Not sure what the CDC is basing their estimates on, but it sure does not appear to be the same data collected and distributed by the U.S. Census Bureau. So, the CDC is trying to claim that gun deaths will overtake car deaths in the next three years. Remember that this is the same CDC headed by a man who claimed that gun ownership was a disease. Also remember that both the CDC and the Census Bureau include suicides as gun deaths (and suicide by gun accounts for over 50% of gun deaths in the U.S.).
I believe that the real issue here is the efficiency of death by the tool called a firearm. If you want to reduce efficiency of death by firearm you have to reduce the number of firearms--not just those that can be acquired in the future, but the number that now exist (estimates of guns owned in the U.S. range from 250-300 million if the print media journalists are close to being correct). So, how to do this legally--remember that firearms possessed legally are real property and that citizens and legal residents have due process of law in regard to their property, so seizure is really not an option. Someone in an op-ed suggested a buy back/stimulus program that sounds interesting to me. I was told of this by a friend, read the op-ed here.
So the plan would be to offer reasonable prices for people to sell their guns to an organization that will take the guns and destroy them. Not sure I agree with this in principle, but this is the plan. Now the plan gets better. A reasonable price for a gun is not $50-100 (U.S.), I have mount and scope rings on rifles that cost more than $50. So we need to take a graduated approach that looks at real value for types of firearms and offer 75-80% of market value for the gun. I would not consider giving up a rifle valued at $1000 for $100, but would consider it if I felt strongly enough that removing guns is the answer and were offered $750-800. Now, here is the stimulus part of the program, you give the person who is selling the gun a pre-paid credit card that has a use it or lose it date set 6 months from the date of the gun buy back. So, the gun is out of circulation, the gun owner received reasonable compensation, the money has to be spent, and purchases include sales taxes so the government even makes a few dollars.
Wait, I know you are going to say that the U.S. govt. does not have the money to fund the program. Ok, so here is where the rubber hits the road. Mayor Bloombery, Brady Bunch, Jim Boeheim, all of the "Gun Control" crowd--if you want to take guns off the street, pony up. The program can be funded by donations from the anti-gun population. In return for their donations to the program we even give a tax credit (75-100% credit) for the donation.
For my two cents, this is a program I would support. Not saying I agree with the principle personally, but I think we must accept that others on principle have different opinions and we must all work together to create workable solutions that support the greater good. The program outlined above does not require anyone to give up their firearms, it does create an incentive a stimulus and a tax credit for getting guns out of circulation.
I believe that the real issue here is the efficiency of death by the tool called a firearm. If you want to reduce efficiency of death by firearm you have to reduce the number of firearms--not just those that can be acquired in the future, but the number that now exist (estimates of guns owned in the U.S. range from 250-300 million if the print media journalists are close to being correct). So, how to do this legally--remember that firearms possessed legally are real property and that citizens and legal residents have due process of law in regard to their property, so seizure is really not an option. Someone in an op-ed suggested a buy back/stimulus program that sounds interesting to me. I was told of this by a friend, read the op-ed here.
So the plan would be to offer reasonable prices for people to sell their guns to an organization that will take the guns and destroy them. Not sure I agree with this in principle, but this is the plan. Now the plan gets better. A reasonable price for a gun is not $50-100 (U.S.), I have mount and scope rings on rifles that cost more than $50. So we need to take a graduated approach that looks at real value for types of firearms and offer 75-80% of market value for the gun. I would not consider giving up a rifle valued at $1000 for $100, but would consider it if I felt strongly enough that removing guns is the answer and were offered $750-800. Now, here is the stimulus part of the program, you give the person who is selling the gun a pre-paid credit card that has a use it or lose it date set 6 months from the date of the gun buy back. So, the gun is out of circulation, the gun owner received reasonable compensation, the money has to be spent, and purchases include sales taxes so the government even makes a few dollars.
Wait, I know you are going to say that the U.S. govt. does not have the money to fund the program. Ok, so here is where the rubber hits the road. Mayor Bloombery, Brady Bunch, Jim Boeheim, all of the "Gun Control" crowd--if you want to take guns off the street, pony up. The program can be funded by donations from the anti-gun population. In return for their donations to the program we even give a tax credit (75-100% credit) for the donation.
For my two cents, this is a program I would support. Not saying I agree with the principle personally, but I think we must accept that others on principle have different opinions and we must all work together to create workable solutions that support the greater good. The program outlined above does not require anyone to give up their firearms, it does create an incentive a stimulus and a tax credit for getting guns out of circulation.
