<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Auto Buybacks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/08/11/auto-buybacks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/08/11/auto-buybacks/</link>
	<description>Firearms Policy and Politics in Pennsylvania</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:03:41 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Nomen Nescio</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/08/11/auto-buybacks/#comment-28090</link>
		<dc:creator>Nomen Nescio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:39:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=4539#comment-28090</guid>
		<description>oh, come on. this idea may not make enough sense to implement, but i can think of several reasons it makes a &lt;i&gt;lot&lt;/i&gt; more sense than gun buybacks. just for a few, the expected goals (reduction in pollution, improvement in gas mileage) are actually sort-of measurable and not totally incredible on the face of it; there&#039;s no particular reason to believe folks would hold back on selling their gas-guzzling clunkers, unlike criminals with guns; and, unlike disarming poor folk, this idea would be likely to &lt;i&gt;increase&lt;/i&gt; social equality rather than decrease it, even if only minutely.

(yes, having reliable, cheap-to-operate transportation is a social equality issue. it improves your chances to get and keep a job, for instance.)

sure, it&#039;s badly misnamed. but if that were the only thing wrong with the program, i&#039;d say go for it in a heartbeat. it&#039;s certainly far more likely to actually help people than gun &quot;buybacks&quot; ever are!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oh, come on. this idea may not make enough sense to implement, but i can think of several reasons it makes a <i>lot</i> more sense than gun buybacks. just for a few, the expected goals (reduction in pollution, improvement in gas mileage) are actually sort-of measurable and not totally incredible on the face of it; there&#8217;s no particular reason to believe folks would hold back on selling their gas-guzzling clunkers, unlike criminals with guns; and, unlike disarming poor folk, this idea would be likely to <i>increase</i> social equality rather than decrease it, even if only minutely.</p>
<p>(yes, having reliable, cheap-to-operate transportation is a social equality issue. it improves your chances to get and keep a job, for instance.)</p>
<p>sure, it&#8217;s badly misnamed. but if that were the only thing wrong with the program, i&#8217;d say go for it in a heartbeat. it&#8217;s certainly far more likely to actually help people than gun &#8220;buybacks&#8221; ever are!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Speakertweaker</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/08/11/auto-buybacks/#comment-28052</link>
		<dc:creator>Speakertweaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:08:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=4539#comment-28052</guid>
		<description>Never mind the economic problems.  What about the fact that the idea is fundamentally flawed to begin with?

You cannot &lt;i&gt;buy back&lt;/i&gt; something that you never owned in the first place.  Therefore, any &quot;buyback&quot; program is really a &quot;buy&quot; program.

Now that we&#039;ve got that cleared up, exactly where in the hell does any government have the extra money lying around to buy up a bunch of busted cars/guns/etc.?



tweaker</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Never mind the economic problems.  What about the fact that the idea is fundamentally flawed to begin with?</p>
<p>You cannot <i>buy back</i> something that you never owned in the first place.  Therefore, any &#8220;buyback&#8221; program is really a &#8220;buy&#8221; program.</p>
<p>Now that we&#8217;ve got that cleared up, exactly where in the hell does any government have the extra money lying around to buy up a bunch of busted cars/guns/etc.?</p>
<p>tweaker</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
