General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGuns from buy backs are resold by police departments
The person who turns in a gun can request to have it destroyed or have the police "use it as a credits to purchase a duty weapon or duty ammunition." Which appears to one a way of cloaking that they sell them back to the public and they aren't really being taken off the streets.
I see this as a con game by police.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lancero
(3,262 posts)Reason number I lost count a few thousand ago for why cops are corrupt.
SkeleTim1968
(83 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)Even drug dealers have to pay for the poison they sell into the community.
These guys get the guns for free and sell them back. What a racket.
Why that's all profit. What other business can come close to that profit margin, besides war profiteers like Haliburton?
It's called a "buy back." Police pay a nominal fee for these guns -- sometimes more than they are worth, but more often less.
The idea is to take them out of illegal circulation. Selling them to qualified owners with a background check accomplishes that.
For the most part, these are unwanted guns that have been stuffed in someone's sock drawer or the back of a closet. The owner might be deceased or otherwise absent, and the family members want to safely and legally dispose of the gun. Offering a financial incentive expedites this process, getting the gun out of a situation where it may be stolen or cause accidental injury or death.
brush
(61,033 posts)non-prosecution on warrants or fines.
OK, they might not get them free but it all still adds up to cops getting guns really cheaply.
But that's not even the most scandalous part of it. They're not destroying the guns, they're selling them back into the community and making money off them.
Most people thought they were doing good by getting guns off the street and destroying them to reduce the number of guns on the street.
Sort of hypocritical for police departments to complain that there are too many guns out there if they're selling the ones turned in right back into the community.
Straw Man
(6,936 posts)... why you think it's a problem that the gun somebody found stashed under the dumpster or in their deceased grandfather's sock drawer is now going to a law-abiding citizen who will pass a background check to own it.
Unless, of course, you think all guns are the spawn of Satan and that no civilian should be allowed to own any gun, ever.
brush
(61,033 posts)out on the street, it is nothing but hypocrisy to promise to get guns off the street through buy-back and amnesty programs, then to sell those very guns back onto the street.
That's a no-brainer.
You don't see that?
Straw Man
(6,936 posts)out on the street, it is nothing but hypocrisy to promise to get guns off the street through buy-back and amnesty programs, then to sell those very guns back onto the street.
That's a no-brainer.
You don't see that?
Whenever somebody says something is a "no-brainer," that characterization is usually truer than they realize.
When cops talk about too many guns "on the street," they are talking about guns being illegally carried by people who intend to use them for nefarious purposes. The cops aren't selling guns "back onto the street." They're selling them to law-abiding owners via background checks.
It's not brain surgery.
brush
(61,033 posts)as promised.
Straw Man
(6,936 posts)as promised.
OK -- here's your challenge. Find where they "promised" to destroy the guns. Then hire a lawyer and sue them.
Get back to us to let us know how it's going.
petronius
(26,695 posts)The only real benefit from 'buy backs' is the removal of a firearm from a place where it is unwanted and/or can't be stored properly. Once the gun is handed in, that benefit has fully accrued.
Firearms are worth money, and it's a very appropriate use of this resource to convert them into funds for public services. Destroying them provides no public benefit (and may even have a cost); firearms are fungible, and destroying the tiny number of them passing through buy-backs does nothing at all to deny a firearm to anyone who might want one...
SkeleTim1968
(83 posts)How is that good?
Police complain about all the guns and then exacerbate the problem?
No that is not exactly what should happen.
The police are deliberately conning the public or they would say we are selling them back to the general public to those who want guns is that ok? instead of framing it as "getting credits for fire arms and ammunition"
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)...is the removal of drugs from the hands of people we don't want to have them. Once the drugs are confiscated, that benefit has fully accrued.
Drugs are worth money, and it's a very appropriate use of this resource to convert them into funds for public services. Destroying them provides no public benefit (and may even have a cost); drugs are fungible, and destroying the small amount of them seized in busts does nothing at all to deny drugs to anyone who might want some.
Besides, haven't we all heard that cops can always get the best shit?
On edit: A reply to various respondents.
Wow, a really popular post. Got lots of responses. Not one responded to the central issue of the OP: that PD's are, at best, implying that all guns given into a buyback program will be taken permanently out of circulation, but are in fact, recycling them back out onto the streets. Maybe some of their promotions are so deceptive they're even legally actionable. I wouldn't know.
The drug thing was satire, which of course you knew. All of you guys have the same strategy: you look for some random thing in a post that you can criticize so you can throw some verbiage against the wall and when you get a response, it's lather, rinse, repeat. And you always have to have the last word, no matter how incoherent and irrelevant that last word is.
In your mind, that's winning. Good luck in bringing anyone else around to that point of view.
Straw Man
(6,936 posts)...is the removal of drugs from the hands of people we don't want to have them. Once the drugs are confiscated, that benefit has fully accrued.
... if you could make the case that the set of "people we don't want to have" street drugs doesn't include everyone, and if you could point out a few instances where government provides street drugs to qualified functionaries.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)Straw Man
(6,936 posts)Implying? I've never seen a buyback that promised they would do x, y, or z with the guns. People bring their guns to the buyback to get rid of them and get the gift card. People who get outraged over what police are going to do with the guns are generally people who don't own any guns in the first place. But if it irks you so much, perhaps you could retain an attorney and try to sue some police department over the operation of their buyback program. I'm sure that will be helpful to everyone.
Here's a hint: If you want your satire to be effective, your analogies should hold up. And before you accuse others of incoherence and irrelevance, you might want to address some of the actual criticisms of your "satire."
jmg257
(11,996 posts)The government and PDs have been selling guns for years.
The CMP is a source for numerous types of military arms ammo, and accessories. They even ave auctions now.
Many gun manufacturers are quite thrilled to take old guns in trade towards newer models from departments and police officers.
Think of how many guns NYPD has, State PDs, the FBI, etc, and what happens when they spec transferring to newer models.
Seriously doubt all those old ones are being melted away.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)about getting them off the streets, and not just after the $50 Walmart card, I could see they might be upset.
Choosing the "please destroy" option would be the smart move then.
I'll also reiterate my point, that gov't and PDs selling used guns, by the millions, is nothing new. And a good way of generating needed $$.
petronius
(26,695 posts)1) The purpose of gun 'buy-backs' is not to remove guns "from the hands of people we don't want to have them," it's to allow people who don't want them to get rid of them - the benefit is in the disposal opportunity, not the taking away.
2) The purpose of drug busts is not the "removal of drugs from the hands of people we don't want to have them," it's the catching of people engaged in criminal acts. (If police just took the drugs and moved on, drug busts would be pretty useless, right?)
3) Firearms are a legal commodity, with a vast legal marketplace. The purpose of buy-backs is not to disrupt that marketplace, nor is it to dry up the supply of firearms in general (cf point 1). A police department selling the turned-in guns does little/nothing to affect the legal marketplace or the general supply of firearms. And to the extent that buy-backs affect the illegal market, that effect has already been fully realized by the handing-in of the unwanted or poorly stored firearm.
So, destroying the turned-in firearms is simply throwing away a resource, and provides exactly zero public benefit...
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)This helps explain why there's 300 million guns in circulation in this country. Its fucking crazy.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)I'd offer for free to slice each gun in half with an acetylene torch before the owner took it to the buyback program with the meltdown option.
The sticky part would be to ensure each gun was unloaded first.
Straw Man
(6,936 posts)I'd offer for free to slice each gun in half with an acetylene torch before the owner took it to the buyback program with the meltdown option.
Are you also going to offer them the money that the buyback was going to, or are you going to hope that the buyback organizers are stupid enough to waste their money on a gun that has already been rendered inoperable, i.e. is not a threat to anyone?
You could take the NRA's Home Firearms Safety course. They will teach you how to safely unloaded most common types of firearms.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Do you think that would work for cars seized from drunks or drug smugglers?
Instead of selling the cars, crushing and recycling them?
Guns turned in at these events are almost always legal to own, buy, and sell. They are not machine guns, for example. They are unwanted, not illegal.
It's like burning a "satanic" album or book. The record label or publishing company simply makes another copy.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)likelihood of violence in homes possessing them by a factor of 3 or more? No, they do not, its a ridiculous comparison.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The guns being turned over are not inherently illegal. Guns are also fungible products. So, turning in and destroying an unwanted 9mm Glock pistol does not lessen the overall supply of them, as new ones are readily available, and there are a variety of similar guns available even if a particular model or type has been discontinued.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)firearms, specifically handguns, automatic rifles and semi-automatic rifles for sale to the public.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)They do not have the right to do this? If these guns are worth $5M, I would say this family is very passionate in the views.
From the OP, it sounds like they are going to have a very difficult time destroying these guns.
Maybe there is a need for an outlet for destroying inherited gun collections by people who want them taken out of circulation permanently and not just recycled to others.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Most people don't purchase from the police.
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)I think buy backs too.
Judi Lynn
(164,067 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Economists have studied various crime reduction methods and found gun buy backs to the be the absolute most inefficient means of reduce violent crime.
Why? First, they are so small in scale and the average gun is so unlikely to be used in a crime that you would need to be buck tens or hundreds of guns before you have statistically taken enough off the street to prevent one from being misused.
Second, criminals don't take their guns to buy backs, especially when most only give a fraction of the real value (most buy backs give only $50 or $100) and that is even less than the street value. A person who would misuse a gun isn't going to take a $50 gift card when they can get $500 cash for an illegal sale.
And gun buy backs rip a lot of poor, inner city people who have no clue what a gun is worth off by giving them a $50 gift card for a rare WWII pistol or rifle that was their grandfathers and is worth $500-5000 to collectors. The vast majority of the guns turned in are worth far, far more than the buy back pays them, but they prey on the ignorance people who are most likely to surrender the guns have about the value.
When I was a deputy we often had calls like "'my dad died and had guns and I just want them gone I don't know what to do with them" and every time we ended up looking at what they had and telling the caller that we could take them but that they were worth far more if they took them in to a reputable licensed gun dealer and sold them. Sometimes it was tens of thousands of dollars in expensive guns, I remember one time the guy had several trap shooting shotguns that were beautiful Italian made guns worth over $5000 each.
In reality gun buy backs are good for two things only. The main one is publicity stunts for politicians. The second is the "no questions asked no names taken" type give criminals a good way to get rid of guns that might have forensic links to crimes without risking it comes back to them.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Ive gone to two of them, traded in a rusty post gun that didnt work anyway.
Without the buyback I would have taken an oxy torch to it and threw it away, but If i can get 100 bucks for it, thats a great deal.
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)probably not
but the irony would be wonderful