Gun Turn In Program for Rhode Island: Private Sales Forbidden

[Dean Weingarten]

Four cities in Rhode Island will be offering various gift cards for firearms turned in anonymously at four locations. The cities involved are: Providence, Warwick, Central Falls, and Bristol.

The turn ins will be conducted from 10am to 2pm on April 6th. Unlike some programs that put forfeiture funds to questionable use, this program will be conducted with privately donated funds.

Rhode Island is one of a handful of states that forbid the private sales of firearms. All firearm sales must be conducted through State agents, and there is a waiting period of seven days after the sale before a firearm can be transfered. This makes the conduct of private sales at these turn in events practically impossible.

Many turn in events have had healthy competition from private buyers, stretching turn in funds and placing valuable firearms in responsible hands.

A turn in event in Maine featured cooperation with a gun control group and Second Amendment supporters. Turned in firearms were sold to a dealer, with the proceeds used to fund the special Olympics.

Turn in events where valuable firearms are destroyed for political theater have been likened to Medieval deodand rituals, where objects were found guilty of crimes.

Link to "Buyback" notice

Link to Rhode Island statute

Link to article with numerous links to "buybacks" with private buyers

Link to cooperative charity turn in done in Maine

Link to article on deodands

©2013 by Dean Weingarten Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/03/gun-turn-in-program-for-rhode-island.html

 

[Ryanxia]

You can still go and offer someone twice/three times as much to transfer it to you through an FFL or make offers on black powder guns since they 'don't count'.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

On another forum, someone suggested setting up a "free appraisal table" and a list of cooperating FFLs. That sounded like a good idea.

 

[JERRY]

Pathetic. We are becoming a nation of imbeciles.

thus far only 47% of us are that way....

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I will repeat this:

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.

*In 2011, approximately 6,220 homicides were committed with handguns. There are approximately 112 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 18,000.
--figures updated to 2011 statistis

 

[r1derbike]

Even with the stats showing buyback programs don't get thugs with weapons off the streets, take solace and comfort that the money paid for those junk guns comes from our own wallets, in tax revenue collected, from we, the people.

Lose-lose situation. Nothing like our government looking out for us, no?

I've got a better idea; declare war on gangs in our metropolitan areas, that should keep them busy as a 1st step, for a bit.

Enforce laws already on the books?

Oh, our government unwilling to address real problems and want to buy the world a coke and punish law-abiding citizens? What was I thinking?

I'm beginning to feel like an old shool UK whipping boy, where an innocent boy was beaten for the mischief of elitist/royal children. In this case, I'm being punished for murder and mayhem of insane criminals. Seems we have taken the ancient Brit concept to new lows.