According to the Washington post gun confiscation “is likely the only policy that would dramatically reduce gun violence in the United States.” They cite the possibility of disillusionment with the executive actions Obama put forward on January 5, based on the fact that Obama admitted the actions “might have only a modest impact” at best.
On January 13 The Washington Post observed that President Obama’s executive gun controls do not portend a substantial reduction in gun crime because they lack the one key element–gun confiscation.
According to WAPO, confiscation “is likely the only policy that would dramatically reduce gun violence in the United States.” They cite the possibility of disillusionment with the executive actions Obama put forward on January 5, based on the fact that Obama admitted the actions “might have only a modest impact” at best.
WAPO quoted Obama speaking at the January 7 gun control town hall, saying, “We’re not going to eliminate gun violence, but we will lessen it. If we take that number from 30,000 down to, let’s say, 28,000, that’s 2,000 families who don’t have to go through what the families at Newtown or San Bernardino or Charleston went through.”
The Washington Post observed:
Obama believes his policies can save thousands of lives a year, but acknowledges that gun shots would still kill tens of thousands of Americans annually. That intense level of firearms violence is one that Obama and other gun-control advocates might be forced to tolerate unless they push measures that are more invasive than background checks.
The bottom line–it has been just over a week since Obama announced his executive gun controls and already WAPO says they are not enough. More gun control is needed now. Even the universal background checks that Obama, Gabby Giffords, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), and others have pushed for years are not enough. Another policy must be put in place.
The Post says one policy that has worked in other countries is confiscation. They point to “Australia’s mandatory buy-back scheme” as an example of such a policy. And Obama and Hillary Clinton have both pointed to such a confiscatory scheme at various times themselves.
Obama mentioned confiscation in the wake of the October 1 firearm-based attack in Umpqua Community College’s gun free zone. Clinton cited Australian gun confiscation as “worth looking at” for U.S. gun policy during an October 16 town hall at Keene State College.