Should gun buybacks be banned?


PDA






somerandomguy
January 29, 2013, 10:32 AM
It seems borderline illegal. I'm going to bet some or many of the guns have been used in shootings/murders or robberies or other crimes or even been stolen. Aren't the cops complicit in a crime in a "no questions" buyback? I heard they don't even check and see if the guns belong to someone else or not.

If you enjoyed reading about "Should gun buybacks be banned?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gossamer
January 29, 2013, 10:50 AM
I just sold a gun to Cabela's. They didn't ask me if it was mine. They handed me cash and had me sign a bill of sale. Similarly, beyond your own word, do pawn shops check to see if a gun you pawn actually belongs to you or not? Are Cabela's and pawn shops illegal?

Should we say Cabella's and pawn shops be banned?

What crime would the police be guilty of that these stores aren't?

jamesbeat
January 29, 2013, 10:52 AM
The only thing that's criminal is how little money they pay.

JustinJ
January 29, 2013, 10:54 AM
I just sold a gun to Cabela's. They didn't ask me if it was mine. They handed me cash and had me sign a bill of sale. Similarly, beyond your own word, do pawn shops check to see if a gun you pawn actually belongs to you or not? Are Cabela's and pawn shops illegal?

Last time i checked Cabelas does not have a duty to uphold the law or serve the public good.

gossamer
January 29, 2013, 11:18 AM
Last time i checked Cabelas does not have a duty to uphold the law or serve the public good.
Here I'll ask it again: What is illegal about buying guns?

Please provide actual evidence that LE offering this form of amnesty is illegal but other forms of amnesty (eg "reward for information, no questions asked" etc.) aren't.

If you don't like what they are doing, go one better: form a corporation, pay the attorney and accountant, pay for all the marketing and PR and go out there and buy the guns yourself. It's not illegal. Apparently it's pretty easy.

But talking about banning something that's perfectly legal simply because we don't like it is just feigned righteous indignation of the same sort the anti RKBA crowd does.

ColtPythonElite
January 29, 2013, 11:37 AM
No...

jerkface11
January 29, 2013, 11:41 AM
Buying guns from the public and destroying them is not a role the government should be in.

Skribs
January 29, 2013, 11:44 AM
My issues with gun buybacks...

1) The state is buying these guns for dirt cheap. It is basically theft of private property as far as I'm concerned. People are complicit, but the fact remains that the state is paying probably 10-20% the value of most of the weapons turned in. Granted, it's not mandatory, but if the government went up to a million dollar home and said "we think your home may have been used for a crime, so we want you to give it to us for $150K, the homeowner would scoff at them.

2) If these weapons are destroyed, then that means if my weapons were stolen and then sold at a gun buyback, I won't get them back. Hopefully I'm insured.

somerandomguy
January 29, 2013, 11:47 AM
Here I'll ask it again: What is illegal about buying guns?

Please provide actual evidence that LE offering this form of amnesty is illegal but other forms of amnesty (eg "reward for information, no questions asked" etc.) aren't.

If you don't like what they are doing, go one better: form a corporation, pay the attorney and accountant, pay for all the marketing and PR and go out there and buy the guns yourself. It's not illegal. Apparently it's pretty easy.

But talking about banning something that's perfectly legal simply because we don't like it is just feigned righteous indignation of the same sort the anti RKBA crowd does.
Buying stolen guns is the problem. And yes, that is illegal.

Blakenzy
January 29, 2013, 11:54 AM
Free commerce=Win

silicosys4
January 29, 2013, 12:19 PM
My issues with gun buybacks...

1) The state is buying these guns for dirt cheap. It is basically theft of private property as far as I'm concerned. People are complicit, but the fact remains that the state is paying probably 10-20% the value of most of the weapons turned in. Granted, it's not mandatory, but if the government went up to a million dollar home and said "we think your home may have been used for a crime, so we want you to give it to us for $150K, the homeowner would scoff at them.

2) If these weapons are destroyed, then that means if my weapons were stolen and then sold at a gun buyback, I won't get them back. Hopefully I'm insured.


1. Offering someone an option that is completely voluntary is not theft. No one is going to peoples homes asking for firearms. No one is saying "we think your firearm was used in a crime, turn it in." The majority of these events are privately funded through donations, and carry no government involvement or restriction of any kind, other than local police presence for security and crowd control at that municipalities discretion. This is not the government trying to steal your home or claim imminent domain so please don't make that comparison.

2. I think you also have an inflated view of the value of most of the turned in firearms.
Regardless, as far as underpaying, I see threads in here all the time about people who are very happy to pay a neighbor or relative a fraction of a guns value, simply because the owner has no interest and no idea of true value.
So the fact that the buyback will pay a small percentage(in your opinion) of actual value is of no concern to me, since its COMPLETELY voluntary, and they aren't coming to you, all they do is advertise and set up a location.
Likewise, since you see no moral objection with a private party paying someone in line to sell their gun for $100 in cash instead of turning it in, and walking away from a gun buyback with someones unwanted gun, what is your argument for underpaying? If someone walks away from a transaction feeling like they are satisfied, it was a good transaction for both parties. If it was a gun you wanted, or was severely undervalued, that's your fault for not finding that person prior, in whatever means, and making the deal, as a private party sale. Advertise in the paper, have your own private "buyback", whatever. If they want or "deserve" more for their gun, there are avenues requiring more intensive work to sell it, including personal contact and some small amount of personal marketing. Some people don't want to go through the work required to get full market value. Some people don't understand the value of their gun. Some people are perfectly satisfied walking down to the corner and trading it for a gift card right on the spot. That is not for you to lament, since the gun was not trading publicly on the open market, it was unavailable for you to purchase, and is a moot point. If they recieved $.01 for their gun, and were satisfied with that amount because you never found them to offer them what you feel would be "fair and reasonable", who are you to say they shouldn't have the right to sell it or trade it, if that price satisfies them?

3. I assure you, at least in every buyback program I've ever heard about, gun numbers were ran and stolen guns were returned to their owners. Its silly to think that as long as the guns are there and available, that they wouldn't be checked, crimes solved, missing gun cases closed. Granted, guns that are stolen are a very small percentage of the turned in guns, but they do get sorted out and processed as returned stolen property.

Yes, I feel they do tend to villainize guns, and keep up the perception that they are "evil" and need to be gotten off the streets, but that is more a problem with overall public perception of firearms, not with any "buyback" program. I believe, though misguided, that the buyback program offering an avenue for lazy, ignorant people to get rid of unwanted firearms is a good thing. More options are always better than fewer, IMO. These same people are the ones who won't take care of the gun they don't want, probably don't store it properly, don't shoot it, and don't maintain it. They most likely do not know proper gun etiquette or safety. They will likely not educate any children in the house about guns, and will not take the proper steps to ensure that children won't be able to access them. Those kind of people are unfit to own a firearm, IMO. There should be an avenue for them to very easily get rid of that gun, and because they are ignorant, an avenue that ensures they won't be stupid and sell it to someone who shouldn't have it. Yes its sad that some of the guns turned in are collectible. In my opinion, its sad how many 1967 Camaro's were tubbed out and turned into drag cars, then wrecked. That's private ownership in a free country, where people are free to voluntarily dispose of their unwanted goods as they see fit, even if that means turning them over for smelting in return for a pittance.... so be it.

I believe that offering a service for ignorant people to get rid of unwanted guns. I believe that amnesty for turning in stolen guns should exist in ALL circumstances, not just "buybacks".

I think buybacks are silly, that they could be avoided just by offering anonymity, amnesty, and a set dollar amount for unwanted or discarded firearms, on an ongoing basis at local sheriffs offices, with any guns turned in that are still legal for circulation being auctioned off to the public at a monthly auction.

However, being a large advocate of free availability of firearms to the general public, in a society that firearms can be gifted to or inherited by uninterested and incompetent citizens, then disallowing an easy avenue for the uninterested gun-owning members of the public to divest themselves easily, responsibly, and safely of unwanted firearms, is socially irresponsible and lacks foresight.

BobTheTomato
January 29, 2013, 12:24 PM
If it uses private money it's okay. Tax dollars: no!

GAF
January 29, 2013, 12:31 PM
http://www.infowars.com/backfire-seattle-gun-buyback-turns-into-gun-show-collectors-waved-wads-of-cash-at-those-in-line/

Go to gun buy back and buy guns if Face to Face is legal in your state.

Carl N. Brown
January 29, 2013, 01:00 PM
If BSing the public about a program with costs but questionable benefits should be banned, then YES! But if offering the public bad policy whose benefits are less than the cost were a crime, most government policies would be banned.

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
Bottom line quote: "....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 ...."

If it was public money, the "buy-back" of empty anti-tank rocket tubes at Seattle and Los Angeles were a farce, maybe. (Ed Brown, "LAPD Gun Buy Back “Rocket Launchers” Are Harmless Hollow Tubes", dcxposed.com, 6 Jan 2013.) I have a 66mm M72 rocket tube (useless except as curio or ornament, because they made only one rocket for each tube and once fired the tubes were disposable). But I won't say it is harmless: have you even bumped your head on a similar size telescope tube? It smarts.

somerandomguy
January 29, 2013, 02:12 PM
If BSing the public about a program with costs but questionable benefits should be banned, then YES! But if offering the public bad policy whose benefits are less than the cost were a crime, most government policies would be banned.

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
Bottom line quote: "....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 ...."

If it was public money, the "buy-back" of empty anti-tank rocket tubes at Seattle and Los Angeles were a farce, maybe. (Ed Brown, "LAPD Gun Buy Back “Rocket Launchers” Are Harmless Hollow Tubes", dcxposed.com, 6 Jan 2013.) I have a 66mm M72 rocket tube (useless except as curio or ornament, because they made only one rocket for each tube and once fired the tubes were disposable). But I won't say it is harmless: have you even bumped your head on a similar size telescope tube? It smarts.
Yeah, those rocket tubes do make great conversation pieces though. ;)

Lol.

Somewhere in NM
January 29, 2013, 02:27 PM
Voluntary gun buy backs may make propoganda for the anti-gun crowd that annoys me, but I think they are basically OK. Neither responsible gun owners and nor hardened criminals are going to participate. But a mother whose son has gone to jail for burglary and finds a gun his room might. A kid that finds a gun in a vacant lot might. A drug addict short on money for their next hit might. A widow who knows nothing about how to use her husband's guns and has no one to advise her might (before they get stolen). Seems like a low-cost approach to get guns out of the hands of irresponsible or unskilled people without infringing on anyone's rights. I think it should be mandatory to run the SNs and return stolen guns to their owners, but otherwise I'm good with it.

somerandomguy
January 29, 2013, 02:30 PM
Voluntary gun buy backs may make propoganda for the anti-gun crowd that annoys me, but I think they are basically OK. Neither responsible gun owners and nor hardened criminals are going to participate. But a mother whose son has gone to jail for burglary and finds a gun his room might. A kid that finds a gun in a vacant lot might. A drug addict short on money for their next hit might. A widow who knows nothing about how to use her husband's guns and has no one to advise her might (before they get stolen). Seems like a low-cost approach to get guns out of the hands of irresponsible or unskilled people without infringing on anyone's rights. I think it should be mandatory to run the SNs and return stolen guns to their owners, but otherwise I'm good with it.
What about if they were used in murders or something though and the gun is the only piece of evidence on said individual?

silicosys4
January 29, 2013, 02:33 PM
What about if they were used in murders or something though and the gun is the only piece of evidence on said individual?

Then they are at the same place where they were before the buyback, with one gun that was used incorrectly, that won't be used incorrectly again. Please explain to me how getting a murder weapon out of circulation and into evidence is a bad thing, even if they don't get prints or a suspect out of it. Its still a murder weapon that's now in the chain of evidence and not going to be used in any more crimes.

At this point you are proposing unlikely scenarios that require sourcing of prior incidences to be credible. Please source an incident in which a murder weapon was turned in at a buyback and subsequently hindered the investigation because of its being turned in. Please find a quote from a police investigator that states he would rather leave a murder weapon out in the hands of a murderer, and taking custody murderer and murder weapon together is the only acceptable outcome.

Gato MontÚs
January 29, 2013, 03:00 PM
Here I'll ask it again: What is illegal about buying guns?

Nothing, but what I'm more concerned with is the manner in which it's preformed.

I took an old surplus CZ to a Gander Mountain just to see how much they'd offer, and when I found the offer to be surprisingly generous I took the deal. Unlike these gun buybacks however, Gander's policy is to create a bill of sale using valid ID from the seller to show a line of acquisition. No questions asked takes away the threat of being linked to the stolen/hot property.

I'm not so concerned with the lose of that one crucial piece of evidence that would solve a case, but more so with what a no questions asked buyback would do to motivate crime in an area. Such an easy way to fence stolen goods, I can't help but imagine that in areas where gun buybacks are common, so too are reports of theft of firearms from homes in that area. Criminals are opportunists, why add more motivation by offering such a sweet opportunity?

Zombiphobia
January 29, 2013, 03:13 PM
Here's my opinion on gun buy-backs, particularly the point about not paying what the gun is worth and then destroying the firearm- These weapons are our fall-back plan in the event of corrupt government needing to be brought down; treat the highway robbery prices and destruction of our freedom as you would a citizen whiping their butt with the National Flag, or burning books because of the culture and ideals contained therein. Treat it as treason and destruction of culture; a genocide of sorts, because that's usually what it seems to lead to. Not always, but more often than not.

Now then, IF these weapons were being purches from ownrs at fair prices, and being used to supply LEO's and whatnot, then fine. But destruction, or then sending them to some wingnut to use them in an anti-gun demonstration, or destroying them, I'd like to see punishment by public hanging.

Did anyone read the headlines about the guy who turned in a deactivated missile launcher? It's deactivated!!!! He paid 100$ for it!!! IT'S FOR DECORATION!!!!:banghead:

JustinJ
January 29, 2013, 03:42 PM
Here I'll ask it again: What is illegal about buying guns?

Please provide actual evidence that LE offering this form of amnesty is illegal but other forms of amnesty (eg "reward for information, no questions asked" etc.) aren't.

I did not say if it was or was not legal. However, destroying guns which are potentially the stolen property of others is awfully contradictory to the purpose of LE. As already mentioned by others it is also problematic for LE to actively participate in activities which may be destroying potential evidence needed to solve crimes.

If you don't like what they are doing, go one better: form a corporation, pay the attorney and accountant, pay for all the marketing and PR and go out there and buy the guns yourself. It's not illegal. Apparently it's pretty easy.

Because i think LE is acting in an inappropriate manner i should do as you outlined above? How about a more rational solution; LE just doesn't do gun buybacks?

But talking about banning something that's perfectly legal simply because we don't like it is just feigned righteous indignation of the same sort the anti RKBA crowd does.

Gun buybacks in themselves are not illegal but destroying recovered property of citizens instead of returning it to them seems questionable. So does the destruction of items which are potential pieces of evidence in unsolved crimes.

gossamer
January 29, 2013, 03:43 PM
Buying stolen guns is the problem. And yes, that is illegal.

Great. All you have to do now is prove which of these guns are stolen.

gossamer
January 29, 2013, 03:54 PM
Okay, I'm back after lunch and a meeting and I guess I missed it but I'm 22 posts deep and still haven't seen anyone in this thread yet provide evidence that, with any regularity even remotely proportionate to the rate of gun crime, guns turned in at gun buybacks are evident of a crime, stolen, etc. and then destroyed by LE?

Seems if a person wants to ban something they would be able to provide demonstrable, compelling evidence supporting their underlying assumptions.

WAIT! Where have I heard that before???

Sheepdog1968
January 29, 2013, 08:52 PM
It probably does get some guns off the street that would harm others or are so old a damaged as to be dangerous to use. I'm ok with it.

armarsh
January 29, 2013, 09:27 PM
Am I the only one bothered by the term "buy-back"? Why did the police sell them in the first place? :)

Gun Surrender is the term I prefer.

jerkface11
January 30, 2013, 01:24 AM
So what does gossamer think they do with the guns if they aren't destroying them?

GKR333
January 30, 2013, 01:28 AM
I agree, the Govt should not be buying guns back from citizens, that is taxpayers money they are using to do this, as far as Im concerned that`s stealing

On top of that, we all have seen what a wonderful job the Govt does running what they already run LOL

9MMare
January 30, 2013, 02:34 AM
Seems like a waste of taxpayer $$ since gun shops. pawn shops, etc will generally pay more $ for working firearms.

JustinJ
January 30, 2013, 09:36 AM
Okay, I'm back after lunch and a meeting and I guess I missed it but I'm 22 posts deep and still haven't seen anyone in this thread yet provide evidence that, with any regularity even remotely proportionate to the rate of gun crime, guns turned in at gun buybacks are evident of a crime, stolen, etc. and then destroyed by LE?

Seriously? So how do you expect this evidence to be gathered when the guns are immediately destroyed to begin with?

beatledog7
January 30, 2013, 10:14 AM
As a believer in freedom, I'm opposed to banning anything unless and until a solid rationale for doing so can be formulated and proven. That rationale would have to include:

- who gets harmed by its existence and use?
- who benefits from its banning?
- what will it cost to implement and enforce a ban?
- who will pay that cost?
- is enforcement even feasible?
- what seemingly unrelated things will be affected by this proposed ban?

I could go on, but from this short list it is easy to see that banning something rarely accomplishes its purported goal.

gossamer
January 30, 2013, 10:56 AM
So what does gossamer think they do with the guns if they aren't destroying them?

Where did I say they shouldn't destroy them? If they paid for them, and the seller/surrenderer turned them in willingly, then the gun's new owner can do whatever they want with them.

gossamer
January 30, 2013, 10:59 AM
Seriously? So how do you expect this evidence to be gathered when the guns are immediately destroyed to begin with?

That's not my problem to solve, it's your problem to solve as you are the one who who wants to ban something.

When you seek to ban something in this country the burden of proof that there is proportionate harm being done by the thing you wish to ban falls on you.

jerkface11
January 30, 2013, 11:03 AM
The last time I checked the government can't just do whatever it wants. In fact they are MORE limited than the public. So unless there is a law specifically allowing them to buy and destroy property they aren't supposed to do it.

Skribs
January 30, 2013, 11:15 AM
Am I the only one bothered by the term "buy-back"? Why did the police sell them in the first place?

Gun Surrender is the term I prefer.

I was thinking along these lines...just not at the time I was posting in this thread.

gossamer
January 30, 2013, 11:46 AM
The last time I checked the government can't just do whatever it wants. In fact they are MORE limited than the public. So unless there is a law specifically allowing them to buy and destroy property they aren't supposed to do it.

Given that these buybacks are being held mostly by non-governmental groups and/or specific cities:

First, non-governement groups have the right to buy guns and destroy them.

Second, as it relates to cities/counties: Is there any evidence that there are not city ordinances on the books which permit the city LE or county LE to hold the buyback?

JustinJ
January 30, 2013, 12:01 PM
That's not my problem to solve, it's your problem to solve as you are the one who who wants to ban something.

And that is what we call circular logic.

When you seek to ban something in this country the burden of proof that there is proportionate harm being done by the thing you wish to ban falls on you.

What type of evidence exactly would be sufficient for you in this case? Is reason sufficient because it can be used to effectively argue that stolen guns or potential evidence is highly likely to be destroyed.

Or, lets look at the fourth amendment. It bans the government from performing unreasonable searches and seizures. What type of evidence do you believe should have been provided before including this amendment?

Given that these buybacks are being held mostly by non-governmental groups and/or specific cities:

Assuming that is the case, as i understand they are all still done in concert with local PD. While i don't like private groups purchasing guns and destroying them i do agree that is their right so long as done within the confines of the law. However, it is not legal for a private group to purchase select fire, short barrel rifles, etc. Therefor i don't believe any such group is doing this independent of direct LE cooperation and that is the part i object to.

jerkface11
January 30, 2013, 12:03 PM
Let's not forget the utter hypocrisy of it all. These are gun control types buying large numbers of firearms without background checks.

rodinal220
January 30, 2013, 12:07 PM
It is not the job or duty of Police departments to be conducting gun buybacks.They are nothing more than political events for obtuse types and evil doers bent on destroying America.

gossamer
January 30, 2013, 01:26 PM
And that is what we call circular logic.

First, it's not my job to prove their innocence. It's your job to prove their guilt.

But to directly address your assertion. No. It would be circular logic if I was the one proposing to ban something and they saying YOU have failed prove my point.

I'm not the one proposing anything be banned or anything be changed. When you assert something be banned, it is incumbent on your to prove the foundation of the ban. Supposition is not proof. And supposition is not reason.


What type of evidence exactly would be sufficient for you in this case? Is reason sufficient because it can be used to effectively argue that stolen guns or potential evidence is highly likely to be destroyed.

I think I laid out a pretty reasonable criteria: If you want to ban something, provide compelling, objective, repeatable evidence of your underlying assumption. Not supposition. Data. Not suspicion. Evidence. How you choose to collect this data or evidence is incumbent upon you, because it's your hypothesis. So, the question of how to prove your hypothesis is yours to answer. Not mine.


Or, lets look at the fourth amendment. It bans the government from performing unreasonable searches and seizures. What type of evidence do you believe should have been provided before including this amendment?

To entertain your question; you seem to ask, what evidence did the Bill of Rights' authors have that compelled them to bar search and seizure absent a specific judicial warrant?

To answer that question:

1. In England in the 1760s state officers routinely used general warrants and conducted raids in search of materials relating to John Wilkes' publications attacking both government policies and the King himself.

2. In Colonial America, legislation was explicitly written to enforce British revenue gathering policies on customs. Until 1750, all handbooks for justices of the peace, the issuers of warrants, contained or described only general warrants. William Cuddihy, Ph.D. in his dissertation entitled The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning, claims there existed a "colonial epidemic of general searches." According to him, until the 1760s, a "man's house was even less of a legal castle in America than in England" as the authorities possessed almost unlimited power and little oversight.


Where the 4th Amendment is concerned, there wasn't just some guys supposing there were unreasonable searches going on. There were specific published instructions for judges. There were cases in law where searches were conducted under "General Warrants."

So, since you introduced the 4th Amendment, lets use it as an example. We'll even use some of the words included in its history: As with the 4th Amendment which you introduced, what specific cases are there that prove your underlying assumptions that guns in a buyback are "routinely" evidence in a crime or stolen?

Or can you provide documentation that these LE agencies or individual groups are instructed NOT to check firearms against unsolved crimes for evidentiary value?

If the problem is rampant enough to warrant [pun intended] a ban then one should be able to muster the same kinds of evidence the framers used when they wrote the 4th Amendment. Otherwise, I'm not sure it's going to manage the super majority it would take to become an amendment.

JustinJ
January 30, 2013, 02:14 PM
No, it's not. It would be circular logic if I was the one proposing to ban something and they saying YOU have failed prove my point.

I'm not the one proposing anything be banned or anything be changed. When you assert something be banned, it is incumbent on your to prove the foundation of the ban. Supposition is not proof. And supposition is not reason.

To say "you can't ban something unless you prove it is bad, but the thing itself prevents one from proving it" is circular logic.

I think I laid out a pretty reasonable criteria: If you want to ban something, provide compelling, objective, repeatable evidence of your underlying assumption. Not supposition. Data. Not suspicion. Evidence. How you choose to collect this data or evidence is incumbent upon you, because it's your hypothesis. So, the question of how to prove your hypothesis is yours to answer. Not mine.

Again, the means to gather the evidence are blocked by the thing i object to.

Also, given police department resources are being used to facilitate these gun buy back/destruction events the burden of proof that there is a valid purpose should be on them to begin with. Taxes are used to fund police departments to act in the public's interest via a specific role. If they go outside that role they hold the burden of proof.

Where the 4th Amendment is concerned, there wasn't just some guys supposing there were unreasonable searches going on. There were specific published instructions for judges. There were cases in law where searches were conducted under "General Warrants."

You aren't asking for evidence that something is going on. You asked for evidence as to how it is sufficiently harmful to justify banning it.


So, since you introduced the 4th Amendment, lets use it as an example. We'll even use some of the words included in its history: As with the 4th Amendment which you introduced, what specific cases are there that prove your underlying assumptions that guns in a buyback are "routinely" evidence in a crime or stolen?


It's a catch 22. If they are doing investigations of each gun before destroying then those who own them with nefarious intent will not participate. If they are then only law abiding citizens would turn them in and LE are now being reduced to trash disposal.

9MMare
January 31, 2013, 12:46 AM
Seriously? So how do you expect this evidence to be gathered when the guns are immediately destroyed to begin with?

In the Seattle gun buyback, they were checking serial numbers to see if they had been stolen and doing ballistics on the guns before destruction.

silicosys4
January 31, 2013, 01:18 PM
In the Seattle gun buyback, they were checking serial numbers to see if they had been stolen and doing ballistics on the guns before destruction.

I don't know why people would think that they wouldn't do this....its like people are picturing a truck mounted smelter on site, where guns are tossed in as soon as the giftcard is given.

Out of something like 719 guns turned in, a whopping 8 or 9 were stolen. While that doesn't make for a convincing argument that the buyback is "cleaning up the mean streets"...It also doesn't help the argument that buybacks are "destroying stolen guns" before they are either entered into evidence or returned to the owner.

Of those gun owners who had their stolen gun returned to them, I wonder if they were members, how they would post on this thread, pro or anti buyback....

On a more frustrating note,
The amount of people trying to buy guns for cash outside the buyback, has prompted the mayor of Seattle to support requiring background checks for all private sales. Those who were trying to save guns from destruction by buying them for cash are being portrayed as predators by the local media, in the same light as someone who waits outside a schoolyard for that little kid walking home alone.

9MMare
February 1, 2013, 12:39 AM
On a more frustrating note,
The amount of people trying to buy guns for cash outside the buyback, has prompted the mayor of Seattle to support requiring background checks for all private sales. Those who were trying to save guns from destruction by buying them for cash are being portrayed as predators by the local media, in the same light as someone who waits outside a schoolyard for that little kid walking home alone.

The mayor of Seattle supports all kinds of gun control measures...and he's pissed because some of them are in direct conflict with our state constitution.

So now he is trying to get the state const. changed. :(

allaroundhunter
February 1, 2013, 12:48 AM
What about if they were used in murders or something though and the gun is the only piece of evidence on said individual?

Any gun used in a crime has switched hands so many times since the crime that there would be no way to tie it to an individual suspect. Ergo, it is of no value as a piece of evidence.

Twiki357
February 1, 2013, 01:05 AM
I don't have problem with the gun buybacks if people are stupid enough to "Sell" a gun for $50 to $100 that may be worth 10 times that. But, I do have a problem with the guns being automatically destroyed and not being checked to see if they are reported stolen and returned to their rightful owner.

9MMare
February 1, 2013, 01:09 AM
I don't have problem with the gun buybacks if people are stupid enough to "Sell" a gun for $50 to $100 that may be worth 10 times that. But, I do have a problem with the guns being automatically destroyed and not being checked to see if they are reported stolen and returned to their rightful owner.

I have a problem with it if they are using tax payer $ to do so. I'm not sure on that tho.

If you enjoyed reading about "Should gun buybacks be banned?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!