The way to stop mass shootings according to the Boston Globe opinion writer, is to confiscate all guns just as they did in Australia. The title of his article is ‘Hand Over Your Guns’.
Writer David Scharfenberg proclaimed“thoughts and prayers” are not enough after a mass shooting, nor are assault weapons bans or increased regulations on firearms. No, instead, to stop ‘gun violence’, we must have mandatory gun confiscation.
“The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach,” Scharfenberg wrote.
Australia’s gun confiscation from the 1990s is the model America should follow. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton promoted that same idea while campaigning. It is where Democrats are headed. They don’t want a Second Amendment.
Australia confiscated one-fifth of all guns but it didn’t result in fewer guns. The University of Sydney produced research that shows Australia has more guns than before the confiscation. There are more than one million guns now.
Scharfenberg admits confiscation in the US is unimaginable but that doesn’t mean politicians shouldn’t try, he says.
“Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem,” he declared.
Since guns aren’t getting up, putting bullets in their chambers and running around killing people, what will the left do about the mentally deranged, the just plain evil people, terrorists, cartels, other criminals, and so on?
According to data from the U.S. Justice Department, violent crime fell nearly 72 percent between 1993 and 2011 while guns were being sold at far greater rates. This more likely suggests guns are a deterrent against criminals.
For every study they think is gospel, there is another that proves they are wrong.
A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rates.
Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”
“Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”