Gun Buybacks: Has there ever been a stupider idea?

[Puppycow]

I'm amazed that something this stupid could be contemplated, let alone carried out (http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/02/gun-buyback-mis.html)
Oakland's recent gun buyback was especially ridiculous. The police offered up to $250 for a gun "no questions asked, no ID required." The first people in line? Two gun dealers from Reno with 60 cheap handguns. Fortunately the buyback did manage to get some guns off the street, too bad they were turned in by a bunch of senior citizens from an assisted living facility. Whew, the streets are safe at last.

Say you had an old crappy gun worth less than $250 and wanted to upgrade. Just sell your old gun to the police and use the money to go buy a new gun.

Duhhh! :mad:

They should make a law against stupidity, and then the Oakland police would have to arrest themselves.

[Zep]

In a country where guns are so plentiful (more guns than people in the USA, so I understand), this is a highly probably outcome. In a country where guns are far less plentiful, it has worked.

Perhaps what they should have offered was twice the purchase price of the gun, one per person only, provided they registered on a list of prior-gun-owners. People on that list could then also qualify for all sorts of tax-breaks, lower driver license fees, lower county fees, etc, etc. But if they still owned or bought a gun, they would not receive those benefits. That is, create a financial incentive (prejudice) in favour of non-gun-owners. Money talks... (And yeah, I'm sure people will find something bad about this!)

[Puppycow]

In a country where guns are so plentiful (more guns than people in the USA, so I understand), this is a highly probably outcome. In a country where guns are far less plentiful, it has worked.

Perhaps what they should have offered was twice the purchase price of the gun, one per person only, provided they registered on a list of prior-gun-owners. People on that list could then also qualify for all sorts of tax-breaks, lower driver license fees, lower county fees, etc, etc. But if they still owned or bought a gun, they would not receive those benefits. That is, create a financial incentive (prejudice) in favour of non-gun-owners. Money talks... (And yeah, I'm sure people will find something bad about this!)

So if you never owned a gun in the first place, you would have an incentive to go out and buy the most expensive gun there is and then sell it for twice the purchase price. Gun makers would love that. They would jack up the price of their guns, but they could actually be made cheaper because the only function is to be resold at a profit. Just make the RESELL SPECIAL, a piece of crap gun that costs $5,000 (or more if there's really no limit) and people would want to buy that gun to resell it.

[ServiceSoon]

Your socialist tax dollars at work.

[WildCat]

Why didn't anyone tell me! I have a single-shot 20 ga. shotgun I bought for $7...

[JWideman]

The first time it happened, it was a surprise only to those who didn't think it through. After it happens so many times, one can no longer claim surprise.

[Zep]

So if you never owned a gun in the first place, you would have an incentive to go out and buy the most expensive gun there is and then sell it for twice the purchase price. Gun makers would love that. They would jack up the price of their guns, but they could actually be made cheaper because the only function is to be resold at a profit. Just make the RESELL SPECIAL, a piece of crap gun that costs $5,000 (or more if there's really no limit) and people would want to buy that gun to resell it.Erm, no. You would need to show you owned it BEFORE the buy-back... Please be more realistic.

[Zep]

Why didn't anyone tell me! I have a single-shot 20 ga. shotgun I bought for $7...You a registered shooter? Is it a registered weapon? Safely stored? Got no reason to surrender it? Yes?

What's your problem?

[Zep]

Your socialist tax dollars at work.What a hoot! The most conservative PM of Australia in the last 50 years, the one who used to lick Shrub's arse so much he disappeared up there, was the initiator of our Australian gun buy-back scheme in 1996. So...our neocon tax dollars at work.

Of course, there's plenty of room for argument as to whether the scheme created any good as a result!

[Hamradioguy]

Most of the gun buyback programs with which I am familiar are "no questions asked-no ID required". That means no one will ask if it's really yours or how you came by it or what you paid for it. (Some of the newer buyback programs may require the serial number be run through the NCIC to make sure it wasn't reported stolen....but bear in mind that older firearms didn't have serial numbers.) And yes, while they may have gotten a few firearms off the street, a lot of the buyback guns were worth far less than what was paid for them, or were non-functioning or antiques that "my late grandfather kept in his closet", or all of these. No self respecting "perp" would turn in his Glock or AK47, so at great taxpayer expense local officials ended up with a lot of cheap non-functioning firearms or old Spanish American War collectibles, all of which ended up getting melted down. A bad guy could turn in a worthless junker and take his $250 to the local pawn shop and purchase something much nicer.

Yep, a really stupid idea. But if you don't know the details, it can make a local politician look pretty good at election time: "I took 200 guns off our city streets with my program."

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You a registered shooter? Is it a registered weapon? Safely stored? Got no reason to surrender it? Yes?

What's your problem?

His problem is that he could have turned a $7 investment into $250. :mgbanghead

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What a hoot! So...our neocon tax dollars at work.

Were you unaware that the Neo-cons were socialist?

[gtc]

What a hoot! The most conservative PM of Australia in the last 50 years, the one who used to lick Shrub's arse so much he disappeared up there, was the initiator of our Australian gun buy-back scheme in 1996. So...our neocon tax dollars at work.

Of course, there's plenty of room for argument as to whether the scheme created any good as a result!

True. Buybacks do seem to be a bit difficult to design and there were a few cases of abuse in Australia too.

I suspect that the incentives to cheat the buyback are so strong (i.e. its free money if you succeed) that no system is going to be fool proof.

[Zep]

Good point.

When they did it here, it was in conjunction with a significant hardening of the gun-ownership laws. So the "trade up" route didn't really happen to any great degree. Certainly there was indeed some blow-back from legit owners, and of course the perps didn't show up in their Hamburglar-masks to hand in their hardware. And a few bad PR exercises too, especially for museum quality pieces that "qualified" as newly illegal.

But it did mean that there were indeed fewer nasty/faulty/unreliable weapons "just lying around the house". And to own a now-forbidden weapon (fully autos) without a legitimate reason became a serious crime in itself.

[Zep]

Were you unaware that the Neo-cons were socialist?Net here they were not. That box you are thinking in is a wee bit small, Jerome! ;)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Net here they were not. That box you are thinking in is a wee bit small, Jerome! ;)

Where is here?

[Zep]

His problem is that he could have turned a $7 investment into $250. :mgbangheadOnly once. Plus he is down one antique, family-heirloom gun. I'm not entirely pro-gun, but I would register and keep something like that if I had it.

[Zep]

Where is here?Not where you are! Do some research, sir! I'm not hiding, but the exercise will do your brain-cells some good. ;)

[gtc]

When they did it here, it was in conjunction with a significant hardening of the gun-ownership laws. So the "trade up" route didn't really happen to any great degree. Certainly there was indeed some blow-back from legit owners, and of course the perps didn't show up in their Hamburglar-masks to hand in their hardware. And a few bad PR exercises too, especially for museum quality pieces that "qualified" as newly illegal.

But it did mean that there were indeed fewer nasty/faulty/unreliable weapons "just lying around the house". And to own a now-forbidden weapon (fully autos) without a legitimate reason became a serious crime in itself.

I think it worked too. Anecdotal evidence comes from the way that criminals have started to try to steal the guns of security guards.

It seems that criminals have three options when opportunities for crime are reduced (such as when there are fewer guns in private hands). Some will give up crime, but those who remain will be forced to go after harder or less lucrative targets.

It is like the way that when robbing banks became harder people switched to robbing convenience stores.

[gtc]

Net here they were not. That box you are thinking in is a wee bit small, Jerome! ;)

No, no socialism here. Its not like the current leader of the Opposition once headed a trade union dedicated to fixing wages and restricting competition.

Remember, its only bad socialism if you lack a University degree.

[Puppycow]

Erm, no. You would need to show you owned it BEFORE the buy-back... Please be more realistic.

Erm, no. You please be more realistic. You can't very well pass a law in secret, can you? Any way you design this, if you reward people for selling their guns, it creates an extra incentive for somebody to buy a gun in hopes of another buyback in the future. You can think of the gun as an investment, but one you can use in the meantime (because there are still the normal reasons why people arm themselves).

[quixotecoyote]

Erm, no. You please be more realistic. You can't very well pass a law in secret, can you? Any way you design this, if you reward people for selling their guns, it creates an extra incentive for somebody to buy a gun in hopes of another buyback in the future. You can think of the gun as an investment, but one you can use in the meantime (because there are still the normal reasons why people arm themselves).


If Zep is proposing a hypothetical piece of legislation to reward people for selling guns, it's completely consistent for that legislation to require proof the gun was purchased before the time when the legislation was first discussed. Of course, that removes most of its ability to buyback illegal guns, but you were objecting to the wrong thing. :p

[Puppycow]

If Zep is proposing a hypothetical piece of legislation to reward people for selling guns, it's completely consistent for that legislation to require proof the gun was purchased before the time when the legislation was first discussed. Of course, that removes most of its ability to buyback illegal guns, but you were objecting to the wrong thing. :p

Maybe it makes slightly more sense in conjuction with a new restriction on guns, although I don't agree with rewarding gun owners with public money. The gun should be appraised and a fair price paid, no more.

But this was not the case in Oakland.

[Zep]

No, no socialism here. Its not like the current leader of the Opposition once headed a trade union dedicated to fixing wages and restricting competition.

Remember, its only bad socialism if you lack a University degree.AND! Wear that diamond ear-ring with the Bulgari suit! ;)

[Zep]

Maybe it makes slightly more sense in conjuction with a new restriction on guns, although I don't agree with rewarding gun owners with public money. The gun should be appraised and a fair price paid, no more.

But this was not the case in Oakland.You may be right there. Certainly here the legislation was no secret at all. In fact, quite the opposite, following as a direct result of and hard on the heels of Martin Bryant's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_bryant) little escapade with a pair of legal semi-automatic assault weapons. That one made the headlines in a number of places...;)

[Zep]

How things stand here down under. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia)

[Autolite]

Yep, a really stupid idea. But if you don't know the details, it can make a local politician look pretty good at election time: "I took 200 guns off our city streets with my program."

Why is the buy back a "stupid idea"? It did exactly what it was suppose to do. Criminals aren't going to turn in their weapons so a buy back is initiated to create the illusion that some politician is proactive about public safety. The politician looks good, folks are happy. Mission accomplished...

[Damien Evans]

Were you unaware that the Neo-cons were socialist?

Not in Australia they're not.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Not in Australia they're not.

Interesting. When was the term first used in Australia? Who are some Australian leaders of the Neo-cons?

[Damien Evans]

AND! Wear that diamond ear-ring with the Bulgari suit! ;)

And have an approval rating of 7%! WooHoo!:D

[gtc]

Interesting. When was the term first used in Australia? Who are some Australian leaders of the Neo-cons?

John Howard was the Prime Minister and closely aligned with many in the American Neo-Conservative movement. He was more of a traditional social conservative and may have become aligned with the Neo-Cons mainly because they were dominant in America.

Peter Costello the Treasurer was more of the privatise and deregulate school of thought.

Neo-Con is usually used to refer to the American Neo-Cons or to those Aussies who support their policies. There are few who would have come out of socialism (and I suspect too much is made of that connection in the US).

[JEROME DA GNOME]

John Howard was the Prime Minister and closely aligned with many in the American Neo-Conservative movement. He was more of a traditional social conservative and may have become aligned with the Neo-Cons mainly because they were dominant in America.

Peter Costello the Treasurer was more of the privatise and deregulate school of thought.

Neo-Con is usually used to refer to the American Neo-Cons or to those Aussies who support their policies. There are few who would have come out of socialism (and I suspect too much is made of that connection in the US).

Thanks for the information.

[WildCat]

You a registered shooter?
No such thing in Illinois. I do have an FOID card though, allowing me to buy guns and ammo.

Is it a registered weapon?
No such thing in Illinois.

Safely stored?
Yep, don't even have ammo for it.

Got no reason to surrender it? Yes?
Are you answering your question for me now?

What's your problem?
I wanted $250!

[Bikewer]

We've had a couple of these buy-back efforts locally over the years. One resulted in a TV news story where they panned a table-full of the most godawful junkers you ever saw. Some were not even firearms; obviously someone in the program was unable to recognize a pellet gun....
The police department made some vague comment about getting "potentially dangerous" weapons off the street; most of these looked like they would be more dangerous to the shooter...
I believe that a couple of weapons that had been reported stolen were recovered.

[Crossbow]

Some years ago I saw a news report on a buy back plan where some fellow used the money he collected from getting rid of some pistol that was about 30 years old in order to buy a brand new AR-15 in order to defend himself from potential "government tyranny".

The minister who worked so hard to the program implemented was greatly concerned about the ethics of selling one gun in order to buy another gun because the goal of the program was to provide a net reduction in the number of guns in circulation.

However, the rules stated, no ID required, no questions asked, and cash provided, thus he soon got his money and the next stop was the gun store.

I have often wondered if gun thieves take advantage of these plans in order to quickly and safely sell their ill gotten gains.

[Darth Rotor]

I have often wondered if gun thieves take advantage of these plans in order to quickly and safely sell their ill gotten gains.

I'd bet the over on that. FWIW, I think that you could look up burglary/gun theft stats between day of policy announcement and final buy back, and come up with a possible correlation. IIRC, Boston had one of those a few years back, might be readily available on line.

DR

[Soapy Sam]

I heard Al Qaeda have turned in all their pre 1990 stock and used the profits to buy more Halliburton stock.

[nzric]

I heard Al Qaeda have turned in all their pre 1990 stock and used the profits to buy more Halliburton stock.

I wonder how much they'd get for a "slightly used" bomb belt?

[Drudgewire]

Someone let me know the next time one of these happens. I'll buy out every local dealers' supply of Hi-Points and build up a REAL firearm budget. :cool:

[slingblade]

Then how about Guns for Services?

You don't get cash. You get a few month's free rent, or mortgage payment, or 6 months of groceries, or utility bills paid....

Something one can definitely use, but that can't be turned around and spent on other, not-so-useful things.

I'm not saying the idea itself is viable in the first place, but offering services instead of cash seems to me more reasonable.

Anyway, it's just a thought.

[Puppycow]

Then how about Guns for Services?

You don't get cash. You get a few month's free rent, or mortgage payment, or 6 months of groceries, or utility bills paid....

Something one can definitely use, but that can't be turned around and spent on other, not-so-useful things.

I'm not saying the idea itself is viable in the first place, but offering services instead of cash seems to me more reasonable.

Anyway, it's just a thought.

Well the examples you gave are essentially cash-equivalents. Someone pays your rent, utilities or groceries, and you save cash, which can then be used to buy anything. If would have to be something you wouldn't otherwise spend money on. The main point is that a thug isn't going to sell his gun except at a profit, in which case he will use his profit to buy a new gun or the same gun and keep the difference, or steal another gun, or maybe he already has other guns. It will mostly be people selling old, crappy or broken guns for more than they are worth. Also gun dealers and pawn shop owners can use it as a way to sell substandard or broken weapons for a profit at taxpayer expense.

[Mobyseven]

The way that gun buyback was organised was a tad stupid, yes.

However, other gun buybacks have been extremely successful. Just because this one was no more than a political stunt doesn't mean that all gun buybacks are necessarily political stunts.

[ServiceSoon]

If they had one of these in my town I would offer an additional $50 and sponsor a gun buy back myself :)
The way that gun buyback was organised was a tad stupid, yes.

However, other gun buybacks have been extremely successful. Just because this one was no more than a political stunt doesn't mean that all gun buybacks are necessarily political stunts.Unless you can prove they aren't a political stunt, I am going to continue to think that they are.

What a hoot! The most conservative PM of Australia in the last 50 years, the one who used to lick Shrub's arse so much he disappeared up there, was the initiator of our Australian gun buy-back scheme in 1996. So...our neocon tax dollars at work.

Of course, there's plenty of room for argument as to whether the scheme created any good as a result!I meant it more as a large government inititive to use its citizen's tax dollars to promote a program that doesn't work but appears to do good things for the people. I wasn't aware of the neo-con connection.