A compulsory buyback is still... more of a confiscation, in my mind.

In the US, areas with a "demonstrate a need" law usually end up "only if you have connections," in practice. But regardless, I overstated, yes, but the point is that the restrictions listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Firearms_categories

Are restrictions that 1) no one in the US would dare propose 2) would require a constitutional amendment or a new Supreme Court ruling. They are undoubtedly effective, but they just aren't going to happen in the US, and few people are trying to get them to happen. So pointing to Australia's success with those laws is not really indicative as to how proposals in the US will fare.

Australian firearm ownership is at 3-4%. You'd be crucified if you tried to get US ownership down to that level.

*dead

Australia passed extremely, extremely strict gun control, the sort of which no one even dares suggest in the United States. That is, an almost prohibition on their ownership, including confiscation of guns that were already owned.

The gun control advocates in the United States have to take pains to say, "We do not want to take your guns away!" Whether or not this is true, they have to say the words because the alternative is a complete non-starter.

I'm all for sensible gun control laws, but pretending that what Australia implemented is anywhere close to what most propose in the US is crazy.

Foil has been my favorite, so far. This one was the weakest, I think.

Drop a dome around it.

I think he just really likes lemons.

Looks like they're planning to make them that way.

What would you have spent them doing, otherwise?

*promote

Sift of the week.

Actually, seems I was completely misremembering. They didn't announce platforms at all when they announced it initially. Crappy.

It's coming to the PC, too. It's the lead platform. Was announced last year.

*promote

New dream job!

*beg