jerkface11
Member
So what does gossamer think they do with the guns if they aren't destroying them?
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?
So what does gossamer think they do with the guns if they aren't destroying them?
Seriously? So how do you expect this evidence to be gathered when the guns are immediately destroyed to begin with?
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.
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.
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.
Given that these buybacks are being held mostly by non-governmental groups and/or specific cities:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
What about if they were used in murders or something though and the gun is the only piece of evidence on said individual?
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.