Quantcast
  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.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,499
    Location:
    Arkansas
    So what does gossamer think they do with the guns if they aren't destroying them?
     
  2. GKR333

    GKR333 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    5
    Location:
    Boondocks
    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
     
  3. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Seems like a waste of taxpayer $$ since gun shops. pawn shops, etc will generally pay more $ for working firearms.
     
  4. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Seriously? So how do you expect this evidence to be gathered when the guns are immediately destroyed to begin with?
     
  5. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    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.
     
  6. gossamer

    gossamer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    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.
     
  7. gossamer

    gossamer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    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.
     
  8. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,499
    Location:
    Arkansas
    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.
     
  9. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    I was thinking along these lines...just not at the time I was posting in this thread.
     
  10. gossamer

    gossamer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    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?
     
  11. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    And that is what we call circular logic.

    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?

    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.
     
  12. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,499
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Let's not forget the utter hypocrisy of it all. These are gun control types buying large numbers of firearms without background checks.
     
  13. rodinal220

    rodinal220 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,303
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  14. gossamer

    gossamer Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    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.


    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.


    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:


    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013
  15. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.
     
  16. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    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.
     
  17. silicosys4

    silicosys4 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    2,376
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013
  18. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    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. :(
     
  19. allaroundhunter

    allaroundhunter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,988
    Location:
    Southeast Texas
    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.
     
  20. Twiki357

    Twiki357 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    1,939
    Location:
    Prescott Valley, AZ
    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.
     
  21. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,274
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    I have a problem with it if they are using tax payer $ to do so. I'm not sure on that tho.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page