Texas Police Buy Guns With Groceries [Archive]

Seil

06-09-2010, 09:34 PM

I was going to think of a clever title, but this'll do well enough.

Link. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-guns_04tex.ART.State.Edition1.2972c93.html)

AUSTIN � For the first time in Central Texas, a law enforcement agency will take a gun off your hands, ask no questions and give you money for groceries.

Identification won't be required to turn in a weapon through Guns 4 Groceries, a program sponsored by the Austin Police Department and the Greater Austin Crime Commission that will allow police to buy guns in exchange for grocery store gift cards.

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo said the main goals of the program are to reduce gun violence in Austin and help families that do not know what to do with an old gun in the home.

"This is not about trying to diminish someone's Second Amendment right, and it's not about us telling people they shouldn't own a gun," Acevedo said. "This program is for people who are too old to operate a gun or for people who no longer wish to have a gun in their home."

Of the 13 homicides in Austin this year, at least seven involved guns.

There is no limit to how many guns a person can bring in, and Acevedo assures that no questions will be asked, unless it is obvious that a weapon is stolen. He said all guns would be tested to see whether they are linked to criminal activity, and if they are, officers would investigate the case.

Most of the guns will be destroyed.

Cary Roberts, executive director of the crime commission, said the group raised $8,000 to $10,000 in private donations to pay for the guns.

A $100 gift card will be given for each handgun or rifle, and a $200 gift card will be given for each assault rifle. Even air guns, BB guns or replica guns can net $10 cards each.

Los Angeles , Chicago, Philadelphia and Oakland., Calif., also have gun buyback programs.

Chuck Young, executive director of Texans for Accountable Government, a nonpartisan political action committee, said many of the guns that police are wanting to buy could be sold at gun shows for four times the price.

"I think most of the ones they could be buying are broken, and it is really just a photo-opportunity for police," Young said. "What we are concerned about is how this creeps into a gun-control mentality."

Acevedo said if the gun buyback is successful, the Police Department will look into having two a year. "This concept is new for us, and we are going to see how it goes," Acevedo said. "We are just always looking for new ways to keep our city safe."

I think this is a totally rad idea. Police are giving gift certificates out, and in return get to destroy guns - and it's not mandatory, so no one can get up in arms.

Geminex

06-09-2010, 09:42 PM

Texas is doing this? I'm impressed. It's a step forwards, certainly.

A $100 gift card will be given for each handgun or rifle, and a $200 gift card will be given for each assault rifle.
And I find that last bit hilarious, for some reason.

bluestarultor

06-09-2010, 10:52 PM

It's Texas. EVERYONE has a gun.

That said, I disagree with the program. I could go either way on gun control, to be honest (to put it this way, criminals get guns easier than law-abiding citizens, so it doesn't do a whole lot to crime, but on the other hand, owning a gun generally causes more problems than it solves), but I see issues here.

First off is that I disagree with the guns being destroyed. There's no sense in that. They could be legally resold, for a hefty profit, if the article is any indication.

Second is that disparity between the price and the value. I can only imagine someone doing something incredibly stupid and getting rid of a gun that's worth a ton of money because they don't have a clue what it's worth and think it's old and crappy. Probably not an heirloom antique (I still have SOME faith left in humanity), but maybe a rare model or something. I trust the police to recognize that kind of thing even less, and the fact that objects of value will likely end up destroyed out of ignorance pains me.

Thirdly, this isn't going to do anything to give aid to people who need it. Not that I'm an expert, but I'd imagine people who need help with groceries would have already sold their guns for a fair price if they were going to stoop to that. They're maybe implicitly dressing it up as that kind of program, but the fact of the matter is the focus is trying to get guns off the street, and their vehement denial of it makes it all the more obvious. As I mentioned, this is going to do nothing to crime. They've said as much that they're going to catch any criminals who are stupid enough to try to buy into this and criminals are smarter than to ignore that. Once again, gun control is only going to impact law-abiding citizens.

Seil

06-09-2010, 11:49 PM

First off is that I disagree with the guns being destroyed. There's no sense in that. They could be legally resold, for a hefty profit, if the article is any indication.

And less guns in the world is a bad thing? This is not about raising money for the police force, it's about getting rid of guns in general.

Second is that disparity between the price and the value. I can only imagine someone doing something incredibly stupid and getting rid of a gun that's worth a ton of money because they don't have a clue what it's worth and think it's old and crappy. Probably not an heirloom antique (I still have SOME faith left in humanity), but maybe a rare model or something. I trust the police to recognize that kind of thing even less, and the fact that objects of value will likely end up destroyed out of ignorance pains me.

...So you're upset that some antique guns will be destroyed? There's really no detriment to you, personally, and everyone giving in the guns aren't being forced to do so. They're doing this willingly, knowing that the guns will be destroyed. Any collector won't give away their guns, and anyone else - ignorant or not - knows what's going to happen to their weapons.

Thirdly, this isn't going to do anything to give aid to people who need it. Not that I'm an expert, but I'd imagine people who need help with groceries would have already sold their guns for a fair price if they were going to stoop to that. They're maybe implicitly dressing it up as that kind of program, but the fact of the matter is the focus is trying to get guns off the street, and their vehement denial of it makes it all the more obvious. As I mentioned, this is going to do nothing to crime. They've said as much that they're going to catch any criminals who are stupid enough to try to buy into this and criminals are smarter than to ignore that. Once again, gun control is only going to impact law-abiding citizens.

Like I said above, it's not about giving aid to people, it's about getting rid of guns. I'll grant you the gun control thing:

Expecting a carjacker or rapist or drug pusher to care that his possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces.

How do you mean "vehement denial?" What are they denying?

DFM

06-09-2010, 11:52 PM

First off is that I disagree with the guns being destroyed. There's no sense in that. They could be legally resold, for a hefty profit, if the article is any indication.

Why... why would you get people to turn in their guns and then sell them back to them? What have you accomplished?

Second is that disparity between the price and the value. I can only imagine someone doing something incredibly stupid and getting rid of a gun that's worth a ton of money because they don't have a clue what it's worth and think it's old and crappy. Probably not an heirloom antique (I still have SOME faith left in humanity), but maybe a rare model or something. I trust the police to recognize that kind of thing even less, and the fact that objects of value will likely end up destroyed out of ignorance pains me.

If they think they can get more than $100 worth of food for it, they can always take it to a pawn shop and then just buy food. If they don't think they can get more or they'd rather just hand it in for a gift certificate, then they can do that.

Also, they accept broken guns at the same price.

Thirdly, this isn't going to do anything to give aid to people who need it. Not that I'm an expert, but I'd imagine people who need help with groceries would have already sold their guns for a fair price if they were going to stoop to that. They're maybe implicitly dressing it up as that kind of program, but the fact of the matter is the focus is trying to get guns off the street, and their vehement denial of it makes it all the more obvious. As I mentioned, this is going to do nothing to crime. They've said as much that they're going to catch any criminals who are stupid enough to try to buy into this and criminals are smarter than to ignore that. Once again, gun control is only going to impact law-abiding citizens.

Maybe I read the article wrong but I thought the stated purpose was trying to get guns off the street? Like, the stated purpose from the start from everyone. I don't see any denials at all, especially not vehement ones.

I'm note sure where your gun control thing came from, since I don't think you can call any voluntary program gun control, since it wouldn't be controlling anything. It's not a human outreach program or social work or anything approaching that level of helpful but if you're in a pinch, have a busted ass gun in your house, I don't see any way it's a bad thing for the city to let you turn it in for a hundred dollar grocery store card.

Jagos

06-10-2010, 02:55 AM

*facepalm*

Guys... Just No... These things get ~ 100 guns off the street. One hundred. It barely puts a dent in the sale of guns and quite frankly, the wait for a gun vs the impact of that one hundred dollar grocery store card is hardly the same thing.

I mean, really? I could turn in just one gun + ammo + license + targeting range info, and somehow that equals $100? Yeah, I doubt this will be an overlying success in any regards. It's too underpriced.

Kim

06-10-2010, 03:06 AM

Guys... Just No... These things get ~ 100 guns off the street. One hundred. It barely puts a dent in the sale of guns and quite frankly, the wait for a gun vs the impact of that one hundred dollar grocery store card is hardly the same thing.

You're right. It's better to get no guns off the street than one hundred.

Facepalm?

DFM

06-10-2010, 03:08 AM

I don't think they accept ammo, licenses and targeting range info. I'm not sure what targeting range info would even be, like a score sheet?

Edit: Maybe a brochure?

Osterbaum

06-10-2010, 05:25 AM

The only problem I could see with this program is that it won't do much. But even so, being a step in the right direction and possibly acomplising something at all, completely justifies the whole thing in my opinion. It's not like the program is causing anyone any harm.

Azisien

06-10-2010, 09:52 AM

We should shoot whoever thought of this plan!

With the guns we aren't going to exchange!!

Seil

06-10-2010, 11:49 AM

I mean, really? I could turn in just one gun + ammo + license + targeting range info, and somehow that equals $100? Yeah, I doubt this will be an overlying success in any regards. It's too underpriced.

That's why it's voluntary - they're not saying that trading is mandatory and we're giving you crap in return. They're saying "If you want, you can give us a gun and we'll give you this Save-On card."

It's like a bunch of people have cards, anything from a holographic Charizard to a worn Pikachu, and the police say "We have a couple of Safari Zone cards we'll trade for any of your cards."

Guys... Just No... These things get ~ 100 guns off the street. One hundred. It barely puts a dent in the sale of guns and quite frankly, the wait for a gun vs the impact of that one hundred dollar grocery store card is hardly the same thing.

I'm not sure I understand you here, maybe a typo or two. First off, what things? This is the first I've heard of something like this, and there's really no figures yet, as far as I can tell.

The whole thing amounts to:

1) There are a lot of people with guns in Texas, and police there want less guns.
2) They organize a program where people can trade in guns, in any condition, and receive grocery cards in return.
3) All guns are tested whether they have any link to previous criminal activity, or are stolen.
4) Less people in Texas have guns, but citizens are more well fed.

Osterbaum

06-10-2010, 12:12 PM

4) Less people in Texas have guns, but citizens are more well fed.
Because that one is a serious issue.

Jagos

06-10-2010, 01:37 PM

Thanks for believing all Texans are Just like that guy.

Especially when I'm living in the state. -_-;

You're right. It's better to get no guns off the street than one hundred.

Facepalm?

So let's get this straight...

A criminal still gets a gun in some other fashion, and somehow you believe this will make the communities in Austin safer?

facepalm?

What I'm saying is that the amount is negligible to the number of guns in Texas. Basically, you're pulling these guns from the people that have legally obtained one.

Some guy (or girl) who comes out to the meet with a gun that has a custom magazine clip and scratched out barcode is NOT likely to give up his piece, yo.

I'm not sure I understand you here, maybe a typo or two. First off, what things? This is the first I've heard of something like this, and there's really no figures yet, as far as I can tell.

Should have defined the "Guns for food, money, clothes" program. It doesn't do much but give people the warm feeling that the police are doing something noticeable to get guns off of streets. At the end of the 3- 4 month program will be ~100 guns as compared to the millions sold every year. I'll reduce that number to 100,000 for TX for comparison sake. Although, we have a lot of hunters who pick up a lot of rifles, so maybe 200,000. Regardless, my main points are that these programs have a negligible effect on the market place, they get a lot of discarded guns, or it won't get the guns that would make the place safer.

Seil

06-10-2010, 01:54 PM

Thanks for believing all Texans are Just like that guy.

Especially when I'm living in the state. -_-;

It's a joke.

So let's get this straight...

A criminal still gets a gun in some other fashion, and somehow you believe this will make the communities in Austin safer?

facepalm?

What I'm saying is that the amount is negligible to the number of guns in Texas. Basically, you're pulling these guns from the people that have legally obtained one.

Some guy (or girl) who comes out to the meet with a gun that has a custom magazine clip and scratched out barcode is NOT likely to give up his piece, yo.

This is turning into the gun control thread we had a while back, where we all started snapping at each other.

You're missing the point that this is voluntary. People don't have to do this. There is no law. They can choose to do this if they want to. A normal citizen can hang on to their gun just as much as a criminal can.

While I admit that this might be something that Texas is doing in order to make it look like they're doing something, it's at least a good idea that will get a few guns out of the home. Getting rid of guns lying around the house may result in less accidental fatalities, or less people stealing guns - things of that sort, rather than a criminal using a gun to rob a store.

Should have defined the "Guns for food, money, clothes" program. It doesn't do much but give people the warm feeling that the police are doing something noticeable to get guns off of streets. At the end of the 3- 4 month program will be ~100 guns as compared to the millions sold every year. I'll reduce that number to 100,000 for TX for comparison sake. Although, we have a lot of hunters who pick up a lot of rifles, so maybe 200,000. Regardless, my main points are that these programs have a negligible effect on the market place, they get a lot of discarded guns, or it won't get the guns that would make the place safer.

Still don't know what you mean by "~100."

EVILNess

06-10-2010, 02:02 PM

No nudity, so I think I can post it here - this is thefirst imagethat popped up in Google after I typed in "Texan."

*Picture*

So I think he needs some food in his tummy to off-set the booze.

Yeah, screw you too Seil.

It's a joke.

Bad tasting joke tastes bad.

bluestarultor

06-10-2010, 02:16 PM

And less guns in the world is a bad thing? This is not about raising money for the police force, it's about getting rid of guns in general.

Why... why would you get people to turn in their guns and then sell them back to them? What have you accomplished?

Call me utilitarian, but what sense does it make for all these guns to be destroyed when gun companies are just going to make more of them? It's more efficient to perhaps sell them back to the manufacturers to at least recoup some of the costs and save some factories money.

You're not going to curb demand for firearms by destroying ones that have already been built, so you may as well contribute them back to the supply.

...So you're upset that some antique guns will be destroyed? There's really no detriment to you, personally, and everyone giving in the guns aren't being forced to do so. They're doing this willingly, knowing that the guns will be destroyed. Any collector won't give away their guns, and anyone else - ignorant or not - knows what's going to happen to their weapons.

Conversely, call me sentimental, but I value the idea of preservation. If these guns would go up for auction, perhaps collectors would recognize the objects of value and they would be saved for posterity. If nobody cares about something until they're all gone, it's a bit too late. This is specifically intended to reduce the number of a valuable commodity, but some units are more valuable than others.

Like I said above, it's not about giving aid to people, it's about getting rid of guns.

If they think they can get more than $100 worth of food for it, they can always take it to a pawn shop and then just buy food. If they don't think they can get more or they'd rather just hand it in for a gift certificate, then they can do that.

Whenever you factor food into an operation, it comes with that kind of baggage. It's not money you can do anything you want with. It's money specifically so you can buy a staple to life. Maybe they didn't intend it to sound like that, but when you're exchanging goods or services for food, you are catering to a basic necessity, which, while universally useful, also can delve into degrading. That's all I'm really concerned about, but it seems my concerns were misplaced.

Also, they accept broken guns at the same price.

I cannot find anywhere in the article that it says that specifically, just as a note, but I'll believe it.

How do you mean "vehement denial?" What are they denying?

Maybe I read the article wrong but I thought the stated purpose was trying to get guns off the street? Like, the stated purpose from the start from everyone. I don't see any denials at all, especially not vehement ones.

You're both right. "Vehement denial" is entirely the wrong phrase. To put my thoughts in as simple terms as I can express, they're acting like an outreach program.

"Do you have a gun in your home? You may be like many other Texans. Living with a gun in your home can be a painful experience."
"Mommy! I'm scared! *sob*"
"Fortunately, there's help. Your local policeman can take your gun and give you a sense of safety and peace of mind. He'll even give you money for groceries."
"YAAAAY! COOKIES!"
"Talk to your policeman about your gun problem. He can help. Call 1-800-GUN-GONE for more information."
"What do you say, honey?"
"Thanks, mister policeman!"
"Talk to your policeman. Call 1-800-GUN-GONE. That's 1-800-486-4663."

It's just one of those things. They're being honest about wanting to get guns off the street, but they're acting like owning a gun is a hassle or burden. It's the stuff they're packing in with it is what I mean. They could just be straightforward about it and say their "getting guns off the streets" bit and leave it at that, but then you get the bit where it starts into "Do you have grandchildren? Are your crippled old hands too weak to pull the trigger?" and I start getting images of televangelists and infomercials. There are better ways to get rid of your guns if you really don't want them, and if they're broken, they can be repaired if you do. The only benefit this has is convenience.

I guess it just comes off as dishonest because they're trying to give too many reasons to do it. That's something people do when they're insecure or not being entirely truthful about what they're saying.

I'm note sure where your gun control thing came from, since I don't think you can call any voluntary program gun control, since it wouldn't be controlling anything. It's not a human outreach program or social work or anything approaching that level of helpful but if you're in a pinch, have a busted ass gun in your house, I don't see any way it's a bad thing for the city to let you turn it in for a hundred dollar grocery store card.

The last line of the article is a quote about how they're looking to keep the city safe. Put simply, this is going to do zero to accomplish that. Specifically in that 1.) law-abiding citizens are going to be the only ones turning them in and 2.) broken guns cannot be used to shoot people.

I'm not saying it's gun control. It's not. I'm just saying it's just as deluded as gun control in thinking that it's going to reduce gun crime. Gun control is actually undoubtedly more effective, which is the saddest part of this mindset.

Doc ock rokc

06-10-2010, 02:25 PM

It's Texas. EVERYONE has a gun.Actually you would be quite surprised. While i do think the majority at least has some experience firing a gun and know a bit about gun safety not all of us have a gun for various reasons. Mostly because of all the trouble you can get with one.

First off is that I disagree with the guns being destroyed. There's no sense in that. They could be legally resold, for a hefty profit, if the article is any indication.The guns wont always be destroyed. Plus this program is designed to get functioning weapons out of old/bad hands or old weapons out before they malfunction.

Second is that disparity between the price and the value. I can only imagine someone doing something incredibly stupid and getting rid of a gun that's worth a ton of money because they don't have a clue what it's worth and think it's old and crappy. Probably not an heirloom antique (I still have SOME faith left in humanity), but maybe a rare model or something. I trust the police to recognize that kind of thing even less, and the fact that objects of value will likely end up destroyed out of ignorance pains me. I know a few cops that know their guns. I am sure that some of these weapons will be recognized as rare and saved but most of them will most likely be low maintenance guns bought sometime in the last 30 years. Making them mostly Hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers. Those few with autos and assault rifles would most likely be broken unless they where in very careful hands. And a reason they don't exactly give off the amount the weapon is worth is that it would both take alot of time and would be taking alot of the Police budget.

Thirdly, this isn't going to do anything to give aid to people who need it. Not that I'm an expert, but I'd imagine people who need help with groceries would have already sold their guns for a fair price if they were going to stoop to that. They're maybe implicitly dressing it up as that kind of program, but the fact of the matter is the focus is trying to get guns off the street, and their vehement denial of it makes it all the more obvious. As I mentioned, this is going to do nothing to crime. They've said as much that they're going to catch any criminals who are stupid enough to try to buy into this and criminals are smarter than to ignore that. Once again, gun control is only going to impact law-abiding citizens.
Well it's not that uncommon for someone to die with a large gun collection and to give it to their kids. Who would need the cards. if they sell to pawn shops broken guns that others buy it could malfunction and hurt the buyer. or criminals could come in and buy a gun registered to a dead man. so yes it's doing gun control but in the most common ways criminals get guns (buying old ones off people/pawns)

pochercoaster

06-10-2010, 02:31 PM

The last line of the article is a quote about how they're looking to keep the city safe. Put simply, this is going to do zero to accomplish that. Specifically in that 1.) law-abiding citizens are going to be the only ones turning them in and 2.) broken guns cannot be used to shoot people.

Because law-abiding citizens never shoot guns or accidentally injure people with them, right?

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I don't see this program doing any harm. It's not exactly like the south is in desperate need of guns.

Edit: Ninja'd. I was also going to make a point about people inheriting guns, but Doc just did.

bluestarultor

06-10-2010, 02:40 PM

Because law-abiding citizens never shoot guns or accidentally injure people with them, right?

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I don't see this program doing any harm. It's not exactly like the south is in desperate need of guns.

Edit: Ninja'd. I was also going to make a point about people inheriting guns, but Doc just did.

To be honest, I don't count that as "crime." Like, what are we talking about here, just shooting them into the air for no reason and the bullets showering a playground? While I'd call that criminally stupid, it's still not the same as going out and blowing a guy's head off in a burglary.

I'll agree that guns aren't safe. Especially to people stupid enough to leave them in a shoe box on the floor of the closet instead of locking them up. I addressed that in my initial post.

My disagreements with the program are all on the technical aspects, not the general idea.

Seil

06-10-2010, 02:51 PM

You're both right. "Vehement denial" is entirely the wrong phrase. To put my thoughts in as simple terms as I can express, they're acting like an outreach program.

"Do you have a gun in your home? You may be like many other Texans. Living with a gun in your home can be a painful experience."
"Mommy! I'm scared! *sob*"
"Fortunately, there's help. Your local policeman can take your gun and give you a sense of safety and peace of mind. He'll even give you money for groceries."
"YAAAAY! COOKIES!"
"Talk to your policeman about your gun problem. He can help. Call 1-800-GUN-GONE for more information."
"What do you say, honey?"
"Thanks, mister policeman!"
"Talk to your policeman. Call 1-800-GUN-GONE. That's 1-800-486-4663."

It's just one of those things. They're being honest about wanting to get guns off the street, but they're acting like owning a gun is a hassle or burden. It's the stuff they're packing in with it is what I mean. They could just be straightforward about it and say their "getting guns off the streets" bit and leave it at that, but then you get the bit where it starts into "Do you have grandchildren? Are your crippled old hands too weak to pull the trigger?" and I start getting images of televangelists and infomercials. There are better ways to get rid of your guns if you really don't want them, and if they're broken, they can be repaired if you do. The only benefit this has is convenience.

I guess it just comes off as dishonest because they're trying to give too many reasons to do it. That's something people do when they're insecure or not being entirely truthful about what they're saying.

...I don't really think cops are shooting out some infomercials. I think they're just making people aware that this event exists. I haven't seen any evidence that Texan police are doing anything other than giving out a press release or doing one or two interviews.

The last line of the article is a quote about how they're looking to keep the city safe. Put simply, this is going to do zero to accomplish that. Specifically in that 1.) law-abiding citizens are going to be the only ones turning them in and 2.) broken guns cannot be used to shoot people.

I'm not saying it's gun control. It's not. I'm just saying it's just as deluded as gun control in thinking that it's going to reduce gun crime. Gun control is actually undoubtedly more effective, which is the saddest part of this mindset.

Not all crime has people holding up a store or mugging. Getting guns out of peoples homes could reduce, say, accidental fatalities (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=28055&), crimes of passion, people stealing a gun in order to later commit a crime.

I agree that while "Less guns does not automatically equal less crime," less guns is definitely a good thing.

We've also had previous threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=25717&highlight=gun) about gun control, where people got up in arms about their right to bear arms. If this is seen as a voluntary thing, and after some info comes out of it, they can see about developing it, and applying it elsewhere.

Other previous thread. (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=36442&highlight=gun)
Another gun thread. (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=35234&highlight=gun)

Whenever you factor food into an operation, it comes with that kind of baggage. It's not money you can do anything you want with. It's money specifically so you can buy a staple to life. Maybe they didn't intend it to sound like that, but when you're exchanging goods or services for food, you are catering to a basic necessity, which, while universally useful, also can delve into degrading. That's all I'm really concerned about, but it seems my concerns were misplaced.

So if The Brick has a free hot dog barbeque for customers, like they do at some of their sales, they're providing a basic staple of life? I don't think this is about providing humitarian aid to families in need. Shopping is something everyone does, and getting rid of a gun you arguable may or may not use in order to get free shopping money may be a no-brainer to some people.

It's an incentive that applies to everyone. It works better than offering something else.

Call me utilitarian, but what sense does it make for all these guns to be destroyed when gun companies are just going to make more of them? It's more efficient to perhaps sell them back to the manufacturers to at least recoup some of the costs and save some factories money.

You're not going to curb demand for firearms by destroying ones that have already been built, so you may as well contribute them back to the supply.

The entire point of this is to get rid of guns. Giving them back to be resold wouldn't help that.

Conversely, call me sentimental, but I value the idea of preservation. If these guns would go up for auction, perhaps collectors would recognize the objects of value and they would be saved for posterity. If nobody cares about something until they're all gone, it's a bit too late. This is specifically intended to reduce the number of a valuable commodity, but some units are more valuable than others.

While I agree that it's important to preserve history, I'm also thinking that you don't really need every single gun in order to preserve it. Even if some guns are destroyed, there's still a number of antiques in museums, and I doubt any others would offer us a particular insight. Alternatively, if it's a family heirloom, why would someone turn it in? If family history is important to you, don't turn in your family heirloom civil war pistol.

It's Texas. EVERYONE has a gun.

So getting rid of some of them is a bad thing?

shiney

06-10-2010, 03:26 PM

So basically blues your whole position is "I agree with you but BLARGH CIRCULAR ARGUMENT". This is what I am seeing.

Seil, more substance in the first post. I posted this very message for Tev just a few days ago. No more "post article" "one liner" "discussion ensues" stuff. Glad to see a decent discussion sprung up here (or an "everyone vs. blues" discussion at least) but that doesn't change the fact that your first post was fluff. No more cruddy first posts to new threads please.

bluestarultor

06-10-2010, 03:30 PM

In a nutshell, I don't see this doing much good for various reasons and I dislike the way they're marketing it.

I'll leave it at that.

Aldurin

06-10-2010, 03:36 PM

It's an interesting concept, this program, and here are the pro's and cons I see.

Pros:
Grocery gift cards to help feed people.
Provide another way for people to get rid or their guns if they want.
Cops get good PR.
Entirely optional (as far as I can tell).

Cons:
Gift cards not worth the value of the gun.
Gun is destroyed (instead of possibly reused for cops, military or collecting).
Program loses money (at least resell the guns).
Get guns away from desperate poor people who would use them for theft instead (all while feeding them for a week or so).
Many of those people who can't afford food probably didn't have "gun" high on their shopping list, so they miss out.

I actually like how it's a choice thing, so if you don't want your gun then go ahead, but you can still keep your gun if you want.

I would rather keep my gun and use my job to pay for food. But that's just me.

Ryanderman

06-10-2010, 04:13 PM

I think it's aimed less at legal registered gun owners, and more at illegal gun owners. At least, similar programs have been whenever I've seen them before. For a legal gun owner, yeah, it's really not worth the $100 if the gun can be sold more for than that. But for someone who has a gun illegally, it could be a great deal. If they're worried about getting caught with it, if they'll have trouble just selling it, cause it's illegal, etc... giving it to the police no questions asked and with a $100 food bonus, it could be successful.

And I'm not talking about a gang member deciding to hand in his weapon, but a small time criminal, or an otherwise law abiding citizen, who got it for protection, but now is scared they'll get caught and arrested, it's a good deal.

I think the police are more worried about getting illegal guns off the street than registered legal ones. Someone who's going to comit a crime will be able to get their hands on a gun pretty much no matter what, but with illegal unregistered guns, the police can't track them after the fact as well as they can if a registered one was used. This program seems like it'd have more success with illegal guns, so I think that's the way it's aimed.

Jagos

06-10-2010, 10:37 PM

It's a joke.

This is turning into the gun control thread we had a while back, where we all started snapping at each other.

You're missing the point that this is voluntary. People don't have to do this. There is no law. They can choose to do this if they want to. A normal citizen can hang on to their gun just as much as a criminal can.

While I admit that this might be something that Texas is doing in order to make it look like they're doing something, it's at least a good idea that will get a few guns out of the home.

And that's fine if it's voluntary, I'm not trying to be snappish, it's just that the number of guns taken off the street will be minuscule compared to the guns gotten illegally. A criminal can still find a way to get a gun illegally, so we're not taking them off the streets. Basically see my post above about how this will go.

Getting rid of guns lying around the house may result in less accidental fatalities, or less people stealing guns - things of that sort, rather than a criminal using a gun to rob a store.

...

Seil. Go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html). Look at how many children from 0-18 die because of motor accidents or drowning, then look at the ones that die from firearms.
Depending on age, more children are likely to die from drowning than firearms. As they get older, it's more or less to do with suicidal homicide than criminal homicide. Also, as I've stated, it doesn't stop the tide. source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_.22buy-back.22_programs)/ Incidentally that answers part of the question below. \/

Still don't know what you mean by "~100."

Roughly 100 guns taken off the street vs the 100,000 sold in TX. That's a rough (hint, woefully inaccurate) statement for just TX. But there's 2 million guns sold in the US. There's no accurate numbers for just TX (Yes, I looked before the post) so that's why I'm being generous by saying just 100K -200K are being sold in TX. Not counting the ~70 million handguns within the US right now.

I think the police are more worried about getting illegal guns off the street than registered legal ones. Someone who's going to comit a crime will be able to get their hands on a gun pretty much no matter what, but with illegal unregistered guns, the police can't track them after the fact as well as they can if a registered one was used. This program seems like it'd have more success with illegal guns, so I think that's the way it's aimed.

Yes, it's targeted at those guns. But intent is what I'm looking at. What incentive does a criminal have of turning in a gun unless it's broken, an antique or just plain useless?

DFM

06-11-2010, 01:00 AM

And that's fine if it's voluntary, I'm not trying to be snappish, it's just that the number of guns taken off the street will be minuscule compared to the guns gotten illegally. A criminal can still find a way to get a gun illegally, so we're not taking them off the streets. Basically see my post above about how this will go.

I'm not totally sure why the fact that the number of guns destroyed will not somehow eclipse the number of firearms being sold makes it a bad idea or an automatic failure.

Seil. Go to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html). Look at how many children from 0-18 die because of motor accidents or drowning, then look at the ones that die from firearms.
Depending on age, more children are likely to die from drowning than firearms.

We're not going to fix the railing on this turn because like five people tops die on that road a year and they were either suicidal anyway or just stupid. Cancer kills like six hundred thousand people a year, fuck that turn.

Kim

06-11-2010, 01:26 AM

Yes, it's targeted at those guns. But intent is what I'm looking at. What incentive does a criminal have of turning in a gun unless it's broken, an antique or just plain useless?

Yes, because there are no school shootings, crimes of passion, accidental shootings, or various other things.

The only gun crimes committed are by criminals with illegally obtained guns. Forever.

DFM

06-11-2010, 01:34 AM

They don't let you sign up as a criminal if you don't promise to illegally obtain your gun.

Jagos

06-11-2010, 01:47 AM

I'm not totally sure why the fact that the number of guns destroyed will not somehow eclipse the number of firearms being sold makes it a bad idea or an automatic failure.
By the numbers, you'll only get .011% of the market. No where near a significant amount of guns. It's what... 1 in 100000? And watch the type that ARE brought back. Also:
What incentive does a criminal have of turning in a gun unless it's broken, an antique or just plain useless?

We're not going to fix the railing on this turn because like five people tops die on that road a year and they were either suicidal anyway or just stupid. Cancer kills like six hundred thousand people a year, fuck that turn. *cocks eyebrow*
Point 2. I'll be surprised if this buyback turns in 1000 guns. They need more going for the people than $100.

Regardless, (here comes the choo choo!). Odds still don't match up DFM.

bluestarultor

06-11-2010, 01:50 AM

Yes, because there are no school shootings, crimes of passion, accidental shootings, or various other things.

The only gun crimes committed are by criminals with illegally obtained guns. Forever.

Those are in order: incredibly rare, going to happen one way or another, also rare if you've been reading and preventable by locking the Goddamn things up like a responsible parent should, and covered by the first three, excluding actual criminal activity.

Kim

06-11-2010, 01:51 AM

bluestarultor

06-11-2010, 01:58 AM

NonCon, school shootings happen with months of planning. Taking away access to Daddy's pistol isn't going to deter them at all. Crimes of passion also aren't going to be deterred, because if it's not a gun, it's a knife or tire iron or golf club or whatever can be used to kill someone while you're enraged. Taking guns out of that equation just means the victims will see it coming and maybe be able to do a bit of damage before they die. They're still just as dead, but I'd personally rather go down fighting. The only real benefit it has is preventing the accidental deaths. And that's because that's the only situation where people getting killed is an accident.

Hanuman

06-11-2010, 01:58 AM

Plan:
Take gun A
Rob Person B of Gun B
Person B buys gun C
Sell gun B for groceries
Repeat.

Kim

06-11-2010, 02:01 AM

Taking away access to Daddy's pistol isn't going to deter them at all.

Then where exactly are these teens getting the guns? I wasn't the most rebellious teen, but I didn't really hear from the kids on the street where to illegally obtain a gun easy.

Taking guns out of that equation just means the victims will see it coming and maybe be able to do a bit of damage before they die.Or, you know, run away. I figure it's probably easier to run away from a guy with a golf club than to run away from a bullet. Just throwing that out there.

The only real benefit it has is preventing the accidental deaths.And why would we want to prevent those, right?

DFM

06-11-2010, 02:10 AM

By the numbers, you'll only get .011% of the market. No where near a significant amount of guns. It's what... 1 in 100000? And watch the type that ARE brought back. Also:

*cocks eyebrow*
Point 2. I'll be surprised if this buyback turns in 1000 guns. They need more going for the people than $100.

Regardless, (here comes the choo choo!). Odds still don't match up DFM.

So far it's been like I post and then you don't get it so let's try for round three of me posting and you not getting it, maybe NonCon's post will help.

bluestarultor

06-11-2010, 02:13 AM

Then where exactly are these teens getting the guns? I wasn't the most rebellious teen, but I didn't really hear from the kids on the street where to illegally obtain a gun easy.

Easy? Who said anything about easy? I said months of planning. That's plenty of time to find a way.

Or, you know, run away. I figure it's probably easier to run away from a guy with a golf club than to run away from a bullet. Just throwing that out there.

True, but you also have to consider that crimes of passion tend to be very fast-paced and sudden. It'll be more possible to get away, but speaking from family experience, when a person is that crazed, there's not much that's going to stop them. My aunt and cousins are lucky my ex-uncle had a mental/emotional breakdown before he could break through their barricade and kill them. The police found him basically catatonic in his workshop.

And why would we want to prevent those, right?

Because damn, man, those parents leaving guns in shoe boxes on the floors of their closets are stupid, and the kids fucking around with guns and shooting themselves and each other are stupid. Clearly, this is hereditary, and it's best to stop the line as soon as possible so they don't continue to pass it on!

Kim

06-11-2010, 02:16 AM

True, but you also have to consider that crimes of passion tend to be very fast-paced and sudden. It'll be more possible to get away, but speaking from family experience, when a person is that crazed, there's not much that's going to stop them. My aunt and cousins are lucky my ex-uncle had a mental/emotional breakdown before he could break through their barricade and kill them. The police found him basically catatonic in his workshop.

But I'm sure it would prevent some, and if it prevents any, then this is a thing we should do. I don't care how "utilitarian" you are or how wasteful you think it is if it saves even a single life then it is something we should do.

bluestarultor

06-11-2010, 02:29 AM

But I'm sure it would prevent some, and if it prevents any, then this is a thing we should do. I don't care how "utilitarian" you are or how wasteful you think it is if it saves even a single life then it is something we should do.

One death is a tragedy, huh?

You can argue for a LOT of things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCff-CihCtc) that save a single life. That doesn't make any of them effective on a respectable scale.

Kim

06-11-2010, 02:35 AM

One death is a tragedy, huh?

Yes, it is. Certainly moreso than "I ACCIDENTALLY SOLD A HUNDRED YEAR OLD GUN TO THE POLICE!" Unless you are seriously going to argue a human's life is worth less than a gun.

You can argue for a LOT of things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCff-CihCtc) that save a single life. That doesn't make any of them effective on a respectable scale.The cost of a program like this is determined by its effectiveness. The more people turn in guns, the higher the expense. The fewer, the less the expense. Because of this, there is nothing wrong with doing this program on the basis that it may save a life. Also, unlike nuking Tokyo, people selling their guns doesn't result in death.

bluestarultor

06-11-2010, 03:09 AM

Yes, it is. Certainly moreso than "I ACCIDENTALLY SOLD A HUNDRED YEAR OLD GUN TO THE POLICE!" Unless you are seriously going to argue a human's life is worth less than a gun.

No, that would be stupid. My argument in this case is that this is unlikely to be effective. It's already riding on private donations from the outset. How long are those going to last? How many guns are going to show up after the first few collections? It's inefficient.

The cost of a program like this is determined by its effectiveness. The more people turn in guns, the higher the expense. The fewer, the less the expense. Because of this, there is nothing wrong with doing this program on the basis that it may save a life.

No, the expense is already accounted for. They have a ton budgeted. Enough for 100 handguns or rifles or 50 assault rifles in donations alone. The fewer guns turned in, the more they get to pocket and/or put toward processing. There's a difference.

Yes, there will be processing. Also the cost of storing (a fixed cost) and ultimately destroying the guns. Which is, as I mentioned, going to have all the effect of spitting into a lake on actual crime. It's a huge money sink, but the police aren't paying for the biggest part.

You can argue the one life angle all you want. But that's all it is is one life. If all it ever saves is one life, it'll be an utter failure. There need to be better options that save more than one life. At the very least, a synergistic approach, like introducing a gun lock program, which we have in my area. You can charge for those.

Seil

06-11-2010, 07:05 AM

You can argue the one life angle all you want. But that's all it is is one life. If all it ever saves is one life, it'll be an utter failure. There need to be better options that save more than one life. At the very least, a synergistic approach, like introducing a gun lock program, which we have in my area. You can charge for those.

What's a gun lock program? And how is saving at least one life a bad thing? Or stopping a potential injury?

Easy? Who said anything about easy? I said months of planning. That's plenty of time to find a way.

Because every single gun-related crime is well thought out and meticulously planned.

What about the shootings where guns are stolen? (http://www.azfamily.com/community/blogs/arizona-education/Police-recover-gun-on-school-campus-in-Maricopa-89630712.html) I have already agreed that criminals won't turn in their illegal guns. You're also saying that some gun crimes/incidents don't happen as long as the parent is responsible, (http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2053979_frightened_mum_hid_gun_under_childs_bed) or kids are properly educated. (http://www.kirotv.com/news/19191765/detail.html#-)

I just think that when you say "Months of planning," it doesn't cover every school shooting, such as one where a child walks into the den and steals a guardians gun to use to inflict harm against others. (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-60087656.html)

The NRA are saying that people should be educated and responsible. (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/25/nra.karl/) That's true, they should be. But they're not. (http://cbs5.com/local/Will.C.Wood.2.439940.html?detectflash=false) Not really. (http://schoolshooting.org/)

The thing is that people are using stolen guns to commit crimes - could be anyone, even very young children or older people - and some of these guns are lying around. If we get rid of guns, or provide an incentive to people who give away guns, maybe we can stop one or two people from killing their schools.

Hell, in the Hippocratic oath it states "I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure."

By the numbers, you'll only get .011% of the market. No where near a significant amount of guns. It's what... 1 in 100000? And watch the type that ARE brought back. Also:

We don't actually have any figures at all. This hasn't happened yet. We don't know who's going to do what.

*cocks eyebrow*
Point 2. I'll be surprised if this buyback turns in 1000 guns. They need more going for the people than $100.

It may be a big incentive to people because of the economic downturn. It may provide them with the opportunity to send food to Haiti or Chile or Africa. It may encourage word-of-mouth, getting others to do the same. We don't know yet.

Your argument is that this is a hollow gesture because the police are trying to make it look like they're doing something, and that statistically, this won't do anything to prevent crime.

What I'm saying is that there's a whole bunch of different gun-related crimes, from school shootings, to muggins to even accidents like wrongful discharge. Some of these are done using stolen weapons, like I linked above, because guns are easy to get a hold of, like in some cases I linked above.

I'm saying that there are no figures for this because it hasn't happened yet, so we really don't know what's going to happen. But saving a life or two would make it a success in my eyes.

Osterbaum

06-11-2010, 08:35 AM

I'm saying that there are no figures for this because it hasn't happened yet, so we really don't know what's going to happen. But saving a life or two would make it a success in my eyes.
If that happens then we'll never actually know. Stuff like that, important stuff, doesn't show up on statistics.

Kim

06-11-2010, 10:03 AM

You can argue the one life angle all you want. But that's all it is is one life.

Sorry, I guess I was under the impression that saving one life is a damn good thing to do. But because one program that you don't like because "we're wasting guuuuuunnnnnnnssssssss" might only save one life, it's a failure? I honestly don't see how saving a life could ever be considered a failure in this kind of scenario. It really boggles the goddamn mind.

Jagos

06-11-2010, 10:09 AM

Jagos. You're missing the point, and you have yet to address it at all.

Why is taking guns off the street a bad thing just because it isn't a huge number? In what way does this become something negative JUST BECAUSE it hasn't gotten rid of every gun?

@Blues: If there are fewer guns out there, they will be even rarer. Just because it isn't a frequent thing does not mean we shouldn't try to make less of it.

Let's play bold bingo.

Out of 20 million guns sold inside the US alone. 1000 guns will be taken off of the street. How are you going to tell me that's a significant amount when they're heirlooms, broken, or useless? Let's also remember that the criminals still have access to guns so all this is effectively doing is making people feel good.

If it took a significant amount of guns off of the street, say 10,000 to 100000, or it actually actively searched for the guns from criminals through tips like in Florida, THEN I wouldn't be so skeptical of this "feel good" program.

What Noncon is failing to understand is that it's a small amount of guns, a drop in the bucket, that's quickly replaced by just the number of guns sold in a month (http://www.ammoland.com/2009/09/04/1000000-guns-added-to-american-homes/).

So far it's been like I post and then you don't get it so let's try for round three of me posting and you not getting it, maybe NonCon's post will help.

I did post the information that I got about the numbers in an earlier post. Other than that, *shrug*

I'm still saying it's a small amount of guns that comes off as a feel good kinda thing for law enforcement, other than clarifying how this small amount is quickly washed away by the number of guns sold within a month, I don't know what else you all are looking for regarding information.

Source yet again for the .011% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_.22buy-back.22_programs)

That's using 2004 information. If they want more guns to be brought in, they have to go and find them or give more per gun.

Kim

06-11-2010, 10:13 AM

YOU ARE TREATING THE PROGRAM, WHICH TAKES GUNS OFF THE STREET, AS A BAD THING BECAUSE IT'S A DROP IN THE BUCKET. NOT BEING A BIGGER NUMBER DOES NOT SUDDENLY MAKE IT A BAD THING. YOU HAVE AT NO POINT GIVEN A REASON FOR WHY BEING A SMALL NUMBER MAKES IT A BAD PROGRAM. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THIS MAKES IT A BAD THING FOR THEM TO DO, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO TYPE IN THE LARGEST FONT AND RED LETTERS TO GET AN ANSWER FROM YOU. WHY DOES IT NOT BEING A BIGGER NUMBER MEAN THEY SHOULD NOT DO IT?

Aldurin

06-11-2010, 10:16 AM

Kim

06-11-2010, 10:28 AM

To have more guns in legal circulation in the hands of responsible people means this.

Scenario 1 (the no-gun utopia): Criminal walks into college/mall/populated-place and starts shooting people with his unregistered gun that he never had to turn in. He gets to continue with his spree until he runs out of ammo or the police get there before that (he only needs a minute or two to do some real damage). A lot of people are dead, a panic starts with how a gun got into a no-gun system (I say the Mexican border, where a lot of drugs and stuff come already).

Scenario 2 (those who want a gun for security get it): Criminal walks into college/mall/populated place and starts shooting people with his unregistered gun. He may be lucky enough to hit one or two people before he finds a dozen people with legally owned guns shooting back at him. Only one or two people die (excluding the criminal) instead of however many he could have done with his ammunition supply. Hell, if the guy is slow with drawing his gun (or a really bad shot), he may not get anybody he himself becomes bullet-riddled.

Point is, I'd rather make sure that the criminal dies instead of the victim. Or maybe no death at all if one of the people decide to shoot the gun out of his hand and pop his kneecaps.

http://i50.tinypic.com/35iw45e.jpg

The list of things wrong with this post is larger than I care to deal with.

1. NOBODY SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO TAKE A GUN INTO THE MALL EVEN IF THEY SAY IT'S JUST FOR SELF DEFENSE GODDAMN THAT IS THE STUPIDEST FUCKING THING.

2. Fun fact: Gun crimes are statistically lower in countries with fewer people owning guns. Here's a graph (http://i49.tinypic.com/30aufc0.gif). Look at it. Look at it again. Keep looking at it until you get the picture.

There are more things wrong with it but I am incredibly lazy.

Jagos

06-11-2010, 10:46 AM

Kim

06-11-2010, 10:47 AM

We tried talking to you normally. You didn't answer the damned question.

Jagos

06-11-2010, 10:51 AM

I did, you don't like the answer and decide to use large text when I've already said my position. Don't like it, move on. I don't have time to talk to someone that just wants to shout all over the place.

Kim

06-11-2010, 10:56 AM

I did

No. You did not. You keep saying that it's not a big change. You have at no point said why a drop in the bucket is worse than doing nothing at all.

Aldurin

06-11-2010, 11:13 AM

Ask yourself this: If you are a potential criminal planning to do a violent crime with a gun, which location would you choose:
A: A town where gun ownership is banned, therefore you could shoot all you want and have total dominance in the situation until the police come.
B: A town where gun ownership is required, therefore everyone you might shoot at can and will shoot back, removing any hope of surviving the ordeal let alone win it.

(If you do not have a gun and cannot get one by legal means, then check your local black market dealer or steal/smuggle your own from another country.)

Kim

06-11-2010, 11:16 AM

Jagos

06-11-2010, 11:34 AM

You have at no point said why a drop in the bucket is worse than doing nothing at all.
...

That wasn't my point at all. My point is that the number of guns they receive are going to be a small amount.

When I got into this thread, it was because someone was talking about how it was getting guns off of the street. It's not about that at all. And if it was, then it's not a fair amount to put a dent in homicides, suicides or anything else.
The guns it's going to get are:

1) Heirloom inherited and discarded
2) Broken
3) Useless

Out of this program, there's going to be very few used for a robbery or anything else.

So the state's paid out (1000 guns x $100 = ) $100,000 to supposedly make Austin safer. Meanwhile more guns than that are sold. Worth more also.

The stated purpose of getting guns off of the street, is just...

It's too small a number to mean anything.

You haven't gotten a fair dent in guns, the police chief has yet to try to get the guns in a more aggressive manner, and life goes on. $100 in Austin is gone in a small amount of time.

So, if you say "it's worth it to get 1000 guns off of the street", great. But you can't say these would be accidentally used by anyone if they fall in the three categories above. Granted, you'll get one or two that work. But the statistics on these buyback programs prove the same point that I'm making regarding these programs.

DFM

06-11-2010, 11:50 AM

I did post the information that I got about the numbers in an earlier post. Other than that, *shrug*

I'm still saying it's a small amount of guns that comes off as a feel good kinda thing for law enforcement, other than clarifying how this small amount is quickly washed away by the number of guns sold within a month, I don't know what else you all are looking for regarding information.

Source yet again for the .011% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_.22buy-back.22_programs)

That's using 2004 information. If they want more guns to be brought in, they have to go and find them or give more per gun.

Okay so we're on round four now here is the thing nobody is looking for information on how many guns are sold in the United States or in Texas or how potentially small the number of guns turned in will be to that number.

It does not matter how few guns are turned in, as long as some guns are turned in.

Those are some lives that could be saved, and that's worth the program existing. You can't say "This is the gun that would have killed Billy good thing we got it away from him before he started screwing off with it" but the fact that there was a gun in a household and now there isn't is a pretty good sign that that gun, at least, isn't going to hurt anybody.

It doesn't matter if the program isn't going to put a dent in the number of privately owned handguns or rifles, or that it's primarily so people can feel good and say they're getting guns off the street, that handful of potentially dangerous weapons that they do destroy is worth the program existing.

@Evilearl holy jesus I think you topped your post in the oil thread.

Edit: Maybe you should move back to the wild west, where men were civilized and no one was ever shot because they were all worried about someone shooting back.

Jagos

06-11-2010, 11:56 AM

For the love of...

The guns it's going to get are:

1) Heirloom inherited and discarded
2) Broken
3) Useless

Guns surrendered tend to be those least likely to be involved in crime, such as old, malfunctioning guns with little resale value, muzzleloading or other blackpowder guns, antiques chambered for obsolete cartridges that are no longer commercially manufactured or sold, or guns that individuals inherit but have little value in possessing

I'm just going to leave that there. Later folks.

DFM

06-11-2010, 12:12 PM

Tend to be does not mean Will all be broken. I still don't think you're getting the "If only one life is potentially save" part of it but I guess you left so you never will!

Meister

06-11-2010, 12:26 PM

A town where gun ownership is required
That sounds like the perfect place to easily get that gun I'm planning to use in my violent crime. If I'm driving back from Shady Lou's place with my new gun in the other town, I'm pretty fucked if a police officer happens to stop me, but if I'm stopped on my way from the gun shop to the mall in that town he'll just go "ah yes sir, following the law I see, splendid."

Odjn

06-11-2010, 12:26 PM

Guns surrendered tend to be those least likely to be involved in crime, such as old, malfunctioning guns with little resale value, muzzleloading or other blackpowder guns, antiques chambered for obsolete cartridges that are no longer commercially manufactured or sold, or guns that individuals inherit but have little value in possessing

Guns that misfire can cripple or lethally wound the user, let alone the target, so getting rid of them is good especially if the owner doesn't know how to maintain it/that it needs to be maintained/has children. Guns that people inherit could be stolen, or used in crimes of passion, or if they got desperate to rob a liquor store in addition to the safety stuff above. It's a decent idea that really needs to be implemented on a larger scale to be effective but it does a little good which is more than most acts/laws/statutes ever do.

Aldurin

06-11-2010, 12:29 PM

Just get the shooty things away from the idiots, and any potential criminal dumb enough to get a legally registered gun.

Kim

06-11-2010, 12:41 PM

Just get the shooty things away from the idiots

Or, because there aren't exactly tell-tale signs of "This guy will eventually commit a crime of passion" or "this person has a child who might try to steal their gun and shoot up a school", how about just getting the guns away from people. The only legitimate reason for having them is so you can hunt, and even then I'd say that's debatable. If you have your gun locked up the way you're supposed to, and someone breaks into your house to rob you or whatever, getting the gun ready will take time. If you're able to just grab the gun and run down and stop whoever broke into your house, you obviously didn't have the weapon secured well enough. The time spent getting the gun ready is time that could be better spent calling the cops or getting out of the house.

Aldurin

06-11-2010, 12:43 PM

I plead the second.

Kim

06-11-2010, 12:45 PM

I plead the second.

Just because it's a right doesn't mean it should be. I'm all in favor of getting guns away from as many people as possible. Makes it harder for criminals to steal guns, and can prevent a lot of gun crimes.

The Kneumatic Pnight

06-11-2010, 12:49 PM

Gun crimes are DRASTICALLY FEWER in countries with fewer guns per household. Actual facts and data take precedence over the imaginary situations you pull out of your ass.

http://www.nuklearforums.com/showpost.php?p=698720&postcount=37

Also to note that the studies that effectively make very strong correlations between guns and gun crime do so by including gun-related suicides. Because, without them, the correlation can tend to go wonky. Also, the prevalence of guns has little (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsuic.html) to do with the overall suicide rate.

Also some bullshit about correlation versus causation because a high-crime society totally wouldn't be an incentive for the populous to want to arm itself.

Tend to be does not mean Will all be broken. I still don't think you're getting the "If only one life is potentially save" part of it but I guess you left so you never will!

Well, society doesn't have infinite amounts of wealth to throw at saving one life, but $100 per gun is probably way cheap enough to accomplish something.

Hell, push comes to shove you can totally Walrassian Auction the whole thing and on staggered years offer progressively more post-inflation-adjusted money just to get as many guns at as low cost as possible.

But as schemes go it's likely a good one, if for nothing else than...

Guns that misfire can cripple or lethally wound the user, let alone the target, so getting rid of them is good especially if the owner doesn't know how to maintain it/that it needs to be maintained/has children. Guns that people inherit could be stolen, or used in crimes of passion, or if they got desperate to rob a liquor store in addition to the safety stuff above. It's a decent idea that really needs to be implemented on a larger scale to be effective but it does a little good which is more than most acts/laws/statutes ever do.

Exactly this.

Just get the shooty things away from the idiots, and any potential criminal dumb enough to get a legally registered gun.

Ugh.

FAKE EDIT:
Edit: Maybe you should move back to the wild west, where men were civilized and no one was ever shot because they were all worried about someone shooting back.

Okay, to be totally fair, like, four people were shot in the wild west per year.

Aldurin

06-11-2010, 12:54 PM

Just because it's a right doesn't mean it should be. I'm all in favor of getting guns away from as many people as possible. Makes it harder for criminals to steal guns, and can prevent a lot of gun crimes.

Then leave the damn country if you don't like that. I still plead the second, along with many other Americans.

Kim

06-11-2010, 12:55 PM

Okay, to be totally fair, like, four people were shot in the wild west per year.

Well, yeah, but that's because there were only eight people out there.

Then leave the damn country if you don't like that. I still plead the second, along with many other Americans.

I keep telling the Republicans to leave the country if they don't like Obama, but they don't listen to me.

DFM

06-11-2010, 12:56 PM

Then leave the damn country if you don't like that. I still plead the second, along with many other Americans.

You are just a darling.

Kim

06-11-2010, 12:59 PM

You are just a darling.

I'm thinking of turning it into a meme.

@Louisiana: Leave the damn country if you don't like oil spills polluting your coastline.

@Tea Party: Leave the damn country if you don't like Obama's administration.

@Gays: Leave the damn country if you don't like not being able to get married.

Ryanderman

06-11-2010, 01:03 PM

Noncon, I don't know how much you want to rely on that chart you posted. You may want to verify its numbers. For one thing, its data point on the US is entirely wrong. Everything I can find about deaths in the US for the last ten years shows it's around 5 per 100,000 total homicides, but your chart has it around 10 for just ones due to firearms.

The same thing for Switzerland, which your chart shows at 6 per 100,000 due to firearm homicides, but everything I've been able to find has it at less than .6 per 100,000 due to firearms, and between 1.3 and 2.6 total.

Links you've seen before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

(Admittedly, guncite seems quite biased, but the numbers it's referencing in the table I linked to appear sourced, and the table is put together well - why I linked it)

Aldurin

06-11-2010, 01:09 PM

I was thinking more like leave the damn country if you don't like our governmental basis.

Obama's gonna be president for a couple more years at most, so I'm not gonna leave for that. The oil leak will be fixed when they drop the huge rock on it, so I'm not leaving for that. I'm not gay, so I don't care about that issue.

Kim

06-11-2010, 01:10 PM

I was thinking more like leave the damn country if you don't like our governmental basis.

How is being able to shoot stuff the basis of our government?

EDIT: 1800's Version! @Women: Leave the damn country if you don't like being able to vote.

Mr.Bookworm

06-11-2010, 01:12 PM

I was thinking more like leave the damn country if you don't like our governmental basis.

What militia are you a part of, again?

DFM

06-11-2010, 01:14 PM

@Ryanderman

It's sourced but I don't think it's sourced correctly. From the FBI page they link to on homicide crime date:

Of the homicides for which the type of weapon was specified, 71.9 percent involved the use of firearms. Of the identified firearms used, handguns comprised 88.3 percent. (Based on Expanded Homicide Data Table 8.)

Edit 2: Here's the Table 8 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html) they mention.

Edit:

I'm not gay, so I don't care about that issue.

You are a gift that keeps on giving.

Aldurin

06-11-2010, 01:16 PM

What militia are you a part of, again?

I'm my own militia.

EDIT:You are a gift that keeps on giving.

I have my priorities.

The Kneumatic Pnight

06-11-2010, 01:16 PM

Well, yeah, but that's because there were only eight people out there.

While I must say that I understand this is a joke, the neurotic in me demands I point out that what few statistics there are on the subject indicate that the murder rate of the major western population centers during the period was a little more than 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.

The whole violent west thing is mostly a spaghetti western phenomenon.

Of course, that doesn't necessarily include the vast lightly populated regions where records and simply finding the events might be spotty at best. Boiler plate boiler plate blah blah blah

Noncon, I don't know how much you want to rely on that chart you posted. You may want to verify its numbers. For one thing, its data point on the US is entirely wrong. Everything I can find about deaths in the US for the last ten years shows it's around 5 per 100,000 total homicides, but your chart has it around 10 for just ones due to firearms.

The same thing for Switzerland, which your chart shows at 6 per 100,000 due to firearm homicides, but everything I've been able to find has it at less than .6 per 100,000 due to firearms, and between 1.3 and 2.6 total.

Links you've seen before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

(Admittedly, guncite seems quite biased, but the numbers it's referencing in the table I linked to appear sourced, and the table is put together well - why I linked it)

Also, that graph has Austria in the wrong place on both axes.

EDIT: 1800's Version! @Women: Leave the damn country if you don't like being able to vote.

They should've tried that. We'd have fixed everything right up in seconds.