The Baltimore Sun
Even more than the total number of gun owners, the total number of households with guns is affected. Gun-righs fanatics love to claim the 80 million or so gun owners as their own, but nothing could be further from the truth. Most of them are either apathetic towards gun rights or actually in agreement with the gun control side of the argument.A line of cars snaked around the government office parking lot, down Bendix Road and for up to half a mile along Route 108 in the late morning and the afternoon, as people waited for hours to trade in guns to Howard County police for crisp $100 bills.
At the end of the day police had recovered 631 guns and at 2:30 had to start turning cars away, officials said. The last time they tried a similar effort in 1995, the total number of guns collected was three.
But even more importantly, the numbers are dwindling. There's the attrition of elderly gun owners dying off as well as the ever-more-popular gun buyback programs providing a safe place for people to rid themselves of their guns and join the ranks of non-gun owners.
The result: an ever more concentrated minority which becomes ever more strident in their protestations of reasonable limitations on their gun rights.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Given that these people are economic idiots, perhaps it's best that they don't have guns. They clearly don't know that a lot of guns are worth much more than $100.
ReplyDelete@Greg: You don't get it. Your love of your weaponry blinds you to their reasoning. They don't care about the monetary value of their guns or treasure them as you do in your fetish; they recognize that these are lethal to THEM and dangerous to have around, and dangerous to society, and thus should be destroyed. More and more are thinking this way, making you even more fringe.
ReplyDeleteOregonian, you don't get it. I realize that you've ignored the record gun sales in the last many years. That can't be comfortable for you to see. But here's another piece of information to scare you senseless--not too hard that: Gun manufacturers will make lots more for every gun turned in.
DeleteBaldr's right, Greg. The record gun sales only means that more guns are concentrated in the hands of fewer people. Think about yoursel and other gun owners you know. Do you own more guns than you did a year ago, or five years ago?
DeleteSure, Mike, We own more than we did. But we also know people who owned NO guns who now own guns. I know people who have gotten Citizenship or legal residence here, and then gotten their first guns. I know people who never owned guns who have bought them, up to and including "scary assault weapons."
DeleteBut then, since I'm not the media, I must be lying or imagining these new gun owners.
You guys KNOW that the avalanche of sales is not ONLY prior gun owners, but keep lying and claiming that. You just show everyone that you're a pathological liar who cannot be trusted in any capacity.
Here's the thing, Mikeb: I am one of those new gun owners. Five years ago, I went from being someone who had never owned a gun to owning a number. I went from never carrying a gun to someone who carries legally every day. I just got equipment to begin reloading ammunition.
DeleteUnderstand why that matters. I teach English composition and literature in college. I lean to the left on many issues. If someone like me takes up the cause of gun rights and arms himself, your side is likely losing.
You're right. There are many frightened and insecure men who succumb to the temptation of arming themselves like you did. I think there are more who are secure enough in themselves to realize how foolish a decision that is. So, don't flatter yourself into thinking you're representative of men in America.
DeleteI tell you what, how about waiting till you actually know me before you decide what my reasons were? Deal? See, you know squat about my reasons. I was a part of a writers' group that included a professor who wrote stories about Reconstruction era middle Tennessee. Because I'm fascinated by history, I wanted to try out the kind of firearms that people in that period were using.
DeleteBut here's another deal. How about you refrain from calling others frightened and insecure until you're standing in front of them? It takes a special kind of boldness to hide behind your computer and shout insults at people. Of course, regardless of the proximity, I take your comments for what they're worth.
What you don't get is that guns are legal, so what good is destroying them? They'll make more. If you destroy a perfectly good gun that could have found a good home with someone who wants it, that market demand ultimately gets filled with a new gun. The evil gun industry profits from that destruction, and passes that along to the NRA who then uses that money to influence politicians into opposing gun control. Isn't that how the narrative goes?
ReplyDeleteThe gun control freaks have something against antiques and vintage goods. Geez, don't let them around any Tiffany lamps...
DeleteIn response to the ridiculous notion spouted by TS,
Delete"What you don't get is that guns are legal"
No, they are not.
It is likely the case that such firearms that where submitted to the authorities for destruction, would be a Felony for you to possess. As it is likely that you are not qualified to own the few firearms that are still legal for a common civilian to possess, you cannot make the ridiculous assertion that "guns are legal".
Whether they're legally owned guns or not, the gun manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank and you guys are the real dupes.
DeleteAwww, Massa Mike feels sorry for us for being duped out of our money by people who sell us things we WANT to buy.
DeleteMassa know's better than we do! He's sooooo smart!
And clearly we're sooooo stupid because we think we want these guns, but massa says we've just been duped into buying something we don't really want deep down.
Let's see, who's the dupe here? How about the person who believes that with 300,000,000 guns in circulation in America and more on the way every day, gun control is even possible? How about the person who believes that what the plain text of the Constitution says doesn't really mean that? How about the guy who hardly ever expresses sympathy for good citizens, but feels a burst of emotion every time some thug gets shot?
DeleteIt is sad and pathetic to read some of these idiotic, thought-lacking posts and comments by mikeb. I kinda feel sorry for him.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Wow, TS and Greg, that's a pretty twisted logic. Let me rephrase your argument: "Guns shouldn't be turned in at gun buy-backs, instead of being sold, because some gun guy out there would instead buy a new gun, helping the evil gun industry." Right?
ReplyDeleteBecause used guns aren't otherwise easy to come by??
Since when do you guys care if the gun manufacturers profit from this?
And I'm sure all those guns that were turned in are in like-new condition, right, all worth $100?
No, on every count.
You just don't want firearms turned in because you lovezzz ur gunzzz.
Have your turn-ins if it makes you happy. But since they are a giant waste of money, make sure you don't use public funds. And you'd be better off auctioning them to FFLs and using the proceeds to help fund the next one. Why do you hatezzz the gunzzzz so much that you want to see them destroyed when it only helps the industry?
DeleteThe people who turn in guns do so because of these primary reasons, base on conversations I and others have had with them): someone in the home is unsafe around guns (children, dangerous family member), the weapon is unsafe for some reason (as in damaged), they inherited the gun and don't know how to use them (such as widows), or they have a newly-found revulsion for them (such as some who have recently been touched by gun violence in some way). The one commonality is that they all feel safer knowing the weapon is melted down than redistributed into society. The gift card is an impetus to them, but clearly not the main interest.
DeleteBaldr,
DeleteDon't forget the large number of us gun owners who have been taking advantage of these by storing POS guns not worth $100 dollars and turning them in for a profit that, just to be trollish, we plow into a better gun or more ammo.
Just look around on the internet. It's been happening for years.
Ok, they "feel" safer. Wouldn't they feel even more safe if they knew those guns got sold to responsible buyers with a background check, AND (here is the key) the proceeds went to fund more programs to easily help more people who have unwanted guns? I don't have any problem making it easy to get rid of unwanted guns, but when those guns are wanted by someone else, and they are needlessly being destroyed (wasting time, money, environmental resources), I just don't see the point. Especially when they'll just make more,
DeleteThanks, TS. You said it.
DeleteOregonian, until you grow a brain, don't try to rephrase me.
I'm curious. How does a government entity "buy-back" that which it never owned?
ReplyDeleteIt's a misnomer but we all know what it means. Do you want to point out how bad an expression "gun show loophole" is too?
DeleteIf necessary. In spite of your insistence, "we all know what it means" is not always true. Fuzzy definitions usually indicate either fuzzy thoughts or deliberate obfuscation. Vague is no friend of reasoned discussion of any sort. It's dangerous when that discussion is about civil liberty.
DeleteWow, Mike! When we fuss about the expression "gun show loophole" in the context of a discussion of background checks, you defend it and say we're diverting the discussion. But now, you admit that it's a POS misnomer!
DeleteWhat that shows is that your side KNOWS that you keep peddling in deceptive misnomers--Assault weapons, gun show loopholes, extended capacity (when applied to standard capacity magazines), etc.
You're a pack of pathological liars who cannot win unless you use deceptive terminology and deceptively titled bills.
What a pathetic bunch of imbeciles!