s completely unrelated to buy-backs. You can have a successful buy-back without any of that.
JustOneDad, obviously, in order to have a meaningful reduction in gun violence, we need a multi-pronged approach. See Australia, which had a huge buyback AND registration AND ban on semi-automatics AND other measures. Opponents of gun control like to pick out individual proposals and say that they won’t work, and it’s true that a comprehensive approach is far more effective.
Since we are supposedly still talking about guns on college campuses, for those who aren’t aware, Texas enacted legislation that will allow conceal carry on campus and in buildings. In fact, it will become effective in 2016 on the 50th anniversary of sniper Charles Whitman killing 16 people from the tower.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/us/texas-campus-carry-law/index.html
However, University of Texas System Chancellor William McRaven is not pleased about it… at all. OK… so you’d expect a few people (even in Texas!) to actively oppose the legislation. But McRaven is a former Navy Seals admiral responsible for directing the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. And he had this to say about the new law:
As far as how faculty and staff think this is going to hinder their work, McRaven added:
And the first faculty departure due to the law has occurred:
The only saving grace of this bill is that amendments to the legislation allows students to work with administrators to ensure some areas of campus would remain gun-free - such as child care, healthcare, and mental health facilities - along with places where alcohol is consumed, such as outside the football stadium where tailgating happens. But one representative wrote on his Facebook page that it’s “time to double down on our efforts to restore Second Amendment right s and get rid of gun free zones everywhere,” so the efforts to repeal the amendments have not given up.
I, for one, will no longer donate to my alma mater until this issue is resolved in a rational way. No, my piddly donations won’t be missed, but I’ll sleep better at night.
We have young men on campuses. We have copious amounts of alcohol. What’s missing? Oh, yeah, GUNZ. And MOAR GUNZ. What could possibly go wrong?
I wonder if that Arizona shooter was sober. What made that kid think that the right response to an argument was shooting four people?
He lived in a culture that rewarded and applauded his obsession with guns.