Does this encourage gun theft?


PDA






bushmaster1313
June 19, 2012, 11:29 PM
Chicago is paying $100 no questions asked for any gun brought in off the streets.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/19/police-to-hold-gun-turn-in-event-this-weekend/

Doesn't that encourage the theft of guns?

If you enjoyed reading about "Does this encourage gun theft?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
OldMac
June 19, 2012, 11:37 PM
If they advertise no questions asked, they seem to be encouraging if not facilitating crime.

PBR Streetgang
June 19, 2012, 11:42 PM
very few decent guns get turned in.......shooters are worth more on the :STREET"

Agsalaska
June 20, 2012, 12:55 AM
Where did they get the money? I thought Chicago was broke.

krupparms
June 20, 2012, 01:00 AM
Government grant money! I. E. Our taxes!

Owen Sparks
June 20, 2012, 01:35 AM
It might be a good time to get rid of non-functioning junk like an old no name single shot that you can't find parts for.

klyph
June 20, 2012, 02:49 AM
It also encourages an entrepreneurial spirit.

http://boingboing.net/2012/06/14/selling-zip-guns-to-cops-for.html

lemaymiami
June 20, 2012, 09:42 AM
As a guy that did 22 years on the street (long retired, thank heavens) I never minded these kind of attempts to reduce the amount of junk iron in any community. The stuff that gets turned in is usually in poor condition and the folks that had them were the opposite of decent gun owners. Can't tell you how many I came into contact with that had a gun of some kind and couldn't even tell you what size ammo it used... You haven't had any excitement like the jolt you get when you find a 14 year old with a gun on the street....

Most of these programs are "feel good" attempts to make communities safer. The truth is that there's so many weapons around that any kid can get his hands on... any such program barely scratches the surface....

Carl N. Brown
June 20, 2012, 09:49 AM
An example of taxpayer dollars at work. (And since it is a gov't work it is not (c) vio to reprint in toto):

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
"Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" (2004)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=95

Gun Buy-Backs

Gun buy-back programs involve a government or private group paying individuals to turn in guns they possess. The programs do not require the participants to identify themselves, in order to encourage participation by offenders or those with weapons used in crimes. The guns are then destroyed. The theoretical premise for gun buy-back programs is that the program will lead to fewer guns on the streets because fewer guns are available for either theft or trade, and that consequently violence will decline. It is the committee’s view that the theory underlying gun buy-back programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs.

The theory on which gun buy-back programs is based is flawed in three respects. First, the guns that are typically surrendered in gun buy-backs are those that are least likely to be used in criminal activities. Typically, the guns turned in tend to be of two types: (1) old, malfunctioning guns whose resale value is less than the reward offered in buy-back programs or (2) guns owned by individuals who derive little value from the possession of the guns (e.g., those who have inherited guns). The Police Executive Research Forum (1996) found this in their analysis of the differences between weapons handed in and those used in crimes. In contrast, those who are either using guns to carry out crimes or as protection in the course of engaging in other illegal activities, such as drug selling, have actively acquired their guns and are unlikely to want to participate in such programs.

Second, because replacement guns are relatively easily obtained, the actual decline in the number of guns on the street may be smaller than the number of guns that are turned in. Third, the likelihood that any particular gun will be used in a crime in a given year is low. In 1999, approximately 6,500 homicides were committed with handguns. There are approximately 70 million handguns in the United States. Thus, if a different handgun were used in each homicide, the likelihood that a particular handgun would be used to kill an individual in a particular year is 1 in 10,000. The typical gun buy-back program yields less than 1,000 guns. Even ignoring the first two points made above (the guns turned in are unlikely to be used by criminals and may be replaced by purchases of new guns), one would expect a reduction of less than one-tenth of one homicide per year in response to such a gun buy-back program. The program might be cost-effective if those were the correct parameters, but the small scale makes it highly unlikely that its effects would be detected.

In light of the weakness in the theory underlying gun buy-backs, it is not surprising that research evaluations of U.S. efforts have consistently failed to document any link between such programs and reductions in gun violence (Callahan et al., 1994; Police Executive Research Forum, 1996; Rosenfeld, 1996).

Outside the United States there have been a small number of buy-backs of much larger quantities of weapons, in response to high-profile mass murders with firearms. Following a killing of 35 persons in Tasmania in 1996 by a lone gunman, the Australian government prohibited certain categories of long guns and provided funds to buy back all such weapons in private hands (Reuter and Mouzos, 2003). A total of 640,000 weapons were handed in to the government (at an average price of approximately $350), constituting about 20 percent of the estimated stock of weapons. The weapons subject to the buy-back, however, accounted for a modest share of all homicides or violent crimes more generally prior to the buy-back. Unsurprisingly, Reuter and Mouzos (2003) were unable to find evidence of a substantial decline in rates for these crimes. They noted that in the six years following the buy-back, there were no mass murders with firearms and fewer mass murders than in the previous period; these are both weak tests given the small numbers of such incidents annually.

PBR Streetgang
June 20, 2012, 09:57 AM
Some places take pellet guns too...

Go to Wallyworld ,buy 10 $25 pellet guns and sell them back for $2500, not bad for a $250 investment!!!!

Sam1911
June 20, 2012, 10:17 AM
one would expect a reduction of less than one-tenth of one homicide per year in response to such a gun buy-back program.

Hey, if it prevents one tenth of a death, it is WORTH IT!

;)

beatledog7
June 20, 2012, 10:22 AM
Governments are full of career politicians who do things that they must surely know to be ridiculous in the interest of appearing to do something useful.

Politicians always have their personal and financial interests in mind, and those interests are too frequently wrapped in one overriding concern: getting re-elected. They think gun buyback programs will be perceived as useful in the eyes of those folks whose votes they wish to gather.

Deltaboy
June 20, 2012, 10:32 AM
Another example of the stupity in DC and major cities across the Nation.

Carl N. Brown
June 20, 2012, 10:35 AM
If you buy criminologist Marvin Wolfgang's belief that few homicides due to shooting would be avoided merely if the firearm were not present, and most murderers with motive and opportunity could accomplish the murder with a substitute weapon, a buyback of 1,000 guns would not even prevent one tenth of a murder. But $50,000 to $100,000 would pay for police training or equipment which is more often than not more beneficial to crime prevention than gun buybacks (a point Tom Seleck's character made on "Blue Bloods" a few episodes back, to my surprise).

Wolfgang famously declared on one occassion that if the were the world dictator in "Brave New World" he would ban all civilian guns and may be most police guns as well. His belief that motive and opportunity overrode means in most homicides came from in-depth study of 588 homicides.

My belief is that, in a world without guns, the strong could always dominate the weak; the young could always dominate the old; and the gangs could always dominate the out-numbered.

rajb123
June 20, 2012, 01:45 PM
we have had this in my county for years. some very nice guns are collected. they are given to cops and firefighters.... your tax dollars at work...

Milamber
June 20, 2012, 02:06 PM
Anyone who thinks no firearms on the streets would cut the homicide rate hasn't been to Soweto and seen what can be done with a Machette.

msrfrog
June 20, 2012, 02:13 PM
Yes reward illegal gun owners with cash and gift cards, then make me a hardworking tax paying family guy jump though hoops to get a permit!:fire:

Onward Allusion
June 20, 2012, 02:17 PM
bushmaster1313
Does this encourage gun theft?
Chicago is paying $100 no questions asked for any gun brought in off the streets.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/...-this-weekend/

Doesn't that encourage the theft of guns?

No, it doesn't encourage additional theft. Guns are already sought after by BGs, because a BG with a gun can get a heck of a lot more than $100 with it. Y'all don't think like criminals, do ya?

DaisyCutter
June 20, 2012, 02:32 PM
we have had this in my county for years. some very nice guns are collected. they are given to cops and firefighters.... your tax dollars at work...

Either the PD turned down this man's application, or there's another reason for his resentment that I can't think of presently.


Few, if any nice guns are collected. The entity that subsidizes the "buyback" would require the guns be destroyed. The city/state/county is BUYING those guns, and they wouldn't be GIVEN to police and firefighters. They wouldn't even be SOLD to police and firefighters. Maybe 40 years ago, but not today. The liability would be huge, and it's not with it, especially since the city/state/county wouldn't profit from it. Most agencies won't even let a cop choose or buy his own gun to carry, because of liability.

Furthermore, all surrendered firearms would be run against NCIC to determine whether it was stolen and if there is a rightful owner. It's a phone call away, and that number is saved in my cell phone. Of course, I can also use the MDC in my patrol car if I don't want to call.


I've been offered several guns from citizens, from either retired people or inherited from deceased family members. They've turned right to me and asked, "Do you want this gun?".

No, I'm not taking it. I'd love to, but I can't profit from my position. The months I spent in the academy, the years spent up all night or sweating my azz off in the cold, wearing some stranger's blood... halfway to my pension, and you think there is any way I'd trade all that work for a rusty Taurus .38?

Even if you set aside the integrity aspect, it would still take a bribe valued at $1,500,000 before I'd consider giving up what I've worked for thus far.


Just because one person lacks integrity and is unfit for public service, don't assume those who ACTUALLY do the job are.


I don't think many criminals would really believe in, or be willing to risk time in the joint, based on the promise of "No questions asked".

If you think the old widow is walking down to the gun collection center to cash in her dead husband's Wilson Combat 1911, for $100 in bingo money, then you are probably mistaken. Feel free to stand outside the door with $120 and poach any deals you see walking in...

DaisyCutter
June 20, 2012, 02:42 PM
"No questions asked"

Person #1 brings in a gun, man at the counter does a NCIC check, results negative, takes gun and gives person #1 $100.

Person #2 brings in a gun, man at the counter does a NCIC check, results positive for recent burglary, takes gun and has the officer who is standing by detain person #2 until detectives arrive.



No questions asked of the bringer in either scenario. The detectives en-route for person #2 are not affiliated with the buy back.

mgkdrgn
June 20, 2012, 05:23 PM
Where did they get the money? I thought Chicago was broke.

Obama's stash

bushmaster1313
June 20, 2012, 05:39 PM
Is daisy cutter correct?

rajb123
June 20, 2012, 05:45 PM
I have neighbors who are firefighters and cops. they tell me they get first dibs on guns from the turn-in program.

I have no reason to dought their integrity. the turn-ins are not limited to handguns

rdhood
June 20, 2012, 05:56 PM
My belief is that, in a world without guns, the strong could always dominate the weak; the young could always dominate the old; and the gangs could always dominate the out-numbered.

Bingo. This was, in fact, the state of the world before guns.

Shadow 7D
June 20, 2012, 06:14 PM
I have seen a FEW smart departments, the 'destroy' the gun and if it's worth anything, the just burn the reciever/frame (three diagonal torch cuts) after stripping it and sell the rest off as parts. That would be the smart way, the not so smart way, is that this is JUST PR that is, thats all, they don't get illegal guns, they get grannies and such, the best bet is the counter buys

they set up across the street or in a adjacent parking lot with the owners permission (or on the sidewalk/public right away as it is a protected form of protest) with signs saying such as "don't let the cops rip you off, it's worth WAY more than they are paying" etc.

blue book out, and see what you can cherry pick.

lemaymiami
June 22, 2012, 09:07 AM
Can't read a few of these posts without speaking up again.... At one point in my career I was the guy in charge of our property room for about three years (guns and dope, oh my...). Any police department that mis-handled seized, confiscated, turned in weapons will soon have a new police chief. Nothing will cost a chief his/her job quicker than the slightest hint of misconduct with weapons, whether department owned or just under their control.....

Guns slated for destruction were very carefully inventoried, accounted for, then destroyed (in my case we dumped garbage cans full of weapons into the ocean - one of the few benefits of working in south Florida). An occasional weapon was suitable for conversion to City use, properly logged, then finally issued to an individual (never "given"). My last chief ended even that procedure since he was sharp enough to know there was always a chance that it might just cause a problem years later (or at least the perception of a problem since that's the same thing in law enforcement...). One of the sidearms I carried on the job was a converted Beretta 92 (a European model with the mag release at the bottom of the grips). I had to turn it back in when we went for Sig Sauers my last five years on the job. At that point there weren't any converted weapons being issued by my Department..


Yes, there are probably outfits that are much less careful about weapons that come into their possession.... I wouldn't want to work for any outfit that was that sloppy (or corrupt, take your choice). Like I said before - nothing directly threatens a police chief's job like allowing his/her department to mis-handle weapons. If it becomes known they'll be looking for a new chief.

bushmaster1313
June 22, 2012, 10:29 AM
in my case we dumped garbage cans full of weapons into the ocean

That sounds very fishy.
Corrupting the morals of minnows

Onward Allusion
June 22, 2012, 01:11 PM
lemaymiami
Can't read a few of these posts without speaking up again.... At one point in my career I was the guy in charge of our property room for about three years (guns and dope, oh my...). Any police department that mis-handled seized, confiscated, turned in weapons will soon have a new police chief. Nothing will cost a chief his/her job quicker than the slightest hint of misconduct with weapons, whether department owned or just under their control.....


+10,000

Some of you guys need to visit the property evidence room of a newer/modern police department, you would be amazed at the security. Cameras, key fob access, sign-in, and one particular one actually had bio-metric entry!!! I wouldn't be surprise if some of the better departments will put in place mantrap entry points in the very near future.

As for the comments to "getting first dibs...etc", man oh man - that's what prison is for.

lemaymiami
June 22, 2012, 06:34 PM
Bush... I was actually a commercial fisherman before going into police work so the option of dumping chunks of metal into more than 200 feet of ocean (that's about four miles offshore in my area) was fairly easy for me to decide. I'm years out of police work and once again working as a fisherman, a fishing guide to be exact. What the salt does to steel has to be seen to be believed. Since I do care about fish and water issues - everything we dumped was properly cleaned and we never dumped ammo at all...

I have no idea how weapons are destroyed today in my area. When I retired I left that world behind me.

langenc
June 22, 2012, 09:02 PM
I have read where buybacks (a misnomer) are illegal cause the buyer is not a licensed dealer. BUT police are not well known for following the law, they seem to be exempt.

Misnomer cause if you dont or never owned it you cant BUY IT BACK.

If you enjoyed reading about "Does this encourage gun theft?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!