I noted earlier that your plan would cost at least 15 Billion dollars.
You might have thought I was joking, so I figured I would show my work.
Your plan calls for a massive "buyback" (I don't know how you buy back something that you never owned, but whatever).
Australia is the best example of where a "buyback" took place.
Australia purchased between 600,000-650,000 firearms, and that represented about 20% of the firearms in the country. Australia had about 3 million total firearms. Australia targeted firearms in a less expansive way than you. For instance, Australia essentially banned semi-automatic long guns, but not handguns that held more than six rounds. It did not ban detachable magazines in pistols.
Conservatively, the United States of America has 200 million firearms. Several commentators have estimated upwards of 350 million firearms. For the sake of argument, we will use the 200 million figure from the FBI.
Australia paid "market value" for all the firearms it purchased. It spent a total of $500 million on the 600,000 guns, or about $833 per firearm.
For the sake of argument, lets say that the average gun in the United States is worth $500. (This is almost certainly low. Particularly if you are targeting semi-automatics which cost more money).
There are Constitutional reasons why any "buyback" would need to pay a fair market value.
Assuming that the United States has a similar prevalence of semi-automatic weapons as Australia (it is in fact much higher) that means you are buying back 40 million firearms. But hell, we are going to get to an inconceivable number anyway, so let's be as generous as possible to your stupid plan. Let's say only 15% of weapons apply (It is probably closer to 75). That is 30 million firearms.
30 million x $500 = 15 BILLION DOLLARS
Last edited by verbaljitsu; 12-20-2012 at 03:38 PM..
Reason: bad math