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.
