I said the number ranges from “hundreds of thousands” to millions. Yes, there is one guy who says it’s 80,000.
Nitpick.
Suicides are still deaths. Having a gun available makes a more impulsive suicide easier to accomplish and more likely to succeed. cite
And of those “millions of times” that guns saved lives how many were saved from other guns, in which case it appears to be a bit of a wash.
As far as the gun buy back program goes it appears that safeway and private donors are buying back the guns and the police are basically facilitators to help with the transition and destruction. So since no police money is going into this what is it that makes the guns government property?
I know things are generally more expensive in CA, but a recent, similar program in Oakland netted $200/gun for the owners. Or, at least, it was $200. Not sure if you could turn in more than one gun and get more than $200.
So your point about defensive gun use is still valid if the true number is 55,000? (That, by the way, is the actual low-end number from your own cite.)
No, I think if that’s the true number, is substantially devastates your point. Meaning that you’re not free to concede even your opponents’ estimates, as you tried to suggest.
As well put as it is sadly true.
I suppose there’s potential for arbitrage in either direction. You can buy a new gun for $200 in my neck of the woods, not to mention a better used one that the one you turned in.
Well, it would be sort of funny, in an ironic sort of way, if all the AZ guns ended up in Oakland.
The NRA hasn’t always been bullgooose loony, but if they are succesful in puttting a halt to this voluntary buyback program you can be sure that they will do it elsewhere in the future.
Really? What legitimate interest does the state have in ensuring my gun ends up in an auction instead of melted down and responsibly recycled?
They aren’t trying to put a halt to it. They’re trying to ensure that the guns are sold rather than melted down, in accordance with their interpretation of the law of that jurisdiction.
Fiscal prudence?
You are assuming, as I suggested upthread, that the only “responsible” thing to do with a gun is melt it down and recycle it. I don’t make that assumption. Selling it is also responsible.
We can drop this hijack. We’re never going to agree on a number, but it is a large one. As I already pointed out it’s a moot point anyway. Guns are here, they aren’t going away.
It would really be up to you to show there is a law that prohibits a person from doing that.
Otherwise I don’t see a reason to interfere with their business if they wish to recycle a piece of old scrap metal.
Okay, fair enough.
You can’t seriously think they actually believe the law requires the guns to be sold? They have well-paid lawyers.
Also, you can’t have it both ways. If the guns are all non-working junk, the NRA has no interest in having them sold, and if they’re not, then this is a perfectly good use of taxpayer money.
Aside from the legal issues, this is a public relations bit of idiocy for the NRA.
And if they win (which I doubt), it will be a Pyrrhic victory - laws that specify the police are free to destroy firearms they’ve paid for will probably be passed soon after.
All in all, the NRA is hitting themselves very hard in the face.
Let’s try this again.
I own a gun.
Do I have the right to sell that gun to a responsible party who agrees to destroy the gun in a safe way?
Of course I do. Why wouldn’t I? The law has been posted to the thread and it’s definitely debatable. It hinges on whether the guns were “abandoned” or “sold”.
If the guns being returned are all worthless junk, requiring that they be sold with put a spotlight on this fact.
Of course.
However you wouldn’t if the party you are selling the gun to is the government, and the laws of that state say that guns turned in must be sold rather than melted down.
Let me ask you a question: Why does the person selling/turning in the gun care what happens to it? They’ve handed it in. Whether it gets melted down or sold to a responsible owner, why would the person care?
Most likely not, although some people are.
But “above board” is a slippery term. Here are some cases I can think of:
[ol]
[li]Gun used in a crime[/li][li]Gun owned by felon[/li][li]Gun is per se contraband[/li][li]Gun is stolen[/li][/ol]
If the gun was used in a crime, or owned by a felon, there’s no reason for the NRA not to buy it, is there?
Actually, the “don’t destroy” law was just passed this year. “Destroy” was the status quo prior.