Jump to content
BenedictGomez

The Star-Ledger advocates mandatory confiscation of New Jersey guns

Recommended Posts

What N.J. really needs is mandatory gun buybacks
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board
on September 19, 2014 at 6:30 PM

 

 

 

There's little harm in the bill our state Assembly just passed, to expand gun buyback programs across New Jersey. It comes at no cost to the taxpayers. It would be paid for with forfeiture funds and private donations.  And who knows? It may even do some good. Having fewer guns lying around could mean they won't end up in the hands of a curious child, abusive spouse or suicidal person. Having a gun at home makes it three times more likely that you'll be murdered by a family member or intimate partner, or successfully attempt suicide.

But let's not kid ourselves: Gun buyback programs are not going to reduce murders in cities like Newark and Camden. Studies have found that buyback programs don't have much effect overall on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates. They don't directly target the guns that are more likely to be used in violence, and in general, the guns collected haven't overlapped much with crime guns. These are old weapons that some middle-aged guy found in his basement. What criminal is going to trade in his $700 Bushmaster for $250 from the state?

The biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it tiptoes around the one reform that could really make a difference, but that Americans would never accept: Mandatory gun buybacks. That's what Australia did, after its own version of Newtown.

Following a mass shooting in Tasmania that left 35 dead, Austrialia banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns, and required all the newly banned weapons to be bought back by the government. This cut the number of gun-owning households by as much as half.

The mandatory buybacks were also accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registering firearms. Gun owners have to present a "genuine reason" to buy a weapon. A claim of self-defense isn't enough unless you have an occupational need to carry a gun. We understand this is not going to happen. Neither American courts nor most of the public would support it. As a nation we remain wedded to the delusion that gun ownership stops crime.

But guess what? It worked in Australia. The gun homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the suicide rate fell 65 percent. It virtually eliminated mass shootings. And there was no corresponding increase in homicides or suicides that didn't involve firearms. In other words, people weren't just switching to other methods of violence -- when guns weren't as easily available, they weren't acting on these impulses at all.

So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over "gun confiscation," don't expect it to make much difference.

 

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/09/nj_gun_buyback_programs.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who is a NJ gun owner and doesn't immediately cancel their Star-Ledger subscription after this is no friend of the 2nd Amendment.  

 

And it should be lost on no one that the spineless coward who authored this anti-American drivel didn't choose to put his or her name to it, but rather chose to hide behind the banner of the "Star-Ledger Editorial Board".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who is a NJ gun owner and doesn't immediately cancel their Star-Ledger subscription after this is no friend of the 2nd Amendment.  

 

And it should be lost on no one that the spineless coward who authored this anti-American drivel didn't choose to put his or her name to it, but rather chose to hide behind the banner of the "Star-Ledger Editorial Board".

 

I suspect the editorial board feel they don't have much to lose. How many pro-2A people still have subscriptions to the Star Ledger?

 

I also wonder who is on that board? Maybe we can figure out who wrote it....

 

 

Update - Tom Moran is one known SLEB member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article completely contradicts itself.

 

"Gun buyback programs are not going to reduce murders in cities like Newark and Camden. Studies have found that buyback programs don't have much effect overall on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates. They don't directly target the guns that are more likely to be used in violence, and in general, the guns collected haven't overlapped much with crime guns. These are old weapons that some middle-aged guy found in his basement. What criminal is going to trade in his $700 Bushmaster for $250 from the state?"

 

vs.

 

"The mandatory buybacks were also accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registering firearms. Gun owners have to present a "genuine reason" to buy a weapon. A claim of self-defense isn't enough unless you have an occupational need to carry a gun. We understand this is not going to happen. Neither American courts nor most of the public would support it. As a nation we remain wedded to the delusion that gun ownership stops crime."
 

 

Saying buybacks do nothing in crime riddled cities, but we should have mandatory buy backs like Australia? Last time I checked the gov't didn't buy my guns. I did. So it would just be a turn in of guns. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is my "genuine reason" to own a firearm. The right to protect myself, my family, and my property is good enough reason. These liberal loons want to completely dismantle the Constitution and we are slowly allowing them to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a ripping letter to the Editorial Page Editor: tmoran@starledger.com

and pointed out some facts they somehow forgot to mention; such as the Australian Govt.

own admission that the gun ban failed, and did little / nothing to reduce crime.

That crime like Home invasion, Assault, rape increased almost 300% at

on point, and the the reduction in homicides was already declining for 

years before the ban.

 

I guess they forgot to mention those facts..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article completely contradicts itself.

 

"Gun buyback programs are not going to reduce murders in cities like Newark and Camden. Studies have found that buyback programs don't have much effect overall on either gun crime or gun-related injury rates. They don't directly target the guns that are more likely to be used in violence, and in general, the guns collected haven't overlapped much with crime guns. These are old weapons that some middle-aged guy found in his basement. What criminal is going to trade in his $700 Bushmaster for $250 from the state?"

 

vs.

 

"The mandatory buybacks were also accompanied by a uniform national system for licensing and registering firearms. Gun owners have to present a "genuine reason" to buy a weapon. A claim of self-defense isn't enough unless you have an occupational need to carry a gun. We understand this is not going to happen. Neither American courts nor most of the public would support it. As a nation we remain wedded to the delusion that gun ownership stops crime."

 

 

Saying buybacks do nothing in crime riddled cities, but we should have mandatory buy backs like Australia? Last time I checked the gov't didn't buy my guns. I did. So it would just be a turn in of guns. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is my "genuine reason" to own a firearm. The right to protect myself, my family, and my property is good enough reason. These liberal loons want to completely dismantle the Constitution and we are slowly allowing them to do it.

You missed the point, the author was trying to say that volunteer buyback programs don't work and that the only way to make it work and make a difference is to make it mandatory, as in, take away everyone's gun whether they want to sell them or not.

 

I agree it's a stupid and anti-constitutional idea,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent a ripping letter to the Editorial Page Editor: tmoran@starledger.com

and pointed out some facts they somehow forgot to mention; such as the Australian Govt.

own admission that the gun ban failed, and did little / nothing to reduce crime.

That crime like Home invasion, Assault, rape increased almost 300% at

on point, and the the reduction in homicides was already declining for 

years before the ban.

 

I guess they forgot to mention those facts..........

 

Thank you. I will do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also forget that Australia has a different constitution and national history than the US. We were founded as a nation of people unsatisfied with the Crown...Australia was founded as a British penal colony. The original western "settlers" of Australia were already convicted murderers, rapists and other assorted criminals.

 

 

This signature is AWESOME!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(In Australia) crime like Home invasion, Assault, rape increased almost 300% at on point, and the the reduction in homicides was already declining for years before the ban.

So... Oscar Pistorus killed his girlfriend as a direct result of the aussie gun ban. Should have played that card during the trial. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll reserve my true thoughts until this thread lands in the litterbox.

 

Until then, don't waste time writing to the SLEB. They don't care and they get a kick out of it.

 

Write instead to the advertisers and tell them you will never use them while they support the SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The star ledger is gasping for air, as they circle the bowl for the last time, about to land where they deserve at the bottom of the cesspool.

 

They have turned to writing sensational articles like this, hoping to delay their own slow death.  I encourage everyone to never click on nj.com and never leave worthless comments after the articles, which seems to be the only thing holding them afloat.  

 

Their liberal slant on almost every article is blatantly obvious and sickening.  

 

As said previously, they are nothing but 'click bait' anymore.

 

 

-Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also forget that Australia has a different constitution and national history than the US.

 

 

 

And Personal protection is no reason to own a gun in Australia. I guess the Star Ledger got their inspiration from the notice from New South Wales Police Government (below)  after Australia passed their draconian gun laws.

 

 

 

 

no-reason_poster.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least we have some sanity in Trenton

 


mpcarrollr25

Your "facts" are -- wholly unsurprisingly -- wrong. Even the story you cite -- in that impeccable source, Slate -- doesn't say suicides came down 65%. It said suicides by gun fell by that amount, and the odds of that having anything to do with a ban on some rifles and shotguns approaches zero, as the number of suicides by AR-15 approaches zero. Australia' s suicide rate does not appreciably differ from ours, and among "Western" countries, Japan, with almost no guns, leads the league in suicides, with a rate almost twice as high as ours.Too, the US saw no appreciable or permanent increases in suicide after its silly "assault weapon" ban ended, nor any decline when guns became a lot harder to get after 1968. National and international statistics simply cannot be reconciled with an assertion that firearms have anything whatsoever to do with suicide rates. For those who are interested in real facts, respecting Australia, you can look here. http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats


The number of Bushmasters involved in street crime also approaches zero. As you accurately note, the abuse of second amendment rights by armed criminals is overwhelmingly an urban phenomenon. A plethora of urban gangbangers shooting one another, or preying on others, is not a problem from which Australia suffers. (While international crime statistical comparison are notoriously dicey, the US violent crime rate is as much as 1/3 that in Britain, where guns are scarce.) The number of urban criminals who would respond to a mandatory gun buy back is about the same as those who would respond to a voluntary effort.


While you're right, that this proposal is pretty silly -- it would be better if the Administration, having purchased the firearms from those who don't want them, turned around and sold them to lawful gun dealers for sale to law abiding citizens -- it's also pretty harmless.


Your proposal, though, represents a huge assault on basic liberty. Which, of course, is typical from the left, which passionately believes that the people cannot be trusted with freedom and that we'd all be better off if we were all a lot less free, and suitably controlled, with a monopoly of firearms left in the hands of governmental officials, who, of course, have absolutely no history, anywhere around the world, of ever abusing power, and can be trusted implicitly to behave themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an NJ paper worth getting? We currently have a minimal subscription to the SL because we need something to wrap the cat litter. It's sort of a fitting use for the SL but I'd rather not keep giving them money.

No , there isn't . I buy 1000 foot roll of newspaper for about 20 bucks freight free off Amazon Prime for the snakes' substrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No , there isn't . I buy 1000 foot roll of newspaper for about 20 bucks freight free off Amazon Prime for the snakes' substrate.

Where is the fun in that? By real newspapers so they can laugh while they defecate all over it. At least the comics are worth keeping sometimes. Lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the point, the author was trying to say that volunteer buyback programs don't work and that the only way to make it work and make a difference is to make it mandatory, as in, take away everyone's gun whether they want to sell them or not.

 

I agree it's a stupid and anti-constitutional idea,

 

No, I think he got the point exactly right.  The only people adhering to a "mandatory" ban on guns will be the law-abiding citizens.  The criminals will

then have a safe workplace environment.

 

And yes, the SLEB clearly has no regard for the Second Amendment, but you can bet that they will scream bloody hell if anyone tries to mess

with the First.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an NJ paper worth getting? We currently have a minimal subscription to the SL because we need something to wrap the cat litter. It's sort of a fitting use for the SL but I'd rather not keep giving them money.

Well, the NJ (Newton) Herald will publish my anti gun-control letter tomorrow or Monday.

 

If it runs tomorrow I'll post it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...