would you trade your guns for groceries ?

[Camp10]

I have friends, who are LEO's that are involved in these "buybacks", and this is a VERY common thing! Those guys feel sick about it, but they have no choice, but to take the gun....and destroy it.

I know this to be true as well. I have friends in law enforcement that have given the same horror stories.

[canid]

the most likely portion of that statement is the matter in contention. none of us know. my point, as stated was that even if it where demonstrated, it could still be amended by the practice of not destroying valuable weapons just to spite the world. on we seem to be on the same page about.

i still maintain my position that if you're dumb enough to turn in a legally owned firearm (or a responsibly but illegally owned one) for $50-100 in gift certificates, i'm personally glad you aren't armed, since i don't trust your judgement.

you could just as readily, as i've stated above sell it for cash at or near value, elderly woman or not. i want to meet this woman who has lived in this society for 50-100 years and doesn't know that there is a booming industry in the buying and selling of guns, and stores where this business is done thrive in almost every city in the nation.

it's a shame that this hypothetical woman who might have inherited posession of say, a responsible but law-dismissive husband who owned illegal weapons but comitted no other crime would have no recourse but to sell them through shady channels. so far; this is the only point i can't address fairly.

[2dumb2kwit]

the most likely portion of that statement is the matter in contention. none of us know. my point, as stated was that even if it where demonstrated, it could still be amended by the practice of not destroying valuable weapons just to spite the world. on we seem to be on the same page about.

i still maintain my position that if you're dumb enough to turn in a legally owned firearm (or a responsibly but illegally owned one) for $50-100 in gift certificates, i'm personally glad you aren't armed, since i don't trust your judgement.

you could just as readily, as i've stated above sell it for cash at or near value, elderly woman or not. i want to meet this woman who has lived in this society for 50-100 years and doesn't know that there is a booming industry in the buying and selling of guns, and stores where this business is done thrive in almost every city in the nation.

it's a shame that this hypothetical woman who might have inherited posession of say, a responsible but law-dismissive husband who owned illegal weapons but comitted no other crime would have no recourse but to sell them through shady channels. so far; this is the only point i can't address fairly.

I'm not speaking "hypothetically". I'm speaking of actual events. Also, in most states, these are LEGAL guns. And yes....some little old ladies have no idea of the value of a rifle, or where to sell it. They just hear on the news that the police will take it, and give them $50.

I guess we will just have to agree to dis-agree. I think these programs are a waste.

[canid]

there's no shame in that. i disagree with people i respect all the time. i'm trying to demonstrate that the problems arising here are not problems with the program, but actually point them out where they lay.

e.g. the problem with a person not knowing the value of their property is not one inherent in the gun exchange program, but in their lack of awareness. A direct solution would be - for example - to raise awareness that is is an economically foolish move for lawful owners of firearms, not pass the buck.

since this thread is about a gun turn-in in california, that is the one i'm speaking of.

[FVR]

I wonder how many of these guns were stolen from law abiding citizens?

[canid]

probably a significant number.

on the long list of things i don't know is whether the police are required to inform a person who has reported property stolen when it is recovered. i'm probably safe in guessing so, but i wouldn't mind finding out for sure.

[Justin Case]

probably a significant number.

on the long list of things i don't know is whether the police are required to inform a person who has reported property stolen when it is recovered. i'm probably safe in guessing so, but i wouldn't mind finding out for sure.

did you see post #16 ? I think there was a phone number ,,,,

[Camp10]

it's a shame that this hypothetical woman who might have inherited posession of say, a responsible but law-dismissive husband who owned illegal weapons but comitted no other crime would have no recourse but to sell them through shady channels. so far; this is the only point i can't address fairly.

I know the name of one of these "hypothetical" women. A lady gave me her husbands firearms when he passed because she didnt know what to do with them and was uncomfortable with them in her house. She was under the impression (wonder why?) that there are lots of hoops to jump through to own and sell guns. There are no such restrictions here or in PA for the guns involved. When I wrote her a check for $1500 she cried...she had no idea that they were an asset not a burden. She isnt dumb, isnt a shut in and her husband wasnt "law-dismissive".

[canid]

so she had the legal recourse to sell them and did so.

it's good of you to make sure she knew she had fair options, but that affirms my point. it would not have been food-4-less's responsibility nor that of the police department to make sure she knew that. it would be nice if they did so anyway, but that is a separate issue. you took the direct approach of informing her, and further facilitating the solution by buying them yourself.

the 'law-dismissive' example was a separate one, illustrating that even if she had been a different woman who's husband had chosen to own illegal firearms, or own firearms illegally she would still have had some recourse, but in that case less fairly so.

[BENESSE]

I'm with Canid on this.
Bottom line: It ought to be a personal responsibility to be informed. If you're not, you bear the consequences.

[2dumb2kwit]

I'm with Canid on this.
Bottom line: It ought to be a personal responsibility to be informed. If you're not, you bear the consequences.

I understand what Canid, and you, are saying. I'm just saying that the programs have flaws, that cause bad things to happen, and there is no evidence that they do any good.

So my point is, that they are shown to do bad things, but not shown to do good. Why would anyone support such a thing?

I agree with wanting less gun crime......but these buybacks don't help with that.

[BENESSE]

Less guns in the hands of the clueless is a good thing IMO.

[2dumb2kwit]

Also, around here, it is either state or fed. money involved. As such, it is part of the deal that the guns have to be destroyed.....period.

If they had an expert there, and guns of "historical significance" were saved, I would have no problem .....wait....scratch that. It's still a friggin' waste of money, that could be used to actually fight crime!

[2dumb2kwit]

Less guns in the hands of the clueless is a good thing IMO.

That could be said about so many things......why limit it to guns? LOL

[BENESSE]

It's really two separate issues 2D.
1. trading guns for something.
2. what happens to the guns later.

[BENESSE]

That could be said about so many things......why limit it to guns? LOL

They are not.
Smoking, alcohol, crap food, etc... (now go ahead and bite my head off.)

[2dumb2kwit]

It's really two separate issues 2D.
1. trading guns for something.
2. what happens to the guns later.

Yes.
1. Is wasteful, and does no good. (At least there is no evidence of doing any good.)
2. Breaks my heart!

[2dumb2kwit]

They are not.
Smoking, alcohol, crap food, etc... (now go ahead and bite my head off.)

Heck....I think people should have to pass test, get licensed, and show the financial resources needed, before they are allowed to have children.

[canid]

there are a couple of reasons.

firstly, and most importantly: i have no basis to conclude that they do no good. that it isn't statistically demonstrated to reduce crime is not the same as a conclusion that it does not. i don't understand how a person could fail to see the benefit of each unlawfully owned firearm collected.

while there are flaws; i have been trying to demonstrate that they aren't - or aren't entirely - inherent in the turn-in programs.

next: the program, as in the california example has promise extending further than the current effect. by refining it, i have no reason to believe it can't be made more effective. the prospect of reselling these firearms to the public through legitimate channels is one. the prospect of - at a cost of $50 - returning a stolen firearm to it's owner, while simultaneously removing it from the hands of either the thief, or a person who bought it unlawfully from the thief, if such a thing is being done or can readily be done is another. both practiced would have the effect of increasing the ration of firearms owned by the responsible public to firearms owned by criminals.

with all that said; i think i've communicated my position and i think i've understood yours and that's good enough for me. we're all grown-ups here (well, except maybe me ) so i'd just as soon let it rest there.

[BENESSE]

Heck....I think people should have to pass test, get licensed, and show the financial resources needed, before they are allowed to have children.

Preaching to the choir, 2D. I'm in violent agreement on that one. Don't get me started.