zevenenergie wrote on 09/16/19 at 02:07:50:

I recently heard that the earth is the last planet where people think,

What were the previous planets, where people think ?

As has been said before; if you think you own your home, stop paying your real estate taxes and find out who really owns your home.

Let's be honest, a gun buyback program could have an impact on gun crime. Say for example the USA implemented a $1,000 price on all pistols, no questions asked. Bring in a pistol, get $1,000. By default, all commercial sellers would now have a minimum price of at least $1,000 for any pistol. Also, all black market prices now instantly jump to $1,000. No one could buy a pistol for less than $1,000. That would price SOME criminals out of the "gun crime" business because many gun crimes are drug dealers and gang bangers shooting each others. They are not exactly what you would call financial stable individuals. They are all going to be down on their luck from time to time and raising $1000 by selling a gun would be too tempting to pass up.

That's simple economics. However, simple economics also tell us when there's a demand, they'll be a supply. I would guess sawed off rifles would fill the gap. So then the government includes all firearms under their buyback and would have to increase the payout to cover higher priced rifles.

Let's say it jumps to $2,000. What does simple economics tell us would likely happen? The only legal owners of guns would mostly be suburban prosperous residents. The only ones with guns in the inner cities where much of the violence occurs now would be 'enforcers' for the major drug and crime rings who would afford to arm their people.

The suburbs would be a target for home break ins looking for guns to steal for easy money. So the "no questions asked" part of the buy back would be threated because the police would use that as a way to find the criminals who broke into houses to steal guns and sell them back.

So then what?

"To suggest that someone who attacks (with violent intent that could lead to murder) is a little more confused than you at that moment is a fine philosophical or academic statement, but not a pragmatic one."

 This is a good way to put this.

 To be fair some people will die so they don't have to hurt another.  But in this case the assumption is that a criminal "must" die if they are trying to kill you.  This is not true and is not part of "proportionality" as death is not the intended consequence, safety is.

 If I shoot someone in my house with a knife saying they are going to rape my wife and children I do not need him to be dead, I just need him to not be raping my wife and kids.  He may be confused and acknowledging that has done nothing to save my family.

 I am not going to aim for his leg and risk my family being sexually assaulted, I am aiming for the largest mass since he is a mobile active threat to my family.

zevenenergie wrote on 09/16/19 at 06:08:00:

"...Let us look at it for a moment, without the discussion whether or not to ban weapons ..."

I believe the first thing to do to curb DFI's from using a gun wrong.
Is to enforce the laws already on the books !

When a Felon comes into a gun shop, and fills out the 4473, and goes through the BACKGROUND CHECK. And that gun-purchase was denied. That Felon/Illegal/Lier, has a 0.09 chance of being  prosecuted.
"...Your chances of being prosecuted by the Justice Department for falsifying information to illegally buy a gun are almost zero...."
"...many gun dealers that repeatedly engage in knowing or negligent straw transactions, ..."
That happened, Because Holder and Obama, TOLD them they SHOULD.
(Fast & Furious debacle)
"...the Brady Campaign’s Gardiner said she agrees with Sessions that existing federal gun laws should be enforced..."
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/11/lying-buy-gun-fear-not-fe...

"...You can also outrun an attacker with a knife...."If that attacker is 21 feet away from you, has a knife, and has the knife out, and you have a gun in a holster. That knife person CAN, stab you, before you can shoot them.
That is a absolute fact that has been proven over and over and over.

"...And if you can,t out run him, ..."
Yep, if you can outrun, remove yourself from the threat, absolutely.
What happens if he/she can run faster than you?

"...shoot the leg..."
Unfortunately, you cannot, 'Purposely', shoot the attacker in the leg.
If you do, they will Sue you for everything you have, and WIN, because their attorney went Judge shopping for a Ultra Liberal Judge.

While that is being done.  Education.  
Incorporate the/or like, 'Eddie Eagle' program into young people, grades, 1-6.  Incorporate the/or form, of the State, 'Conservation Department' program.
Which in one for or another has been around since 1955. And has reduced the number of firearms accidents from, in the 50's, 700 deer hunting accident per, 100,000, to today, less than 200 per 100,000.

Education would reduce the number of, school/theater/concert/baseball field shootings.
Education would include shooting at a range. Which shows the students that don't know, what a bullet can do. And it will remove the, 'forbidden fruit' stigma guns have.

(Last 10 + years, have added, which is repeated every time in class, when discussing what a firearm can do.  
"Their is NO, 'Re-Set Button on a Gun")

Implicating just those two things, will be a significant improvement, over 'banning' a type of Gun.

As to the high rate of murders, in a 'inner city' area, by gang bangers.
Education.
Cause we all know that, Banning a Gun, (Because it has been done over and over), does NOT work !

Eegore wrote on 09/16/19 at 07:56:56:

  A mandatory buyback is no different than mortgage payments, (can be evicted by force from one's home).  

I believe the above analogy, is a poor analogy.

A, 'mandatory',  is, mandatory.
As in, it is forced, it is a 'Have To'.
And, 'mandatory', often has a punishment attached to it, if the, 'mandatory' part is not fulfilled.

A 'mortgage ', Loan, is NOT, 'mandatory', it is a choice.
And, if one chooses to take out a loan,
they accept, that they, 'can be evicted by force'.

There are worse things than a mandatory buy-back...

They could just ban them...

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks
"Current possessors of bump-stock-type devices must divest themselves of possession as of the effective date of the final rule (March 26, 2019).

One option is to destroy the device, and the final rule identifies possible methods of destruction, to include completely melting, shredding, or crushing the device. Any method of destruction must render the device incapable of being readily restored to function."

Eegore wrote on 09/16/19 at 09:32:39:

 "gun ownership" is not "mandatory', it is a choice.
 And, if one chooses to own a gun,
 they accept, that they, have to follow gun laws Federally and in their state.

Yep, Correct, It is a Choice to buy a gun.

However, today, I buy a gun, by choice.
I own the gun, and it is totally legal.
Tomorrow, it becomes, illegal.
And their is a "mandatory"  by back, with penalty's attached if I do not, "mandatory", give it up.
The 'Choice' would not be made.
In fact the 'choice' would not even be a option.

A House loan, today, is entered into by choice, which is the knowing of what will happen if the loan is not paid back.

I do believe that if something is legally owned,
Then,"mandatory", taken away,
that is also called, 'confiscation of property'.