I am staggered by this logic. Criminals are better repositories for guns used in crimes than police stations?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I wish I could say that I’m staggered by your inability to grasp simple concepts, but in fact I find it nearly impossible to underestimate the general public’s inaptitude at rational thought, particularly in regard to any issue in which kneejerk emotional responses are the norm.
The point, again, is that from the standpoint of linking a weapon to use in a particular crime, it is much easier to obtain a credible and legitimate chain of evidence when said weapon is found in the possession of the suspected perpetrator, known associates of the suspect, or someone who can be tenably linked to the suspect. A weapon anonymously tossed in a bin, with no direct connection to person or people leading back to the crime in question, loses nearly all validity as evidence. Even if you can establish that the defendant had possession of the arm at some point, you are not able, without strong correlating evidence, to assert that he possessed it at the time of the crime, thereby leaving for the defense an enormous gaping hole of a claim. “Your Honor, the prosecution cannot tie the gun used in the crime to my client, who asserts that he lost the gun in a poker game with two pasty white rhythm & blues singers named Jake and Elwood. I move for immediate dismissal.”
Obviously, it would be much prefered by police–and everyone else with a vested interest in not getting shot during some ill-conceived illicit activity–that criminals not be equipped with firearms. Unfortunately, those of the villianous persuasion seem notably reluctant to divest themselves of the ability to do harm, disadvantaging them as it would. Gun buy-back programs offer no credible incentive to desperados to disarm themselves, save perhaps for the opportunity to eliminate evidence of a past crime.
Stranger
Reread it it and think about Stranger’s words from a legal (assuming he wasn’t talking out his fundament) and a common sensical POV; criminals will get guns. Period. By hook or by crook, the dedicated criminal will find a suitable firearm for his/her preferred mode of criminality. So buying his gun off of him isn’t really much of a speed bump in his criminal carreer.
If I understand Stranger correctly (and he is correct in his legal reasoning)Gun BuyBacks give a criminal a chance to not only dump a hot gun scotfree, but profit by it, too. Because the cops cannot establish chain-of-custody (chain-of-ownership?) on a turned in weapon, no crime could ever be prosecuted with it as evidence.
On the other hand, a criminal busted with a hot gun in his possession is on the hot seat, and will have to do some fancy plea bargaining to beat the murder rap associated with that gun from before he owned it.
I have reread it. I realize Stranger used the phrase “…from a procedural point of view”.
Stranger went on to add. “from a practicial point of view…”, yada yada yada, nothing of which contradicts the chain of custody “advantage” of the criminal possessing the gun. Since turn-in programs apparently have no practical advantage, yet there remains the procedural advantage for the criminal to keep a gun, I must conclude that Stranger believes that on balance the gun is better left on the hands of the criminal.
You may stuff and burn in effigy any strawmen that you like. Just do me the curtesy of not naming them after me.
Stranger
Stranger,
By barred member, do you mean someone who has been in a bar, or someone who is barred from being in a bar? 
I’ve never seen a backpedalling weasel before. This should be fun.
One of the most distracting arguments about gun violence is the one that ignores accidents and crimes of passion: only career criminals have guns and use them illegally. However, getting rid of dad’s old target pistol eliminates the possibility that
a) it gets waved around and discharged in an argument between husband and wife or
b) Junior gets ahold of it and discharges it against a sibling or playmate.
I concede that there is a huge PR payoff for gun buyback/surrender programs, but I take exception to the statement that they don’t increase safety/prevent violence.
That’s not what he said at all. He said that the gun collection circle jerk makes no real impact on crime, as hot guns are traded amongst the criminals by the millions every day. It’s a Politician’s Ploy to look like they’re actually addressing the crime problem effectively. They aren’t.
There a few things I think would work:
-
People need to store their guns in such a way that it would be extremely difficult to steal them. Five bucks says most of the guns used in crimes were stolen from a) under a mattress, or b) from an un- or inadequately-locked “trophy case” in full view of anyone who enters the room.
-
Our society needs to get past the notion that they “need” guns for protection. Most people who aren’t criminals DON’T need a gun for protection. For most people, the pitfalls outweigh the benefits.
-
For whatever reason, the gun control laws we have in place aren’t working. Fix the problem.
Vehemently disagree. I believe we need more guns amongst the citizenry, especially battle rifles. But it looks like we’re veering into GD territory, so I won’t elaborate.
I thought this was going to be about whether they test-fired the guns to make sure they were paying to get rid of an actual functioning firearm. A relative of mine went to one of these things and got rid of some guns that had been damaged in a fire. He said he didn’t think there was a single working gun in the whole place. Of course there must be a few, but I’d like to know what the percentage is.
I’ll cede the point that in providing a means and inducement for otherwise law-abiding people to dispose of firearms that they do not want and are unprepared to secure against accidental discharge or access by negligent parties they could prevent accidents or use in domestic disputes (assuming that the possessing parties are willing to participate in said surrender, of course–I question that most potential domestic violence enthusiasts are going to happily disarm themselves). One could make analogous claims, however, for a government-funded tire and brake replacement program to prevent mechanical car failures. Should we fund this as well?
It’s a question of cost versus benefit, and the prime benefit of buy-backs appears to be providing a platform from which a politician can talk about “getting guns off the streets” and “preventing violent crime”. The reality is a pile of mostly junk hardware at public expense. Is it good value for the dollar? Not in my accounting.
It depends on where you live and what you do. In my current life I have little concern about my physical safety at home, but in past times I’ve lived in places where the threat of armed violent conflict was real and immediate. I’ve never had to discharge a weapon in self-defense, but there’ve been a couple times when I’ve displayed one with the intent to use if pressed. The preferable thing to do in such a situation is to move elsewhere, but that’s not always a possibility.
And in any case, for many, shooting and hunting aren’t necessities but hobbies. Firearms aren’t toys, but if handled and stored responsibly, they aren’t the kind of ever-present danger that some would illustrate them to be. I know far many more people who’ve been injured with power tools, in car accidents, and on bicycles than have been injured by firearms (not counting “Garand thumb” injuries, of course).
Stranger
Hmm, if there were no tests involved and no questions asked- what would happne if you drooped of a very realistic replica handgun? 
I dont have a problem with the PD letting it’s guys root through the piles or even selling them off at auction- all depending on what the Public was told. If the public was told the guns were going to be melted down, then (barring some weird exeptions) they should be.
FWIW - The Monsters in the Morning (radio show in Orlando and on XM152) recently did a “Kicks for Guns” event. They said that the guns turned in would be checked to see if they were involved in past crimes or were stolen. If they were stolen, they would be returned to the rightful owner. I think that the rest were to be destroyed, but I don’t know. Anyway, this is what they said would happen.
The proliferation of forensic TV shows is causing so much trouble, as much as I like them, feel they need to be outlawed because bad guys are going free because the common man in juries is expecting the results the same as TV because we as common men are too stupid to live. We are the same stupid folks that think buybacks of firearms will be worth it in saved lives because we, as stupid people, think that one life is worth any cost. :: it just ain’t so :: Look around, almost everything is done on a cost benefit decision of one kind or another…
For the most part, technology that is not 100% despised by 100% of the worlds population can never be put back in the box. *:: guns are not going to go away :: *
The way to eliminate inequities, lack of funds, lack of opportunity, lack of knowledge, fear, etc. Is for:
100% mandatory teaching swimming to the worlds population.
100% mandatory teaching to respect, shoot, and store fire arms.
100% understanding that some people will always find a way to kill other people.
100% that not 100% of the people are worth keeping alive with 100% effort.
Me and mine are 100% willing to risk having loaded fire arms in our home regardless of possible temper fits and I am 100% sure that I want all other folks noses out of our business.
I am also 100% sure that even if you all get McD’s closed and outlawed, I will still be able to find a way to make me a great big juicy, greasy hamburger…
YMMV
That’s exactly what happened here during the last handgun buyback, and there were instances of people getting hundreds of dollars for replica handguns- which aren’t even restricted or subject to licensing in this state.
Out of curiousity how do the gun bybacks work in practice? I understand procedures will vary among jurisdictions, but but how does the “no questions asked” thing work?
So I want to drop off a gun, what happens? I walk into the station and then what goes on?
$200? I just paid $140 for a brand new Hi-Point 9mm Luger.
Hi-Point? You paid too much.
Which leads to a question I always have about this things - never mind replicas, what’s to stop me from simply buying the cheapest new gun I can find, taking it around to the police station and getting $200 for it? Why can’t I get an incredibly cheap Phoenix Arms piece of trash and get over twice what I paid for it?
From what I understand, nothing prevents one from doing this, and it has been done - a gun store locally sells used guns, some of them as low as $49 or so, and I personally know someone who bought one old .30-.30 for about $50 and turned it in for quite a bit more. He didn’t do any more than 1 because it felt unethical to him.
Moving to Great Debates. Gun questions and General Questions don’t seem compatible most of the time.
samclem