Dallas police and churches have sponsored gun buyback programs in the past with relative success, paying from $50 to $200 per weapon surrendered.
"Folks can feel comfortable about bringing those guns in without going to the police station and feel threatened to be arrested," said Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway.
Caraway, speaking during a taping of Inside Texas Politics, said the goal is to get as many guns off the street as possible.
Commenters on both the Say Uncle site and the WFAA.com site he linked to were unanimously critical of the program, which I find surprising. Several people said the guns being turned into the so-called "buy-back" program are often not in working order, one person said 95%. I don't believe that. It was suggested that a program like this would encourage thieves to break into people's homes to steal their legally-owned guns in order to redeem them for the cash. Another idea was that the criminals use these programs to recycle their junk guns and upgrade them using the money.
What do you think? Why are legal gun owners so against a program like this? How does it hurt them?
The way I see it, the only problem here is it's only a drop in the bucket. The problem of gun availability is so vast that these few guns being removed is sadly inconsequential. But how about this for a motivation: let's say a junkie turns in his cheap gun for the $50 or $100 they offer, goes out and shoots dope till the money's gone. The next day he tries breaking into someone's house, gets busted and because he has no gun, goes to jail kicking and screaming. He's kicking and screaming because he knows he's going into withdrawals and will be kicking the dope that night. But no one got shot - not him, not the cop, not the homeowner, no one. Now, wouldn't that be worth it?
What's your opinion? Please let us know.
dunno about other gunnies, but i tend to sneer a little at gun "buy-backs" (as Uncle says, you can't buy back what you never bought to begin with) because i think they're useless wastes of time and money.
ReplyDeletethe people whose guns you really want to take away --- the criminals --- aren't going to surrender any guns they don't think they can easily do without, or think they're not better off without (ones that can be tied to murders, for instance). the guns you can get off the streets with such a program tend to belong to people who could safely be left armed.
meanwhile, these programs tend to use police officers' time and burn taxpayers' money (where's those $50-$200 per gun coming from? private donations? not usually) that could be much better used actually, y'know, fighting crime. it's a feel-good band-aid measure that won't make any real difference, except maybe for the worse.
it distracts and detracts from measures that might actually do some good, and leave citizens feeling upset when they participate in the buy-back but find they're still plagued by crime afterwards. to borrow another phrase from Uncle, it's "what you do instead of something".
First up HUGE congradualtions are in order, Mike. You got linked by Uncle.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2009/01/12/compensated-confiscation/
He's one of the bigtime gun bloggers this should do wonders for your readership if they don't get too frustrated by your stance on some of the issues.
Still I 100% agree with what Unc and Nomen said.
I'll first up take issue with your little scenario of a junkie selling a stolen gun then getting busted because now he's disarmed.
Let's say my Armory gets broken into (A tall order as I have multiple layers of securtity to protect against theft...but let's for-instance) I have several defensive handguns and long-guns that would likely fetch far better money on the street than any buyback...or earn lots more as tools for violence (Nothing that's the gun's fault, as in my hands it can defend against violence or theft) Still I have a bunch of old war relics and guns in oddbal caliburs, or guns that ammo is hard to come by for (I handload for those guns, or mail order military surplus ammo for others) now THOSE guns would have dubious use as a weapons, They would have minimal street value, and they are a potentially LONG jail sentence if the theif is caught with them. Now enter a gun buyback! With that the govenment pays cash or credit for guns, they supply imunity for the crime AND they fuck me in the ass by destroying my valuble collectors items that legally should be returned to me by the very police that are melting them down!
I know several cops who have worked buybacks, and have seen many a valuble antique get sent out for destruction. Also because of how many of the buyback laws are written there is no stipulation that guns can be taken aside to be returned to rightful owners, auctioned off for charity, or donated to museums (One cop told me of an origonal S&W Schofield that went into a smelter. Such a gun even in moderatly good condition would be worth more than many luxury cars, and given that is was a famous peice of Massachusetts history, it would be a wonderful museum peice. Now it is part of a manhole cover somewhere in Boston)
Now back to the cop and other stories. Most people having thier guns "Bought back" are simply elderly people or surviving relatives simply getting rid of guns they don't want or don't use anymore.
You've mumbled before about how maybe such people aren't idea gun owners (they aren't) but to consider them somehow part of any of the problems you're concerned with is nothing more than dubious conjecture.
Finally if these people want to have their guns "Bought Back" there are TONS of places that do JUST that. They're called "GUN SHOPS", and they do a REALLY neat thing. They pay fair market value (one news story told a tale of some soft-headed liberal having the city buy-back his hunting guns that he no-longer uses, and he mentioned he was going to use the cash to take his wife out to dinner. I commented that his wife wouldn't be very pleased with him if she found out that he had taken what would sell for over $3,000 in any gun shop and turned it into $200 cash) AND they don't pay with tax payer money.
Any stolen property will be returned to the rightful owners, and the ATF will be given leads on how to catch the criminal.
Also if a criminal is caught with a gun the police just take the gun as evedence, and often auction it off for cash to lawful citizens after the trial is over.
Win-win.
Govenment "Buy Backs" are nothing but a loosing proposition.
For further support I give you an article from an Anti-Gun paper in an Anti-Gun City from an Anti-Gun state citing a research study done by an Anti-Gun University in an Anti-Gun state about how Gun Buybacks achive nothing.
http://www.mcsm.org/buyback.html
Enjoy! And Congrats again on getting Uncle's attention!
cool.. congrats on the "uncle" link!
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteYou like common sense approaches so let's try this one.
Which is more likely
A.) Crook realizes the error of his/her ways and turns in a perfectly functional firearms, goes straight and leads a productive life
Or
B.) Crook realizes that he can turn in a junk gun that has been around, gets $200, gets high on drugs bought with our money, and like Lillo commits a crime to get more money for drugs - a crime in which some homeowner could be beaten with a baseball bat, tire iron, etc?
Another aspect of the "buy back" program is the fact the government is being complicit in covering up a crime. If a felon has a firearm, that is a crime, if the firearm has been stolen that is a crime, if the person is illegally carrying the firearm it is a crime.
How many times does it take for the government to say it is okay to commit crimes before people stop paying attention to any of the laws?
Listen, I'm not arguing with the obvious things you guys are saying. I know real criminals aren't going to give up their guns just because there's a program like this. And I realize some useless junk will get redeemed as well as some valuable antiques. What I'm saying is that some percentage of the transactions will be exactly what everybody wants. There are all kinds of possible scenarios besides the one I mentioned in the post. What about the guys who aren't hardened yet, who might want to give up the bad life? What about the family members who steal the illegal gun from the teenage criminal to turn it in and at least temporarily deprive him of the means of doing harm? I don't see where any of this hurts you guys.
ReplyDelete"Listen, I'm not arguing with the obvious things you guys are saying. I know real criminals aren't going to give up their guns just because there's a program like this. And I realize some useless junk will get redeemed as well as some valuable antiques."
ReplyDeleteI rest my case. Such programs are wastes of tax monies, and don't do ANYTHING that they claim.
end of story.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteHere is where it hurts us.
Have you noticed any of the trends in government actions lately?
You can get free needles to support your drug habit, but they want to "buy back" guns to reduce violence.
You can get government benefits like CHIPS (Childrens Health Insurance Plan) even if you make two times the poverty level, but you can't take a gun into a court house.
A single mom can get government funding for housing, but if she has a boyfriend, who might provide a positive role model to a child, stay there, she can get thrown out...she can also get thrown out if she has a firearm to protect herself.
Government has though the courts determined that teenagers have a right to privacy--parents don't have to be informed of their choice to get an abortion, but you don't have a right to privacy in deciding to carry a firearm?
Over at The Smallest Minority blog, there is a video that talks about the American government.
I took two things out of that video.
1. It is the governments only job to protect the rights of its citizens.
2. Governments should be classified as to how much freedom -- that dreaded liberty word -- it allows its citizens.
Now put that together with the trends pointed out and what do you get?
A government taking more and more control over people's lives.
"Buy back" programs like these a designed to disarm law abiding people, to send the message that it it not acceptable for them to use firearms to defend themselves.
Look at the phrasing always used in the news "If it saves just one life, it is worth all the money".
How about turning it around....why not distribute those firearms to the disadvantaged, let them defend themselves....wouldn't that save at least one life?
Wouldn't that be worth the price?
OK, for brevity I will ignore 999 of the reasons that gun buy backs are ill conceived ideas to begin with. You keep asking how this hurts gun owners. Here's one way:
ReplyDeleteThe whole idea supports the faulty logic that reducing the overall numbers of guns in the supply chain somehow reduces violence. One could write a book about this topic, but consider a few facts.
Before guns were even invented, civilized Europe had an average murder rate of over 50 per 100,000. Today that number ranges from 1 to 6 depending on the country.
The United Kingdom has essentially banned guns for all practical purposes and in that same time window their home invasion rate has increased to a ten fold multiple over that in the U.S.
Australia has also banned guns (in an effort to reduce the supply chain) and their violent crime rate has consistently risen. The Brady folks will tell you than "gun" crime has been reduced. What they do not tell you is that "crime" has increased. As of last monitoring, Australia had banned swords and is actually considering banning laser pointers.
Japan's suicide rate is twice that of the U.S. yet there are no guns.
Gun ownership in the U.S. has skyrocketed over the past 20 years, yet crime rates predictably fall year after year after year. I won't even talk about the history of Washington D.C.
This list can go on forever. The point is that objects in this equation are irrelevant and do not "cause" violence and crime. People cause violence and crime and people have done a pretty efficient job of hurting each other over the last few thousand years with or without guns. In fact, most of the hurting has been done without guns at all. By the way, did you know that more people were killed via sword and bayonet in World War II than the Atomic Bomb? It was about 250,000 Chinese killed by Japanese soldiers the old fashioned way - without guns.
So one of many answers to your question is that propagation of this type of thinking is actually quite dangerous. Removing guns from the street does not remove people's desire to hurt each other. This type of faulty logic leads to disarmament of law abiding citizens and we have seen time and time again that there is actually an increase in crime as a result.
The examples scenarios in this thread are entertaining to read and may make some people feel good, but the volume of actual data, as opposed to wishful suppositions, indicates that the buy back argument (reducing supply) is nonsensical. Politicians know good and well that the real fix is actually fighting crime, but that's hard and will not necessarily show results before the next election. However a gun buy back sounds great in the paper and can be launched in days. Wow, that's awesome!
I love the respectful discussion on this thread by the way, there is not enough of that on the internet. Keep the thoughts and opinions coming, I will be adding your blog to my read list!
Tom, Thanks very much for your comment. You said, "Removing guns from the street does not remove people's desire to hurt each other. This type of faulty logic leads to disarmament of law abiding citizens and we have seen time and time again that there is actually an increase in crime as a result."
ReplyDeleteI understand that the gun is a tool and as an inanimate object is neither good nor bad. I agree that removing this particular tool would not "remove people's desire to hurt each other." But what I don't agree with is that my logic is faulty. I say fewer guns means fewer problems, especially if the diminishment takes place in the criminal world. So-called gun buy back programs may accomplish exactly that. My problem with it is it's not enough. Now this is where we really disagree. The way to really diminish the numbers of guns among the bad guys is, I'm afraid to say it, to diminish all guns. The reason for that is the criminal guns today have their provenance in the legal sector. They were all legal when manufactured. They get into criminal hands in several ways, which we've discussed at length many times. It's what I call the "flow." That's what needs to be diminished.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe reason for that is the criminal guns today have their provenance in the legal sector. They were all legal when manufactured. They get into criminal hands in several ways, which we've discussed at length many times. It's what I call the "flow." That's what needs to be diminished.
The only way to prevent "legal" guns from moving to criminal hands is to ban the manufacture of guns.
So, is that your goal Mike, the total ban on manufacture, and use of firearms by everyone except criminals and the government?
If you do that, then you don't have positive outcomes to stories like this one: One Man Got Involved. The Perry Stephens/George Temple Incident (h/t to XavierThoughts)
And, guns might be gone, but crime still exists.
Can you show any country or city that has banned guns and has crime reduced?
Great timing - found this story through Second City Cop blog
ReplyDelete'Homemade' Weapon Found In Baggage Of Traveler
A Berwyn man was arrested Thursday after attempting to carry a loaded weapon onto an aircraft at O'Hare International Airport -- the second such arrest in as many days.
I wish there was a category for "Stupid crimes" instead of "gun crimes".
Here is the part that needs to be highlighted, the knowledge is out there and it is not difficult to implement:
Jefferson District police indicated that a loaded "homemade" firearm, which has no make or model but has the ability to fire, was found inside his bag. One bullet was in the chamber and another was outside the chamber of the gun when he was arrested Thursday afternoon, district police said.
So, ban all manufacture and sale of firearms....does that mean firearms go away? Not a chance in the world.
"Can you show any country or city that has banned guns and has crime reduced?"
ReplyDeleteThe exact question I'd ask. Or better yet, can you show me precident where parts of America that own lots of guns have higher problems than parts with low gun ownership.
It simply doesn't corrilate to the real-world, Mike.
I don't understand how you get beyond that....
"So, is that your goal Mike, the total ban on manufacture, and use of firearms by everyone except criminals and the government?"
ReplyDeleteNow, Bob, when did I ever say anything about "total?" I keep saying diminishment is the answer, which I grant you will require some nasty gun-control laws that you won't like. But I've never said total ban. In fact, I don't like the gun control fanatics any more than you do.
Bob, Thanks for the link to that Perry Stephens story. I commented over there that I loved the story and think Perry is a major hero.
ReplyDeleteYou keep trying to paint me as a "total ban" guy who hates anything to do with guns. I say it just ain't so.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteSorry to paint you as a total gun ban guy, but when you keep trying to "reduce the availability of guns" without providing any details you open yourself up to that charge.
The only way to reduce the number of firearms is to 1. ban them, 2. register what remains on the market, 3. Confiscate any firearms used in crimes, even stolen guns, 4 eventual use the registration to confiscate legally owned firearms.
Period, that is the only way to do it. I also provided another link showing even if that happens, home made firearms will be used. England proves it, Chicago, Washington D.C. Boston, Philly, and on and on.
Mexico has restrictive gun control laws, much like you advocate. Notice who is getting shot down there? The crooks aren't getting shot as much as the law abiding citizens. Remove legal firearm ownership and that is the result.
So, if you aren't a total ban guy, what do you propose?
(How about some concrete, practical ways to achieve your goal?)
"The only way to reduce the number of firearms is to 1. ban them, 2. register what remains on the market, 3. Confiscate any firearms used in crimes, even stolen guns, 4 eventual use the registration to confiscate legally owned firearms."
ReplyDeleteI don't know, Bob. I'm thinking of common sense gun laws, universally applied, with the scope of, not eventually confiscating your guns, but of reducing the number of guns in criminal hands by reducing the "flow." Maybe, before I'm able to conceive of a more detailed program to accomplish this, the Obama administration will just do it. That's what I'm hoping for.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou talk about common sense gun laws like there aren't already 20,000 gun laws on the books.
Come on, get off the fence. You've talked about needing to reduce the availability of guns, so let's hear it.
What makes a "common sense" gun law in your book?
What additional laws do you think will reduce that availability?
How will those law affect the law abiding gun owner who you say you still want to be able own firearms?
Let's hear some ideas instead of just generalities.
Bob said, "Come on, get off the fence. You've talked about needing to reduce the availability of guns, so let's hear it.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes a "common sense" gun law in your book?
What additional laws do you think will reduce that availability?"
It's not really a case of being on the fence. I simply wouldn't know what laws are needed to accomplish this. I'm learning though. One thing I've picked up is that there are already too many laws on the books, so it's not a question of needing more. I guess it's a question of needing better ones, maybe more consistent ones, better enforced ones.
I'm hoping the Obama administrations shows us by making some changes. But I'm not very optimistic. The good news is we'll probably continue to have plenty to discuss for a long time to come. Thanks for all your comments, Bob.
I didn't see any "junkies" in the news coverage, just misguided older minorities that are now helpless against their neighborhood thugs. 147 guns is just a drop in the bucket including one "sophisticated assault weapon" an ineffective huge handgun. I'll be in the parking lot next time with cash.
ReplyDelete