Incredibly compelling argument there. Playing with a chainsaw COULD mean you will finally be able to park in those nifty parking spaces with the blue lines and signs.
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.
TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL
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.
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.
See, you aren't a TOTAL window licker?
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?
What criminal is going to turn in any guns?
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.
Again with this "could" stuff? Anyway, for this to be considered, you'd need to provide evidence that it would reduce crime. And I better not continue to read this and you mention Australia, because if you do, I have some bad news for you (spoiler: it's debunked.)
That's what Australia did, after its own version of Newtown.
Well tan my ass and call me Sally. Ok, I'll let you get your point out, then I'll discuss why you are wrong.
Following a mass shooting in Tasmania that left 35 dead, Austrialia 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.
And the number of criminals with guns by as much as zero. But I kid. And you spelled Australia wrong.
The mandatory buybacks were also accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registering firearms.
Much like the one in Canada that failed so terribly they scrapped it.
Now, on to the Australia nonsense they always harp on about. A classic Correlation equals Causation fallacy. And a REALLY easy one to shoot down in this case. First of all, because of different social structures and demographics and a boatload of other factors, what worked in one country may not work for all countries. We cold never have it in this country where it would be illegal to kill cows as it is in India as they are one of our top food sources. Now, New Zealand is quite similar to Australia. The fact that the antis leave out about Australia and their gun ban is that crime was STEADILY decreasing before the shooting, and mass shootings were never a problem before the ban. They ALSO are not a problem after the ban. Therefor you cannot say the cause was the ban. HOWEVER, in a similar county, NZ, during the same time frame and even until today, they have had pretty darn GOOD gun laws, comparatively. They are far far far more lax. They too have not had any mass shooters since Australia's ban. Their crime rate too has been steadily dropping. This is pretty damning evidence that the ban did anything really.
Gun owners have to present a "genuine reason" to buy a weapon.
I "genuinely" want one. *ba dum tiss*
But seriously, who decides if your reason is genuine? People with guns? Ok, just checking.
A claim of self-defense isn't enough unless you have an occupational need to carry a gun.
If only we had an example of a city in the US that tried this...
But the best part of course is "do you think criminals really turn in their $700 bushmasters at a gun buyback? (NO!)" and then the moron says "What we need is a MANDATORY buyback."
Yes, that will get them to turn them in. Adding an OR ELSE at the end! xD