Thursday, March 27, 2014

Why do the Gun Nuts Hate Gun Buy Back Programs So Much?


The Natural Truth

 So Mayor Marty can say over and over again “we’re not looking for your grandpa’s shotgun from over the door,” but those are the guns he’s going to get. Everybody knows it. 

 Everybody knows there will be just as many shootings in the next 12 months with or without the “Piece for Peace” program. We’ll just be out $100,000.

In typical lying pro-gun form the authors of this article claim things that are false or that they could not possibly know.  The fact is gun buy back programs do not receive ONLY junk guns. And no one could possibly know that "there will be just as many shootings in the next 12 months."

The people who run these programs obviously believe they save lives.  I believe that.

27 comments:

  1. And if wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To borrow an idea from Reagan, it's not that you are ignorant, Mikeb. It's that so much of what you know isn't so. And it's not a buy back. The government didn't sell us or issue us our guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, and it's not a gun show loophole, but we know what's meant by these improperly named things, don't we Greg?

      Delete
    2. No, I like language to be precise.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, sure you do, except when you don't.

      Delete
  3. It's a voluntary program and a government should be able to buy guns from anyone. If the same person sold that gun to an individual, I doubt the pro gun people would object, in fact they would claim a violation of rights and be correct. Unless, of course, one can prove the government entity is a disqualified buyer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, that's interesting. If corporations can be persons, can governments? Given the many violations of the government over the years, that could make it into a prohibited person.

      Delete
    2. What violations? It's a voluntary program, I see nothing wrong with it. Explain what's wrong with this voluntary process and why can't a government entity buy guns like any individual.

      Delete
    3. There are thousands of things the government wastes our money on much worse and useless than this.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, work on your reading comprehension. You or someone else not willing to be named asked if government is a disqualified buyer. Given the number of crimes and violations of rights perpetrated by government, I'd say yes. This program isn't itself a violation. It is just a waste of money.

      Delete
    5. You still won't name those violations you accuse the government of, that would make them a disqualified buyer. Stop being insulting and move on. Are insults your only comeback every time you disagree with someone?

      Delete
  4. What is really fun to see is how people get the vapors when someone sets up near the "buy-back" and actually offers something close to market value for the guns.

    "Dozens of private buyers stood on the sidewalk under I-5 between First Hill and downtown offering stacks of cash for guns before the weapons are handed over to the police and melted down. One man who refused to give his name hoped something rare and valuable would turn up and that he could get his hands on it first."

    http://www.kplu.org/post/seattle-gun-buyback-event-attracts-private-buyers

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't know of any that object, but they are dismayed at the waste of public funds that at best do nothing, and at worst make it easy to destroy evidence in a crime. BTW, is Leland Yee the reincarnation of Big Tim Sullivan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, at best these programs save lives.

      Delete
  6. Mike - did you support the gun buyback program that one organization was using to sell old nonworking guns to the government and then using that money to buy new guns for their members? I can't remember all of the details, but I thought you were against that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't remember that either. What I do remember is that you guys love to pretend that buy back programs net only junk guns. That I dispute.

      Delete
    2. Really? We pretend that? Is that why we always talk about going to the locations of these and trying to buy and preserve the good guns?

      We note that a lot of the guns are junk because a lot of them are. You are the one taking our statement about a lot of the guns and generalizing it to cover all of them so that you can knock that strawman down.

      If you look at pro-gun-rights blogs you'll see plenty of statements about the occasional beautiful relic seen in the bins at these events, and see the celebration when you get a story like the cops who helped one old lady find a home in a museum for an old STG-44 that would have been destroyed if they had taken it in the "buy back."

      But go on and keep setting up that strawman. He's easier to knock down.

      Delete
  7. MikeB: "And no one could possibly know that "there will be just as many shootings in the next 12 months.""

    Because 12 months have never passed since one of these programs have taken place to test the theory...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, that's not why. The reason, I realize you're just breaking balls, but I'll say it anyway, the reason is that whatever number of shootings takes place in the 12 month period after a gun buy back there's no way to prove that it wouldn't have been more had it not been for the buy back program. I think it would. To me that's common sense.

      Delete
    2. No, Mike. That's an unprovable opinion that we can safely ignore in making policy decisions.

      Delete
    3. Though we can observe no change after a "buy back" program, and though we we can also observe no change compared to places that didn't institute this program- to you this means they prevented an increase in violence that would have happened otherwise.

      That's called "MikeB sense", not "common sense".

      Delete
    4. Mike, That's like one of us arguing that without the buyback, crime would have gone Down, but that it stayed level due to the removal of crime deterring guns. Totally unprovable and a worthless exercise in speculation.

      Delete
    5. As TS always points out when it's convenient for his argument, the buy back programs do not generate enough of a volume to make a discernible difference in crime rates. But, what I would guess is that for every buy back program, maybe one or two gun crimes are prevented. You tough-guys love to mock that old "if it saves one child" thing, but it is valid. The buy back hurts no one and does some small good in the world. Why do you hate it so much?

      Delete
    6. Again, your guess is just as good as if we guessed that every program disposes of one or two crime guns, leading to those crimes going unsolved, and allowing the criminals to continue committing more crimes.

      As to the notion that they hurt no one and why we oppose them, we see them as a waste of money that could be used to repair roads and bridges, to pay officers' salaries so that they could solve more crimes and punish the wrongdoers, etc.

      Delete
    7. That doesn't make much sense. The money spent on these programs is nothing compared to the overall budgets of these cities.

      I think the reason you hate these buy back programs so much is because they put the focus on your beloved fetish item and how its availability to unfit people is a big part of the problem. To you these programs are all about blaming the gun, and you can't stand that.

      Delete
    8. Actually, my reasons are just what I have stated--they're a waste of resources and a misdirection of focus from finding and punishing criminals.

      Do we really want to get into a game of saying what the other's motivation REALLY is deep down inside rather than merely going off what each other say? It's not very productive, and such a discussion isn't helpful or productive in the least.

      Delete
    9. And as I pointed out, your reasons don't add up. The "resources and focus" are insignificant compared to the overall "resources and focus" of the municipalities that do this. So, your adamant objections must come from something else.

      Delete