Gun buyback to lower crime?

Did a search. Nothing on current gun buyback schemes.

Connecticut Gun Buyback

This article is claiming that our society can be safer if fewer homes had guns that can be stolen. I'm pretty sure that those with criminal intent aren't turning their guns in.

Also, how did the school shootings end up being about stolen guns? Didn't Adam Lanza's mother buy the weapons?

Even in the Columbine High School shootings the weapons were purchased.

I'm not even getting into the right, or wisdom, to own a gun; it's just a matter of people giving up their weapons for the wrong reason.

reply to post by jiggerj

Also, how did the school shootings end up being about stolen guns? Didn't Adam Lanza's mother buy the weapons?

Yeah she bought them, and he stole them.

Gun buyback to lower crime?

JUST kidddding...

You ARE kidding aren't you?

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Also, how did the school shootings end up being about stolen guns? Didn't Adam Lanza's mother buy the weapons?

Yeah she bought them, and he stole them.

Did he steal them, or did she allow him access to them? Did he have keys to the gun cabinet? Was there a gun cabinet?

reply to post by jiggerj

Gun buyback to lower crime?

Statistics for the Australian buy back of restricted weapons in 1996 appear to strongly suggest... yes.

To try and implement the same or similar strategy in the US...

The short answer... no

The long answer... noooooooo

My thoughts

I believe Australia has struck a reasonable balance between firearms access and restrictions... however, I highly doubt that this model would be embraced in the US by her citizens even if it were able to be enacted, nor would it effectively reduce firearm fatalities to a level deemed not news worthy.

this post

Greetings, jiggerj

Originally posted by jiggerj
"Gun Buyback to Lower Crime?"

Originally posted by Ellis Washington
Here’s the Formula: Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide.

Unarmed, defenseless people have no hope against armed aggressors. Second, it states the historical truth: Evil governments did wipe out 170,000,000 innocent non-military lives in the 20th century alone.

According to the comprehensive research by JPFO, all of America’s present gun-control laws have Nazi origins, evidenced by the group’s shocking accusation that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was plagiarized almost word for word from Nazi legislation. The German Weapons Law, which existed before the Nazis

Source: The Nazi Roots of U.S. Gun-Control Laws

Partial List of historical results of governmental fire-arms elimination:

Originally posted by mg4us
"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million."

Link to External Image, The Gun Control Genocide Chart

Dictator barry hussein soetoro (alias obama), Gun Confiscation Plan is revealed.

Additional information regarding hussein's gun confiscation Plan for Us

None of the libtard responses to the CT shooting are in any way relevant to the facts of the shooting.

Frankenfeinstien wants to ban assault weapons, even though no assault weapons were used. (Unless they've changed their story by now, but that would just prove they are liars by contradicting themselves.)

They want to ban a list of 120 handguns, none of which were the handguns Lanza used.

They want to talk about stolen weapons, when the weapons weren't stolen.

Fact of the matter is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Originally posted by Perhaps

reply to post by jiggerj

 

Gun buyback to lower crime?

Statistics for the Australian buy back of restricted weapons in 1996 appear to strongly suggest... yes.

To try and implement the same or similar strategy in the US...

The short answer... no

The long answer... noooooooo

My thoughts

I believe Australia has struck a reasonable balance between firearms access and restrictions... however, I highly doubt that this model would be embraced in the US by her citizens even if it were able to be enacted, nor would it effectively reduce firearm fatalities to a level deemed not news worthy.

this post

Yeah, I may not have made myself clear. I feel that, at this time, the gun buybacks are directly related to the Sandy Hook incident, in which the guns weren't stolen. It is only the correlation between the crime and the public reaction that I'm questioning. If people turned in their weapons directly because many stolen guns are used in crimes (which they are), this would make sense.

Criminals will never turn their guns in. They use their guns to make their money.

The only people that will turn in their guns for a buy back are brain washed sheepel and the poor, who will no longer able to defend themselves against said criminals