National A Perspective And a Pitfall of Gov't "Buyback" Programs.

[Jonnyuma]

I think we all know that "buy back" is a BS term, let's just use it for clarity of focus. Also, I think the whole scenario is far-fetched, but only in the immediate future. Let's pretend its 10 yrs in the future...

The following is something that occurred to me earlier today and I haven't seen or heard it discussed, I'd like to hear what NWFA thinks.

Buyback program gets passed and signed. By the time it takes effect, theres a power shift or at least a change in legislative and executive branch personnel. A budget battle erupts, or maybe it doesn't... the fight is over appropriations for the buyback. Maybe it flies through and POTUS vetoes it. Maybe there's refusal to pass it from some holdouts. The Guv gets shut down over it... no funding for the buyback.

What do they do?

Read More

 

[albin25]

Pay with tax credits in lieu of cash payments....
....then, raise taxes so tax credit is effectively worthless for the ordinary "Joe Paycheck".

 

[notazombie]

Not sure it'll matter at my house.

View attachment 609109

 

[Member 5605]

Makes me wonder what budget they'd need to do this?

Estimate every firearms value of $1200 on average. Then let's say 450 million firearms, then add each firearm has extras worth another $600.
$1800 x 450,000,000
=
$810,000,000,000

That's a LOT of cheddar.
Then run the man-hours that it will take...

100,000,000 residences

Pipe dream according to a numbers game. Always has been, always will be.

 

[mrblond]

easy peasy

 

[GWS]

easy peasy
View attachment 609542

And I'll bet Bezos would offer that up for free.

 

[Member 5605]

ever wonder though, how many "Molon Llabe" events it would take for the BB's to be reversed?

 

[ma96782]

You hear those? Listen, you might be able to hear crickets.

Remember, WA passed a buy back on Bump Fire Stocks.

Aloha, Mark

 

[American123]

When they can print the money at their leisure and tax the public at their leisure, getting money from the government to get your tangible possessions that won't be purchasable again. Well, that's just about like a sheep accepting it's own wool in trade for its hooves.

Everyone can choose to do what they wish, I know what I'm not going to do, and that's all I'm saying on the matter.

 

[arakboss]

Makes me wonder what budget they'd need to do this?

Estimate every firearms value of $1200 on average. Then let's say 450 million firearms, then add each firearm has extras worth another $600.
$1800 x 450,000,000
=
$810,000,000,000

That's a LOT of cheddar.
Then run the man-hours that it will take...

100,000,000 residences

Pipe dream according to a numbers game. Always has been, always will be.

Good luck ever seeing $1200 buy back price. Look at local buy back programs to get an idea of what the feds might really offer. And don't be surprised if a fed run buy back program is less anonymous and more strict on what they buy back.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Even if they set the compensation @ only $200/ea, which is still unlikely,
450,000,000 x $200 = 9 BILLION.
450,000,000 x $300 = 135 BILLION.
That's like, real money, man.

But my original question wasn't about compliance rates (Not scolding, but I would caution people to exercise care in what they post on social media), or even enforcement costs. It was just a reality-check... pols often propose and pass laws based on feelings without a single foot planted in the real world* with regards to implementation or cost. CA is a good example of that, they've passed so many anti-gun owner laws that there's not a single person in office who can cite where they overlap and even contradict each other, and that includes DOJ and LE personnel. It's a similar story with tax codes and licensing schemes. Many programs are codified but never funded (or just enough for a ribbon-cutting photo op) because politicians' focus on votes not representing the voters. The $90 Trillion "Green New Deal" and Yang's dopey UBI schemes are two pretty good current national examples, as is Universal Health Care and "Free" College. This is where starry-eyed Ds get to call pragmatic Rs selfish (and the Rs cave).

My OP was more about speculating on the dirty sausage-making aspects of lawmaking when the sh*t gets real. How many more fights are involved once some nitwits' grandiose self-gratifying virtue-flag gets run up the pole**? Budgeting is one of the last steps after the courts get through with it... deals are done, "comprises" made, integrity goes out the window, and debt, well... we know where that always goes.

*Yuma's mixed-metaphor of the day.
**Yep, a twofer... 'welcome.

 

[arakboss]

Even if they set the compensation @ only $200/ea, which is still unlikely,
450,000,000 x $200 = 9 BILLION.
450,000,000 x $300 = 135 BILLION.
That's like, real money, man.

But my original question wasn't about compliance rates (Not scolding, but I would caution people to exercise care in what they post on social media), or even enforcement costs. It was just a reality-check... pols often propose and pass laws based on feelings without a single foot planted in the real world* with regards to implementation or cost. CA is a good example of that, they've passed so many anti-gun owner laws that there's not a single person in office who can cite where they overlap and even contradict each other, and that includes DOJ and LE personnel. It's a similar story with tax codes and licensing schemes. Many programs are codified but never funded (or just enough for a ribbon-cutting photo op) because politicians' focus on votes not representing the voters. The $90 Trillion "Green New Deal" and Yang's dopey UBI schemes are two pretty good current national examples, as is Universal Health Care and "Free" College. This is where starry-eyed Ds get to call pragmatic Rs selfish (and the Rs cave).

My OP was more about speculating on the dirty sausage-making aspects of lawmaking when the sh*t gets real. How many more fights are involved once some nitwits' grandiose self-gratifying virtue-flag gets run up the pole**? Budgeting is one of the last steps after the courts get through with it... deals are done, "comprises" made, integrity goes out the window, and debt, well... we know where that always goes.

*Yuma's mixed-metaphor of the day.
**Yep, a twofer... 'welcome.

450,000,000 x $200 = 9 BILLION.
450,000,000 x $300 = 135 BILLION.

I didn't get far in school but your math seems a little off. I get your point though. I just thought the $1200 was a number they would never come close to offering in a buy back program. I could make some serious cash if they did.

 

[Jonnyuma]

I didn't get far in school but your math seems a little off. I get your point though. I just thought the $1200 was a number they would never come close to offering in a buy back program. I could make some serious cash if they did.

It probably is. Even having it pointed-out wasn't enough to get me to check and/or correct it... it doesn't really matter. It's a LOT of dough

 

[awshoot]

Let's say they paid a miserly $400 per firearm, at 450M firearms: $180,000,000,000. Divide that by the number of non-suicide gun deaths of approximately 13,000 per year (because suicides will find another way). That is a cost of $13,846,153 per life (assuming of course that alternative means to kill the person would not be found -- if some of those people would have been killed regardless of whether a gun was available, the cost per life would rise). OK, but that's just one year -- let's spread that out over time. Over 10 yrs, that's $1.38M/life. It takes 27.7 yrs to bring the cost down to $500,000 per life. Even over a century, that's $138,000 per life. It takes 138.5 yrs to bring the cost down to less than $100k per life (by one dollar). It takes over 1300 (one thousand three hundred) years to get the cost down to $10k per life. And remember, if the cost per gun is higher or the number killed does not go from 13K to zero, then all the prices are higher and the time periods longer.

So the sell to the US taxpayer is that we will have to forgo programs that would save far more lives on a $/life basis, just to vindictively go after a third of the population. I don't think the antis will really go there. Instead, what they will do is what they have been doing -- the far less costly proposition of continuing to eat around the edges with legislation and create ever more expanding categories of prohibited persons. Our only hope really, is that SCOTUS comes out with a clear decision in favor of gun rights relatively soon.

 

[Patriot1775]

You can't buy back something you've never owned! Who is the GD moron that thought up that terminology/statement. Jeezus!

 

[awshoot]

You can't buy back something you've never owned! Who is the GD moron that thought up that terminology/statement. Jeezus!

Agree, but whoever thought that terminology is not a moron. Smart, sneaky, and deceptive -- but they knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[RicInOR]

Note the Tab Mouse Over Name - and the URL words - in addition to the article title. SEO.





URL words
among-democrats-mandatory-gun-buyback-plan-gains-traction

Among Democrats, 'Mandatory Gun Buyback' Plan Gains Traction

pjmedia.com

Instapundit » Blog Archive » IT ISN’T A PURCHASE IF THE SELLER DOESN’T AGREE TO IT: Among Democrats, ‘Mandatory Gun Buyback’ Plan…

IT ISN’T A PURCHASE IF THE SELLER DOESN’T AGREE TO IT: Among Democrats, ‘Mandatory Gun Buyback’ Plan Gains Traction. “Mandatory buy-back” is newspeak for “confiscation with a little sweetener.”

pjmedia.com