Should gun buybacks be banned?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Let's not forget the utter hypocrisy of it all. These are gun control types buying large numbers of firearms without background checks.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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. :(
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top