Liking newer models is not the same as existing models being considered obsolete. I can’t speak to the mindset that would want to continuously purchase. I also don’t really get why leasing cars is so prevalent. People want things for lots of different reasons.
- There is no single set of “Gun Control Folks” with a common goal, and the paranoia really shows itself when this “gun grabber!” label is applied to one and all that do not agree wholeheartedly and without reservations with whatever pro-gun forces put out.
- Have you nothing to say about the extremists on the other side, those who work to remove all restrictions on guns? I never hear mention of a supposed slippery slope in that direction.
There isn’t a monolithic gun control crowd but many have similar and or overlapping goals. Proxies for these groups like Brady, Bloomberg and all the shells he finances, CSGV, etc. are used as representatives just as the NRA is in the converse.
Extremists, unclear the parameters of your definition, are few and they don’t have nearly the voice on this board or in the general discussion. When there are people that claim something outlandish they are usually called out. Do you have an example from the board of someone that wanted to remove all restrictions? And tu quoque, really?
Hey OP you lost me at Government fact sheet;)
Slippery slope? No gun restrictions is, itself, an end-point.
Somebody allegedly says “I want to remove ALL restrictions on guns.” What’s the slippery slope? Where can he possibly go from there? Fewer than no restrictions? Force people to own guns? Or do you really not understand what a slippery slope is?
-
The term “gun grabber” applies to anyone who demands that some guns, or all guns, be grabbed by the government. The term accurately describes those who demand confiscation, registration/confiscation, buy-back programs, and martial law declarations after natural disasters.
-
It’s your job to talk about the extremists opposed to your particular viewpoint.
Of course there isn’t a monolithic set of gun control folks (or anything else for that matter), but the folks who are driving the conversation on the gun control side tend to be in favor of banning guns.
The extremists on the gun rights side of the debate are not really taken seriously on this board. You don’t really hear people saying “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?” We don’t really see people advocating for the elimination of the FFL rules. AFAICT, the only rules that people seem to want to repeal are state level rules in very anti-gun states and some of the less rational rules at the federal level (for example: high regulation of suppressors).
The extremists on the gun control side do in fact want to make private ownership of guns illegal and people take them seriously on that side of the debate.
Ummm, got any gun grabbing cites in the US to back this up with?
(And with all due respect, something relevant and “reasonably” broad?)
Or instead of a leading question. What justifies the gun rights folks? I mean Obama is the most anti gun President that I can think of. What has he actually accomplished that justifies gun grabbing paranoia?
Calls for AW bans by everyone including Obama, Pelosi, Feinstein. Clinton urging the US look at Australian gun controls, and Obama expressing the same. Australia banned a shit ton of firearms in the 90’s in case you didn’t know. Don’t forget Sanders, and O’Malley.
Is that enough?
Obama, was unable to get any new gun control legislation passed due to a Republican majority House and Senate in case you missed it. Remember, he moaned and groaned every time a gun control bill was squashed and blamed the “do nothing” congress for it. Nothing was/has been passed under his watch, but it was not for a lack of trying.
Does someone have to hit you before you get paranoid about him hitting you or are you justified in your fears if he is taking swings at you?
When I talk about the paranoia of the gun rights folks I am talking about the fact that the gun control crowd is led by people who want to ban guns. The fact that they have no political capital or credibility doesn’t mean that they’re not trying.
How is a voluntary buy back “gun grabbing”?
Do you mean a non-voluntary buy back?
The buybacks in places that banned guns were not voluntary. they are renumerated confiscations to improve compliance.
There have been gun buybacks here that were voluntary. And this pissed off the Gun aficionados so they forced local legislatures to change the law so the guns had to be resold. That happened in Arizona, I think.
I just wanted to make sure that Doorhinge wasn’t suggesting that a voluntary buy-back was an affront to liberty, or whatever ominous phrase.
What Damuri Ajashi said.
A “non-voluntary buy back” is simply a fancy name for a gun grabbing confiscation.
How does the government “buy back” a firearm that they never owned in the first place. You own it, they want it. And the gun grabbers will take it by hook or by crook.
Did you have trouble understanding what I said?
Voluntary buy-backs are voluntary. That’s not hook or by crook, that’s offering a price and someone deciding it’s appropriate.
It’s distracting when someone can’t manage to spell my nom de plume correctly. 
A buy back is not an affront to liberty.
OTOH, it’s still a gun grab by the government. And they’re not effective.
*Buyback has no effect on murder rate -
Matthew Moore
October 24, 2006
HALF a billion dollars spent buying back hundreds of thousands of guns after the Port Arthur massacre had no effect on the homicide rate, says a study published in an influential British journal.
…In his first year in office, the Prime Minister, John Howard, forced through some of the world’s toughest gun laws, including the national buyback scheme, after Martin Bryant used semi-automatic rifles to shoot dead 35 people at Port Arthur.
Although furious licensed gun-owners said the laws would have no impact because criminals would not hand in their guns, Mr Howard and others predicted the removal of so many guns from the community, and new laws making it harder to buy and keep guns, would lead to a reduction in all types of gun-related deaths.
One of the authors of the study, Jeanine Baker, said she knew in 1996 it would be impossible for years to know whether the Prime Minister or the shooters were right.
“I have been collecting data since 1996 … The decision was we would wait for a decade and then evaluate,” she said.
The findings were clear, she said: “The policy has made no difference. There was a trend of declining deaths that has continued.”
…Politicians had assumed tighter gun laws would cut off the supply of guns to would-be criminals and that homicide rates would fall as a result, the study said. But more than 90 per cent of firearms used to commit homicide were not registered, their users were not licensed and they had been unaffected by the firearms agreement.
…Dr Baker said many more lives would have been saved had the Government spent the $500 million on mental health or other programs rather than on destroying semi-automatic weapons.*
That study was basically useless because it used creative accounting; essentially, the authors’ conclusions assume that the death rate from gun homicides could have declined below zero.
That I capitalized it? Sorry.
Cool, I was just wondering.
I would say that one of the problems with guns in America is that there are simply so many. The barrier to getting one is so low, that the cost is close to trivial.
Gun buybacks won’t help if they take the number of guns from 500 million to 499,999,000. But if buybacks dropped the number to, say, 250 million, I could see it having an effect.
Though this deviates from the thread a bit, the issue with the buybacks is not that they are an affront to liberty, though they are offensive indirectly. It’s that they are not effective. Typically what is turned in were firearms that had a very low likelihood of ever being misused. Much like Obama’s Executive Actions here, they are publicized but in reality will do near nothing.
The only way the buybacks are offensive to liberty is because they use tax dollars and can pay above market rates simply to destroy the value purchased. This is an inefficient use of resources. That connection is very indirect but just on principle the government shouldn’t destroy resources.