You guys realize that police departments auction off seized property, such as vehicles and real estate, right? They don’t auction drugs because possession of them is illegal. If it were not, you’re absolutely right that drugs in police custody should be auctioned (of course, without drugs being illegal there wouldn’t be cause to seize any).
Firearms, like vehicles and real estate, are not illegal.
Clearly firearms are legal, but so are drugs when properly used. Heroin can be processed into medical morphine, cocaine has medical uses, painkillers are legitimate drugs that could be resold or donated to clinics or hospitals, marijauna has legal medical markets in several states - and casual use is legal in two.
LSD, ecstasy and their ilk - not so much, but there is theoretical value in many drugs that are being destroyed - just as with firearms.
Even assuming this is true, that doesn’t mean you’d want to use any old rubbish as feedstock.
The real issue here isn’t even about guns. It’s about responsible and appropriate (or otherwise) use of the people’s wealth.
Government has an obligation to make efficient and responsible use of the resources and power which it takes from the people.
To use taxpayer funds to buy up valuable items of property, and then to merely destroy this property*, is an extremely wasteful, irresponsible, and inefficient use of the resources with which they are entrusted. In any commercial setting, an executive who was responsible for engaging in such a practice with his employer’s money would certainly be fired at the very least, if not charged criminally for fraud and malfeasance.
And anyway, who wouldn’t prefer having lovingly handcrafted, artisanal smack. 
Sure, it might not work (but chemical purification is pretty well established). It could just be unsalable rubbish, but so is that rusted old handgun from the shoebox mentioned above (unless it turns out to be a rare collectible).
No! Did you even bother to freaking read it? That poll covered several issues.
Every single poll I’ve seen in the last 20+ years shows this is completely opposite to the majority of law enforcement officers viewpoints.
If you ran a clinic, and the police stopped by with a box of assorted seized painkillers, would it be more trouble than it’s worth to test the pills for purity, as opposed to buying your pills from traditional sources? I’ve no idea. Also, as far as I know, medical uses for cocaine are limited to a handful of procedures, the supply of seized cocaine would greatly outstrip demand.
Assessing the safety of a firearm is something a dealer can do by eye, with a couple simple tools (a headspace gauge and a throat erosion gauge).
Purification of virtually any seized chemical contraband to the point of it being usable as legitimate medicine, taking into account best practices of the pharmaceutical industry and ordinary risk aversion to lawsuits, would be virtually impossible to do in a cost-effective way.
On the other hand, if the rusted old gun is of no value, then it will sell for little or no money. No harm done. (And ensuring that a gun is safe to operate is not remotely in the same ballpark, difficulty-wise, as purification of virtually any seized chemical contraband to the point of it being usable as legitimate medicine.
From an economics point of view, the buy back programs make sense. The cost of fighting crime, incarceration, processing, is tremendously larger than buying back hundreds of guns for pennies on the dollar. What these programs do is eliminate inventory from the low-cost gun market, thereby raising prices for other better maintained guns. Higher gun market prices is always a good thing, as the vast majority of violent criminals are in the lower social strata. The truth of the matter is that fewer and fewer people are gun owners, and that is a good thing as crime has been coming down because of it.
Not at all. In fact, crime has been coming down because of the prayer program I started in 1992.
Um… you first, if you’re going to ask for a cite. Post hoc, ergo propter prayer.
Lol, question ten on that survey: Would requiring mental health background checks on prospective buyers in all gun sales from federally-licensed dealers reduce instances of mass shooting incidents?. “No” came up as the most preferred choice at 45%. Either the survey was conducted by a website that attracts “not so smart people” (the most likely explanation), or police officers as a whole are pretty dumb.
Another interesting article about gun violence:
Originally Posted by pkbites
Show me significant data that indicates a majority of law enforcement officers oppose law abiding citizens from obtain a firearm in a lawful manner.
WTF? Did you read your own cite? You are aware that your cite proves my point. What you linked to is a summary of the poll I already posted and it shows that a majority of law enforcement officers support law abiding citizens being legally armed:
*And when it comes to finding ways to reduce gun violence and large scale shootings, most cops say a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” isn’t the answer. More than 91 percent of respondents say it would either have no effect or a negative effect in reducing violent crime. This is an overwhelming response by those whose job it is to actually deal with this issue on the front lines.
*More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.
*A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).
*More than 81 percent of respondents were in favor of arming teachers and school administrators if they were properly trained and vetted or at least proficient.
*In addition, the survey asked, “On a scale of one to five — one being low and five being high — how important do you think legally-armed citizens are to reducing crime rates overall?” Three quarters of you (75 percent) answered either four or five, with more than 50 percent answering five.
If your goal was to prove my point, thank you!
I don’t get it. Where’s the funny?
Two data points of one each.
I used to look like I just did something I shouldn’t. So I got stopped a lot. I have asked over 100 LEO’s of all stripes about concealed carry. Not one was against it. Some were ‘liked them armed’ to ‘does not bother me at all.’
I have seen many pictures of the guns in buyback deals. Very few AR15’s, AK’s etc., Lots of .22’s rifles, lots & lots of shotguns and a small number of handguns. 10% or so of them are modern, the rest are cowboy single action weapons or the type hardly ever used in a criminal act, & 10% of that 10% are anywhere near the type of weapon that is shown in the news as the criminals gun.
IMO, the # of weapons stolen each year and the % of those that trace back to being reported in a robbery is very small, I mean really small.
I hear all about filing off the serial #'s. Why would they worry about that if it was stolen in DC and used in Georgia?
Now really look at the ones caught that are committing crimes with a weapon. Not just what the media shows, but all of them.
Armed with this knowledge, I can only say that buybacks are plum silly.
My 2¢
It’s funny when unintelligent people say unintelligent things on surveys.
Apt.
Then perhaps police departments should sell drugs they confiscate – not at auction, but to pharmaceutical companies.