From HuffPo discussing gun buy backs:
A soft version has already been tried in several cities. Boston offered residents $200 gift cards to Target in exchange for a gun. As Steven D. Levitt pointed out in the "Journal of Economic Perspectives" in 2004, it's failed for a variety of reasons. The most obvious is that the buy-back program wasn't compulsory. The vast majority of people didn't exchange their guns for gift cards, and when they did, they sent in old models not often used in crimes. Because of lax gun laws, moreover, it was relatively easy for people to purchase replacements.
Ok, so they're saying gun buy backs don't work unless they involve confiscation. I seem to recall that the government tried weapons confiscation in Massachusetts at one point and it didn't go very smoothly.
They're also claiming that Boston -- yes, that Boston, the one in Massachusetts -- has lax gun laws.
Are you kidding me? This is the same Massachusetts that scores in the "strongest" category, a bright green, by the Brady Campaign Against Gun Ownership.
Oh yeah, and the HuffPo writers squee-ing over Australia's confiscation scheme should probably head over to Sean's blog and search "Australia" or "Rebecca Peters."