Straight Dope Message Board

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Ah, respected seniors jurists legal opinions aren't any good since they disagree with a laymans.

Okay, if 5 of them were that, what were the other 4? And what were the Justices who rendered the Miller ruling?

You'd do a lot better here by supporting your position yourself. 201

[Sherrerd]

Originally Posted by kirkrapine

Not necessarily. Eminent domain is a form of confiscation, but always compensated.

Beto was also proposing compensation. The eminent domain comparison is a valid one.

Mandatory gun buyback programs have been run successfully. Australia did it in 1996 and again in 2003, and the nation did not fall. New Zealand followed suit this year after the Christchurch massacres:

Following attacks on two Christchurch mosques, New Zealand's parliament voted overwhelmingly to ban most semi-automatic weapons along with certain kinds of ammunition and large-capacity magazines.

In June, officials announced a gun buyback program that pays gun owners to turn in their firearms or other newly prohibited items. ... Officials set aside about $200 million New Zealand dollars — roughly $129 million U.S. dollars — to pay for the program.

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/12/75052...uyback-program

and

After a shooter killed 35 people and wounded dozens more in Australia in 1996, officials there instituted a mandatory buyback program. About 650,000 weapons were collected. Research since has shown that firearm homicides and suicides by gun have both reduced dramatically in Australia.

ibid 202

[sps49sd]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

Beto was also proposing compensation. The eminent domain comparison is a valid one.

Mandatory gun buyback programs have been run successfully. Australia did it in 1996 and again in 2003, and the nation did not fall. New Zealand followed suit this year after the Christchurch massacres:

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/12/75052...uyback-program

and

ibid

The numbers of firearms turned in are a very low percentage in both countries. NZ is still in the early stages, of course. 203

[MacTech]

Originally Posted by Sherrerd

Beto was also proposing compensation. The eminent domain comparison is a valid one.

<Snip>

The typical entry-level AR ranges from $450-750, high end AR range from $800+, typically around $1200 to $2500, 30 round mags generally are under $40 per mag

most "buybacks" I've heard of offer a paltry $50-200, or gift cards, not even close to what was spent on the items in question, if they intend "buybacks" to be fair and have any chance of succeeding, they must offer something close, or even exceeding the value of the rifle in question.

offer someone who spent $400+ on their AR a $50/100 gift card/cash for their AR, don't be surprised if they don't want to sell.

Offer the same person what they paid for the same rifle, and they'd probably consider it, lowballing will only work for the ones who don't know what they're worth (inherited guns and the like) 204

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

Okay, if 5 of them were that, what were the other 4? And what were the Justices who rendered the Miller ruling?

You'd do a lot better here by supporting your position yourself.

A difference of opinion, almost all the best SCOTUS cases have been dissented. The other justices are also solid jurists.

Heller did not overule Miller. Miller ruled only that a sawed off shotgun wasnt legal, and that was only due to the fact that no defense was raised, Miller being what we call "dead". 205

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

What you are saying seems to be Beltway conventional wisdom. But it is wrong.

That post and cite doesnt mean what you think it means. It says about half of Americans are in favor of a buy back. So? How about the 70 million gun owners? Only 37% of them like the idea. In other words, 63% dont.

How about the swing voters in the swing states? 206

[SlackerInc]

It polls much better than taking away private health insurance. IOW it’s not a “third rail”. 207

[Gyrate]

What O'Rourke has done is to show that the Overton Window has moved and is - very slowly - continuing to move. That doesn't mean that there is a clear acceptance of greater gun control, but it does take us out of the territory of "the majority of voters definitely won't stand for any gun control measures". Perhaps people are becoming tired of having their children either killed or living under the threat of death on a daily basis, and of having that situation mocked and ignored by the pro-gun faction. 208

[SlackerInc]

Right. In a big primary field, and with an incumbent president a slight majority of Americans strongly dislike, his proposal doesn’t have to be massively popular among a supermajority of the overall electorate. It just has to be popular among Democrats (check) and not so unpopular among the wider population as to sink his chances to win a general election (check). 209

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Right. In a big primary field, and with an incumbent president a slight majority of Americans strongly dislike, his proposal doesn’t have to be massively popular among a supermajority of the overall electorate. It just has to be popular among Democrats (check) and not so unpopular among the wider population as to sink his chances to win a general election (check).

No, it just sunk the dems chances of winning vs trump. 210

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

No, it just sunk the dems chances of winning vs trump.

We are supposed to be fact based around here. I and others have posted data showing that his proposal is not nearly unpopular enough to sink Democrats. In fact it looks to have a slight majority of support in some polls, and no poll shows it being any worse than roughly tied. So you are just arguing from your own feelings. (The same way people talk themselves into thinking no one likes their private health insurance.) 211

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

No, it just sunk the dems chances of winning vs trump.

I don't believe a Democrat could win here in Arkansas anyway. I don't know enough about other states that regularly vote Republican. 212

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

We are supposed to be fact based around here. I and others have posted data showing that his proposal is not nearly unpopular enough to sink Democrats. In fact it looks to have a slight majority of support in some polls, and no poll shows it being any worse than roughly tied. So you are just arguing from your own feelings. (The same way people talk themselves into thinking no one likes their private health insurance.)

70 million gun owners, more than voters for either trump or Hillary. only 35% of them support the idea. That's like 50 Million against. That will sink any candidate. 213

[SlackerInc]

Polls of actual voters show otherwise.

ETA: 65% of 70 million is actually only 45.5 million, which is almost 20 million fewer voters than Trump got in 2016. That’s assuming that 65% were opposed and that there were no undecideds, which I doubt. You didn’t actually link to any poll, so I’m just speculating and taking your word for the little amount you did provide. 214

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Polls of actual voters show otherwise.

ETA: 65% of 70 million is actually only 45.5 million, which is almost 20 million fewer voters than Trump got in 2016. That’s assuming that 65% were opposed and that there were no undecideds, which I doubt. You didn’t actually link to any poll, so I’m just speculating and taking your word for the little amount you did provide.

Yes, they show a 50/50 split.


And the data was in the poll earlier linked to. 215