I think if they baptize the guns, they’ll be saved. Isn’t that how it works?
How so?
Of all the government waste, to spend even a moment worrying about this consequence of gun buybacks/destruction shows a massive lack of perspective.
Maybe there are reasons that buybacks and destruction make for poor policy, but loss of capital value in the destroyed guns is not one of them.
Perhaps the police should be selling the drugs they confiscate as well. Save some tax money and keep the demand down so less money flows into the coffers of the cartels.
I don’t think these programs do a lot of good, but I don’t think that pro-gun fanatics that push these programs know more about public safety than the police departments do. I don’t use the words pro-gun fanatics, or the words “gun fetishists” very often, since I am in the middle of the road with regards to gun control, but anti-buyback pushes are gun fetishism. More guns at any cost, everything else is secondary.
Some non felons who buy them completely legally will later use them in a crime (of passion for instance). Some people will obtain them in the black or grey market and then use them in a crime. And of course some law abiding people will obtain them and then have them stolen.
You are aware that if the guns are sold the transfer will be made using a licensed dealer with background checks and such, aren’t you? Therefor anyone that could buy one from the police could also go buy one at a store. If they’re planning on buying a gun what difference does it make if they buy it from a store or the cops?
Either way they end up [legally] owning a gun. This idea that selling the guns back to the public is the same as selling them to criminals is hogwash.
Rather than assuming that they were not going to be equivalent to gun store sales, I was assuming that as a given not even worth mentioning. If you’d like, insert the phrase “a law abiding consumer purchases the gun from the buyback program, and then…” before each one of my scenarios (really, it only applies to the grey and black market scenario.)
More guns out there means more opportunities for theft and crimes of passion. Not that I think that means less guns are better * per se*, but it seems pretty obvious that at least some of the guns that are resold will eventually make it into the hands of criminals. More guns than would have been the case had the guns simply been destroyed.
Now would this make up for the increased number of guns in the hands of the law abiding? I am not sure. What I am sure of is that buying guns only to just resell them is the height of silliness.
This seems to suggest that without the resale of buy back guns there would less guns in public which is nonsense. If Joe Sixpack plans on buying a gun he’s going to buy a gun whether he buys it from the local police or from Gander Mountain.
Your post seems to suggest that the buy-back resales would get people to buy guns when they otherwise wouldn’t, which is a ridiculous assumption.
The entire buy-back scam is B.S… If anything it rewards criminals by giving them a legal way of getting rid of contraband, giving them a legal means of dumping possible evidence, and, though unintentional, encouraging them to steal more guns to turn in, thus it’s actually working to arm criminals in that sense.
Because criminals are part of the public, not mutants who live on some isolated island somewhere. And because criminals can and do steal guns from other people.
You’re suggesting selling the buy back guns puts more guns in the hands of criminals.
Rubbish.
Once again, the resale of buy back guns does not increase the amount of guns in the public by a single one. It’s only a venue where someone who was already set on buying a gun can opt to go.
No, I’m pointing out that unless the guns are destroyed they end up right back in their hands where they came from.
Just out of curiosity, won’t guns sold from buy-backs be a lot cheaper than new guns, in much the same way that used or pawn shop guns would be? So in theory, aren’t you really making the guns more available to specific socioeconomic groups; i.e., those who can’t afford to buy a new gun?
That’s not say that someone who collects wouldn’t also buy from such sales if there happened to be something worthwhile, but my guess is that what they mostly get are ratty ass POS firearms, many of which can’t be resold as-is anyway.
Plus, and this is just a guess, I’d imagine that official sales of these things probably aren’t going to see the same sorts of markups as private used sales.
In the case of stolen guns that are turned in and then purchased by the original lawful owner, how is that a bad thing?
In my state, confiscated guns are sold at auction annually. They usually bring retail or higher prices which is crazy. I feel confident that is not a local phenomenon.
The public includes the criminals.
Many times what can happen is a large lot of guns are sold all at once and the agency takes bids from dealers. When that happens the guns end up in a dealershit and the prices are no different than those of any other used gun.
That’s not usually why people go to auctions - at least that’s not why I used to go, and I’ve gone to municipal, Treasury, GSA, postal and estate auctions.
Been to a firearm auction lately? .gov or otherwise? That’s why I don’t got to the annual DNR auction. I don’t need to pay retail for used guns that have sat in an evidence locker for months rusting away.
About equal to the presumption that these “buybacks” are taking guns out of the hands of criminals in the first place.
That’s exactly my point. I saw this back in the 70’s going to various govt auto auctions. You might get people to come for a while, but if it’s all noobs bidding up the prices, that dries up pretty quick.
Plus there’s the issue of how many of the guns they get are actually worth selling to begin with. I mean sure, you’re always going to the the occasional widow who doesn’t know what an old Mossberg is worth or something like that, but that’s the exception. And even of the one’s that are in working condition, if you don’t make some effort to clean them up, that has to affect their resale value, but that’s labor intensive.
Regardless though, that wasn’t really my primary point. What I was trying to say was that even if you assume that you’re turning these around at retail, that’s still retail for an average to sub-par used weapon and I would imagine those are precisely the type you don’t want floating around - for much the same reason you don’t want other cheap guns being readily available, unless of course that’s precisely what you want.
But in that case, what exactly is the point of a buy-back program? Maybe I have the wrong idea and I’m happy to admit that, but my impression is that you’re trading cash for guns to remove the guns from specific communities. However it seems reselling them, even at “retail,” tends to funnel them back from whence they came - more or less.