Would you buy firearm responsible for a death?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
19
When shopping for a used firearm, would you be deterred from purchasing if you knew the weapon had fired a bullet/slug/shot that killed someone? I know it is really not the gun that is responsible, but the user. I don't buy into superstition, but personally, still wouldn't want one. On the other hand, I'm sure there are individuals who would like to buy a weapon with that type of history. Just curious. What are your opinions?
 
Honestly, I don't see how that changes anything about it for anyone. Something like a knife I could understand, because that actually physically had that person's blood on it. But a gun? People buy surplus rifles all the time-many of them, especially WWII rifles, probably killed somebody at some point in time at the very least.
People are entitled to have their superstitions. And I am entitled to think their superstitions are...to put it nicely, misplaced. :)
 
Superstition? Wouldn't it be good luck? The previous owner used it and saved their life. If I owned a firearm that saved my life I wouldn't get rid of it!
 
Have you ever bought a used SKS or any surplus Military rifle chances you bought a killer gun............just saying
 
We've had this discussion several times before and the predominant response amounts to "Yes, it is just an object" or "What do you think all those milsurps are?".
 
Good point Smalls and Jeff. I suppose a suicide or murder might be different, but I don't think those firearms would be in circulation.
 
I suppose a suicide or murder might be different, but I don't think those firearms would be in circulation.

They are.

The shotgun used by a friend of mine to commit suicide was offered to me by his mother. Pistols used in crimes, including murder, are sometimes part of evidence property sales by LE departments and these are bought by winning FFL bidders who then put them out.

Don't worry about the duplication too much since it has been a while since the question was asked.
 
Don't care.

I may own a gun that has fired a shot that killed a person.

I may own a car that was used to run someone over.

Someone could have died in my house before I owned it.

Why would any of that matter to me? The house is perfectly liveable, the cars are driveable, and the guns are shootable. I really don't give a hoot about potentially morbid history of an inanimate object.
 
I suppose that owning Milsurps puts me into the "doesn't matter" camp, but actually; I'd rather not know the history behind a firearm other than that it is legitimate and not "hot" :fire:. I think that is a much more critical part of a guns history.
 
I have a lot of guns I bought used. A few are milsurps. I have no idea whether any had fired kill shots, but it is probable they did. yet I bought them anyway.
 
Personally, unless it was a type of gun I was already looking for, or interested in, no. But that goes for ANY gun I'm not looking for or interested in. Whether a gun has killed someone has no bearing on my choice to buy it, and owning several mil-surps, that's quite a good thing I figure.
 
My great uncle had an old S&W Triple Lock .44Spl that was used to kill a revenue agent in, IIRC, 1932. I'd love to have that gun.
 
I suppose it's along the lines of the realtor thinking they can't sell the "murder house" (ie - Marge Simpson).

Some people will be superstitious about it, some saying it's a bit of history, and others "so?"
 
I made a thread some time ago asking the same as the OP but in a broader sense, too lazy to search it out.

It seemed that thread came to concensus that buying a firearm responsible for murder/suicide/defense/genocide or anything else just comes down to the individual. The question of buying a gun is no different at it's core than the question of buying a house someone died in.

In fact I went in to that thread opinionated that I would shy away from guns with a history of blood and walked away from it opinionated that as long as the stains had been cleaned, it had been sanitized, and was legally free and clear I'd take one up for sure.
 
Hello friends and neighbors // Sure, why not give the gun an honorable home.

I picked up two .380s, a Bersa and Tangifolo(sp??) ,a few months back from the local PD for $150, no mags but still worth it to me. Cleaned um up and traded them to a local GS for something I really wanted.

Never even thought to ask what crimes the guns were asssociated with.
The crimes were commited by a person not the gun.
 
Last edited:
I have a bunch of Eastern European milsurps. Two Finnish Mosins, a Yugo Tokarev, a Bulgarian Makarov, a couple of CZ-82s, a Nagant revolver... Who knows what was done with those? I really don't think about it much.

I think if the gun had been responsible for the death of someone I knew, I might feel differently. I don't know.

The question of buying a gun is no different at it's core than the question of buying a house someone died in.

I grew up in a house that the builder had committed suicide in before my family bought it. We knew about it, but hadn't known the man personally and never really gave it much thought. Tragic things happen all over the place all the time. It's something to maybe reflect on from time to time, but I wouldn't let something like that affect the way I live my life.

Anybody ever shop at the Salvation Army? You know that you're often buying dead people's clothes, right?
 
Logical perspective: Guns don't kill people. Bad people kill people.
Emotional perspective: It was involved in a death.

I guess I have mixed thoughts on the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top