1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Should gun buybacks be banned?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by somerandomguy, Jan 29, 2013.

  1. somerandomguy

    somerandomguy member

    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.
  2. gossamer

    gossamer Well-Known Member

    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?
  3. jamesbeat

    jamesbeat Well-Known Member

    The only thing that's criminal is how little money they pay.
  4. JustinJ

    JustinJ Well-Known Member

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

    gossamer Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. ColtPythonElite

    ColtPythonElite Well-Known Member

  7. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Well-Known Member

    Buying guns from the public and destroying them is not a role the government should be in.
  8. Skribs

    Skribs Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. somerandomguy

    somerandomguy member

    Buying stolen guns is the problem. And yes, that is illegal.
  10. Blakenzy

    Blakenzy Well-Known Member

    Free commerce=Win
  11. silicosys4

    silicosys4 Well-Known Member

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2013
  12. BobTheTomato

    BobTheTomato Well-Known Member

    If it uses private money it's okay. Tax dollars: no!
  13. GAF

    GAF Well-Known Member

  14. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Well-Known Member

    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)
    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.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2013
  15. somerandomguy

    somerandomguy member

    Yeah, those rocket tubes do make great conversation pieces though. ;)

  16. Somewhere in NM

    Somewhere in NM Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. somerandomguy

    somerandomguy member

    What about if they were used in murders or something though and the gun is the only piece of evidence on said individual?
  18. silicosys4

    silicosys4 Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. Gato Montés

    Gato Montés Well-Known Member

    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?
  20. Zombiphobia

    Zombiphobia Well-Known Member

    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:

Share This Page