Maybe the US should resell drugs they confiscate on the black market too. The inefficient use of resource excuse is just that, an excuse. We all know the real reason is that the opponents of these buybacks want more guns
And again, we see someone with the inability to discriminate between legal and illegal.
For all the hand wringing about gun laws, how about remembering those little 6 year old bodies riddled with bullets. Fuck I don’t care who you are, you’re going to be affected if you saw the carnage or met the families shortly afterwards. There are no words that can bring them back. Potentially brilliant pillars of society gunned down like animals.
But there are some modest actions, that at least say to the world, “yeah I’m not such a fucking douchebag with a gun afterall and I don’t want to be lumped in with them, I want to at least help the government uphold the law”…
I just don’t understand why that’s so gd hard.
If the government has surplus handguns, like say M1911 pustols, should they simply destroy them, store them away locked up paying for that storage, or try to sell them for a profit? What do you think the most prudent course of action would be? This is a gotcha question because Obama has already decided. Can you guess what he chose?
(post shortened)
Firearms are inanimate objects. By themselves, they are harmless. They can be used for self-defense, sport, and hunting. They become a problem when some loony monster decides to murder people. Mental health issues and/or uber-violent video games distort the potential monster’s reality.
Buybacks will never reduce the number of firearms to the numbers you suggest. Market value for the more popular models range from $400 to $4,000 per firearm. Assume an average market value of $1,000, a 250 million buyback would cost $250 billion.
Do you think it’s honest to say Obama “decided to sell” those pistols rather than he declined to veto the Defense budget that had that provision in it?
It’s not dishonest - It’s a gotcha question. I did say that though.
Obama remember to finally shed a tear FOUR years after some mentally deficient monster murdered his own mother, stole her firearms, and decided to go to a gun-free zone to murder school children.
That monster (the monster, not Obama) should have been in a mental health facility or at least medicated.
You may chose to blame all firearm owners for the actions of a few unbalanced monsters but the vast majority of gun owners are not the monsters you wish to portray them as. And remember, gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters actually turn out to vote.
You just don’t understand why everyone doesn’t think or act as Andiethewestie wants them to. If you want to fix a problem, you first have to understand the problem. By themselves, guns can’t hurt you. Mentally deficient monsters will find a way to hurt you. Bombs, cars, knives, poison, and even firearms will serve their deranged purpose.
It’s not a gotcha because just like I did you can point out that Obama did not in fact decide to sell those guns. No one is got.
Its irrelevant. Like I said, its an excuse. Opponents of the buyback want more guns in circulation.
Since the purpose of the buyback is to reduce guns and not “not waste resources”, reselling the guns defeats the purpose of the program in the first place, which is of course the goal of the pro-gun people. In fact, its not a waste of resources to destroy the guns since that prevents them from being used. In fact, we spent resources to achieve a goal. Just because guns could be sold doesn’t mean that its the best use of them. I think you have an inability to read between the lines
Depends on the goal. If the goal is to get money, then we should sell them. If the goal is to reduce guns, then they should be destroyed. If the goal is to kill Martians who are allergic to peanut butter, then the best use of surplus guns is to coat them in peanut butter and jettison them to Mars.
You want to create a false dichotomy where guns are either being sold for capital or destroyed as waste. That world isn’t the real world. The real world looks at the goal of the buyback program. Its to remove guns. Therefore, the most efficient way of achieving that is to destroy them.
I don’t do gotcha’s well. Part of it is because I don’t think they are necessary. It’s only a gotcha in the sense that it’s a gross oversimplification but I think having to explain it ruins the oomph. Oh well, they can’t all be winners.
Legal and illegal are irrelevant - I’m not surprised at your approach.
But I thought the goal was to reduce gun homicide and other gun violence? If there were less guns, but the levels of homicide and other gun violence is unchanged, does that satisfy the goal?
That’s OK - the strawman he had to toss in there more than makes up for the shortcomings. :rolleyes:
The voluntary ones I have seen here in DC are hilarious. People hand in rusted pieces of metal and get money. I don’t think any of the guns were worth the $50 they paid.
They are already commercially available, why wouldn’t you sell the surplus. Its not like they have bayonet lugs or anything.
Horseshit. Anyone who thinks they need a gun is a fucking nut case. Examine your own navels, stop telling me that the problem is lack of understanding. If a god damn monster doesn’t have a gun violent deaths decrease. Where the fuck are all the guns in the world? Stockpiled in the good old US of A. Disgraceful that thousands upon thousands die in the US and no where else in these kind numbers just pile up like they do in the United States. Face it YOU are more violent, your culture of killing has
allowed gun manufacturers to profit off the deaths of innocent children, and disturbed depressed people taking their own lives. Stop candy coating the truth. It’s about time a President had the balls to at least address the situation, and forward a modest proposal. Obama has to take Baby steps, because you guys are so far up your own asses that you think you couldn’t possibly be your own worse enemy. But you are.
http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2015/10/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-u-s-rest-world/
Oh and there’s this article written last December comparing Scotland to America
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/nyregion/in-scotland-unlike-america-mass-shooting-led-to-stricter-gun-laws.html?_r=0
They talk about a video of the gunman in Dunblane who gunned down those children. Anybody who is against stricter gun control should be forced to watch it.
Actually, of 218 countries in the world, the US has a homicide rate that is lower than more than half of them ranked 98th). You need look no farther than Mexico, who despite very strict gun control, has a homicide rate of 21.5 per 100,000, vs. the United States with 3.7.
This is one reason I’m armed. I don’t want to be forced to watch propaganda. Well, that and the whole freedom thing.
Cherry pick much? US is far worse by an order of magnitude than any other developed nation. Sure, US is better than Somalia, but IMHO that’s not a very good comparison
I used every single country in the world in my comparison. Can’t much less cherry-picky than that. Using every country on earth is not cherry picking. “Three guys named Spike” is. Hey, have you tried that one yet?
Plus, I was responding to the (garbled) quote that said “no where else in these kind numbers just pile up like they do in the United States.” Clearly, that’s false. (Well “clearly” if he means what i think he means.)
Do you even read the posts, or just keep trotting out your “developed nation” fruit? It’s the epitome of cherry picking, and it’s been discredited many times on this board. It grows tiresome.