A $100 billion, one-time program aimed at buying back 200 million firearms at $500 a pop.

[Robb]

If Congress balks at banning certain weapons entirely, it could make gun owners an offer they can't refuse. Instead of $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500. After all, overpaying powerful constituencies to achieve public policy goals is a time-honored American tradition; we do it every day with Medicare drug benefits and defense contractors, to name just two.

So imagine a $100 billion, one-time program aimed at buying back 200 million firearms at $500 a pop. We issue the payments in prepaid credit cards that expire in three months to be sure the money is spent fast.

Presto! So long as the federal money is borrowed, we get an immediate boost to demand, jobs and growth. And with long-term interest rates at all-time lows, there's never been a better time for the feds to overpay gun owners and get these weapons out of circulation. The president can even pitch selling a gun to Uncle Sam as a patriotic act — part of a national rethinking of our gun culture in the wake of Newtown.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_22234896/buy-back-our-guns

See also, "How to cut $100 billion from the defense budget": http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/how-to-cut-100b-from-the-defense-budget-85178.html

[1-Old-Man]

1. $500 per gun would not be an offer which could not be refused

I'm not much of a gun nut, but there are guns around the house. We've got a couple of shotguns that offers of $1,000 each would be refused and the few pistols we own are worth far more than $500 each on the open market right this minute. That said our guns are not particularly exotic or rare, they are just somewhat upper end quality wise. There are many gun owners around here who have lots more guns than we do and much more expensive guns too. So while $500 will certainly buy you some guns it won't buy you all that many guns and the ones you get off the street would be mostly junk anyway.

[Robb]

3. Junk still fires.

On average I would've made out like a bandit at $500 per.

[11 Bravo]

169. I would still keep my Dad's service .45.

He flew into combat with it in the South Pacific and Korea. I intend to eventually pass it on to my sons. And the fact that it's worth considerably more than $500 has nothing to do with my decision.

[Robb]

174. I would, too.

But I hope you'd agree that's not a weapon contributing to the gun violence problem.

[11 Bravo]

177. Agreed, (and I think we're pretty much on the same page with regard to gun control).

[Robb]

179. It wouldn't surprise me.

[AgingAmerican]

54. Not true

The buy back in LA proves you wrong. And all they got for their guns were gift certificates for a food store.

[former9thward]

58. The LA program was a failure.

It was a typical feel good PR Program. They got a coupe thousand guns out of the nation's 2nd biggest city. Not even a drop in the bucket. I would love to see the guns turned in. I'll bet most were rusted junk.

[AgingAmerican]

60. It was a resounding success

"A one-day gun buyback event in Los Angeles on Wednesday gathered 2,037 firearms, including 75 assault weapons and two rocket launchers, officials said. The total was nearly 400 more weapons than were collected in a similar buyback earlier this year.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said the collection at two locations was so successful that the city ran out of money for supermarket gift cards and got a private donation through the city controller to bolster the pot."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/27/local/la-me-gun-buyback-20121228

[former9thward]

68. If you want to call a feel good PR stunts a "resounding success", fine.

I have other standards.

[Bluenorthwest]

85. What standards do you use? The rate of shooting crimes in LA is dropping, while Chicago, at half

the size has nearly twice the gun crime and murder. Do you have any proof that the buy back has not had an impact? Are the crime rates down because criminals are just going soft in LA?

[former9thward]

88. Just so we are on the same page:

Well not on the same page because that has proven to be impossible in gun discussion but at least some facts. First LA has 3.8 million and Chicago 2.7 million. Chicago is not "half size". Can we agree on that?

Second Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation. It looks like that has not had an impact.

Third: Do you have any proof that the buy back has not had an impact? You are asking me to prove a negative. That is impossible and I expect you know it. I could say the same-- Do you have any proof it it has had an impact? But I won't because you would correctly say it has been too early, etc.

Fourth, crime rates and murder have been going down over the last 20 years or so nationally. I am happy LA is part of that trend. The reasons for this have been the subject of much debate among criminologists. Google and you will see many articles and papers giving various reasons.

Finally gun sales are up significantly in CA and gun injuries and deaths are down. http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151/california-gun-sales-increase.html

[Egalitarian Thug]

79. It was a one time cash infusion into the economy that allowed people dump

the worthless junk that they couldn't get anybody to buy.

It was also a relatively cheap publicity stunt to Make Villaraigosa look like was doing something beside selling LA off to the highest bidders, for a change.

[Coyote_Tan]

82. They were training launchers...

Only way to kill someone with one is to beat them over the head with it.

[CreekDog]

95. the conservatives here even post against gun buybacks

anything that decreases the number of guns gets them more worried than an equivalent increase in hungry children or people without medical care.

[former9thward]

103. If you are going to slander a poster do it as a reply to the OP.

When you reply to the person you are trying to slander not that many others see it.

[CreekDog]

105. you want to take positions against gun buybacks and against liberal ideas, take the heat for them

you don't get to take those positions and not have someone argue with you over them nor point them out.

[former9thward]

112. I was trying to help you.

More people read replies to the OP than to sub-threads. So if you want to slander someone do it where the most people can read it.

I do more for "liberal ideas" everyday than I'm sure you have done in your life. I have no problem taking heat for it. In fact I welcome it. BTW, not that you care, but I didn't "take a position against gun buybacks" and any poster who reads the posts knows that. I questioned the efficiency of what was done in LA which in my view has no effect on anything.

[Xithras]

118. Yep. Any junk Garand that can still push a bullet will fetch $500

I had to sell most of my firearms collection because of financial problems several years ago, and not one of my rifles went for $500 or less. Heck, I posted my three Benelli shotguns for $1600 each, and they were sold within hours (I'd paid nearly $2400 for one of them NEW only a couple of years earlier). There's no way the new owners would turn them in for a paltry $500.

My two old Garands, which were nothing special, went for $900 each. I still own one, an authentic WW2 Garand that was carried by someone in my grandfathers unit as they marched through Normandy (a previous owner found some etchings on the inside of the buttplate, and I connected with him via a Garand forum). I wouldn't sell that rifle for ten times that amount (it's not safe to fire anyway, but it's a history piece for my family).

My dad has been a licensed NFA collector for more than 40 years. He has rifles and machine guns in his collection that are worth $20,000 to $40,000 each. Those rifles are his retirement plan. Giving them up for $500 isn't going to happen.

[Hoyt]

2. Good idea. But . . . . .

Unfortunately, the gun culture consider their weapons cache as priceless -- almost like a family member.

[Egalitarian Thug]

80. I think $300B might actually make a slight difference. n/t

[Hoyt]

89. Maybe. Although I sure hate to reward people for their bad habits and macabre interests.

[Ghost in the Machine]

159. Yeah, because selling a $1200.00 gun for $500.00 is such a *GREAT* return on investment....

Do you anti-gunners every really stop to process your own thoughts all the way through to their logical conclusions?? I didn't think so.... You just froth at the mouth over something YOU don't like, and/or most likely FEAR, screeching "BAN THEM!! BAN THEM!!! You actually have the unmitigated gall to try to take away one of my GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL *RIGHTS*. A Right that specifically says that "IT SHALL *NOT* BE INFRINGED UPON"!

Would you sell your car, or anything else you own, for half... or even less than half... of its value just because some people didn't like that object and wanted them banned???

Since the Democratic National Platform SUPPORTS the 2nd Amendment,

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
2012 Democratic National Platform
http://assets.dstatic.org/dnc-platform/2012-National-Platform.pdf

the anti-gunners should be PPR'ed from here, for not supporting the Platform..... or the will of most Democrats. Feel free to go form your own party if you want. Maybe then we can start getting some more support, and even winning in, The South. Maybe then we'll have a chance to *REALLY* have an unstoppable Democratic Majority for years and years to come. We work our asses off down here trying to turn people around, convince them that "the gubmint ain't gonna take (yer) guns"!... then they happen upon LOTS of posts like yours, making either us (the ones out working our asses off), or the National Party look like fucking liars. Take all the "South-Bashers" with you, too, please? Truth be told, you *need* the South a hell of a lot more than we need you.

Thanks,

Ghost

[Robb]

160. Limits on gun ownership already exist

So there is not the absolutism you suggest.

Also, this program is not designed to go after your expensive weapon. But there are a lot of cheap weapons out there this idea could get off the street.

[NutmegYankee]

162. There are cheap weapons out there.

But many gun owners, especially target shooters, have some very nice and expensive weapons. My main target pistols, with custom barrels, bushings, sights, and springs are worth at least $1500. Each mod was made solely to improve accuracy or sighting for target practice.

[Robb]

164. So what does that have to do with this idea?

If you don't want to sell a weapon for $500, don't.

[NutmegYankee]

165. Some OPs have stated that these buybacks would clear most guns from the nation.

I highly doubt this. Cheap weapons will get turned in if the owner is in financial distress, but the nicer ones won't.

[Ghost in the Machine]

175. Ok, so I can go buy several High-Point 9mm's, that run about $109.99 brand new, then sell them for

$500 each?? That's a geat idea, then. The gun shop makes money, the manufacturer makes more money due to the demand on these guns because, of course I'm going to have family members buying them too.... along with several friends, too. We all make a lot of money, the economy gets a good stimulation because we'll be spending that money... and all at the expense of the Government.. which means the TAXPAYERS!

BRILLIANT IDEA!!! I'm gonna buy one next week.... then start stocking up on them!

Thanks for the idea!

Ghost

[Robb]

176. You didn't read much of this thread, did you?

Not really your fault... I may collate the good ideas this thread has generated and repost them all in one place.

[Hoyt]

163. Should have thought of that when you bought them. You lose your "investment" in guns -- tough.

Gun owners who buy assault type weapons, multiple units, etc., are a blight on society. Banksters, polluters, racists/bigots, scammers, etc., are too. I don't care what happens to them either.

[NutmegYankee]

167. He wouldn't lose the investment. 5th amendment.

...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. With 200+ years of legal precedent, they'd have to give him fair market value for the weapon if it was taken from him. Any attempt to not do so would go to the courts.

[Hoyt]

170. If transfer/use/perception/ammo of/for damn things are banned/restricted, market value will plunge.

I'd laugh myself silly watching it.

Or laugh myself silly when some old yahoo proudly hands down his "assault" weapon to his son, and the son says , "I don't want the friggin thing and all the death/misery/intimidation it represents."

[NutmegYankee]

171. And that would go to the courts since the law damaged the value.

Remember, 200+ years of these types of arguments.

Let's say you are losing a house to build a highway, and the states flattens all the forest around the house and turns the land to mud. You would still get the value of the house before the damage to the surrounding scenery lowered the value of the property.

[Hoyt]

172. Government action damages the stock market, housing values, etc. Good luck with your and NRA's suit

I suggest you dump your weapons now.

But please, be responsible and go through an FFL/Dealer for background checks even if it costs you a few extra dollars. Thanks.

[NutmegYankee]

173. LOL.

I'm not a member of the NRA. Never was, never will be. But you outed yourself as a radical but indicating you think I am.

[Ghost in the Machine]

178. All I had to think about was my Constitutional Right......

It's the Nanny-Staters and chicken littles who are afraid of things they don't understand that are the blights on society. I don't care what happens to them, either...

You've made a joke of yourself on here so much it isn't funny! The *only* reason I don't put you on ignore is because I want to see what kind of silly shit you come up with next. You're welcome to alert on this, but it's not a personal attack, just a statement of fact...

Ghost

[Hoyt]

180. I don't alert on folks, Ghost. How much do you have invested in guns?

The poor, pitiful plight of the gun promoters/abusers is what is funny.

[backwoodsbob]

4. hell yeah..go for it

I have a few .22's i would trade in at 500 a pop...$1,000 would buy me a sweet .44 desert eagle

[JohnnyBoots]

32. Haha

Was thinking the same thing. Sell a couple bare bones 10/22's and go get the SIG 226 I've had my eye on.

[AgingAmerican]

40. There ya go

Two guns made into one

[samsingh]

5. start taxing guns to reflect their true cost on society

[backwoodsbob]

8. should we also

start taxing cars and alcohol to reflect their true cost on society?

[JaneyVee]

12. We already do. Alcohol & tobacco is taxed heavily, and cars require insurance.

[backwoodsbob]

20. do we tax cars

to reflect their true cost on society?

[Robb]

23. We tax the hell out of fuel.

[backwoodsbob]

24. not really

we tax fuel to pay for infrastructure..not to pay for the societal cost of the car

[ecstatic]

26. Does ad valorem tax count?

Although the older cars, which do the most damage, pay the least...

[AgingAmerican]

41. Cars aren't used as mass murder weapons

n/t

[Yavin4]

69. Let's see. You pay for a driver's license. You pay to register your car.

You pay to have your car inspected. You pay parking tickets. You pay traffic tickets. You pay insurance.

I would say, "hell yes, we tax cars".

[samsingh]

87. we pay tax on gasoline, we have to buy insurance on cars

what do gun proponents have against cars? examples always come back to them.

yes, let's ban cars. i'm good with bicycles.

[warrior1]

6. with the condition

that no firearms or ammo can be bought with this prepaid card.

[backwoodsbob]

11. how are you going to enforce that?

I trade in three junk guns for $1500 and then buy a $1,500 dollar whatever then turn it back in and buy a .desert eagle...how will you stop that?

[Robb]

14. Same way you can't buy booze with SNAP.

Not remotely complicated.

[backwoodsbob]

19. you're joking..right?

that system isn't even remotely complicated to beat.

You give me an opportunity to turn in as many junk guns as I want at 500 a pop and I will get rich...and I will get my prized desert eagle too

[Robb]

22. And yet less than $1 in every $100 in SNAP is spent fraudulently.

Are gun owners as a group more likely to break the law than people on government assistance?

[backwoodsbob]

25. nope

[Robb]

35. Looks like every gun owner on this thread is ready to break the law.

[bongbong]

134. Yep!

The Delicate Flowers value their Preciouses much, much more than something as "stupid" as a law that they feel too special to obey.

[SQUEE]

135. *cough* *cough*

pot, meet kettle...

[AgingAmerican]

43. Very stiff penalties for doing so

a $10,000 fine can go a long way towards influencing people.

[backwoodsbob]

62. I agree

a 10,000 fine for speeding would go a long way towards stopping speeding too.

[AgingAmerican]

63. Gun buy backs have nothing to do with traffic violations

But you already know that.

[backwoodsbob]

67. and 10k fines for owning guns will never happen

but you know that already

[AgingAmerican]

128. But

It would stop crooks, wouldn't it?

[krispos42]

28. If I can use the prepaid cards...

...to buy gas and groceries and pay my bills, then I free up money from my paycheck to buy a gun.

[AgingAmerican]

45. If guns are that important to you

then go for it. People who think like that are a tiny minority.

[HereSince1628]

7. Hmmm, I suppose that we could cut Social Security to buy back guns to provide Social Security

or something like that, because the R's don't want any new spending

All this MUST be revenue neutral.

[bluedigger]

9. It would take a lot of handguns, rifles, and shotguns off the streets.

As others have pointed out, most of the semi-auto's that are the current focus/problem are worth more than that on the open market. Other firearms of greater value don't seem as much of a threat to society anyways, as they tend to belong more to serious collectors and sportsmen. But a program like that would get a lot of cheap guns off the streets, which would be a good thing. I think we need to look at a sliding scale of transfer fees based on weapons classes, as well, to make trading weapons less attractive to the barter hobbyists.

[JaneyVee]

10. $500 a gun would remove alot of guns.

[jmg257]

13. What if we pass a law making numerous guns illegal to possess 1st? THEN $500 a piece

would seem like a great deal, as their market value plummits! (and $500 would be too much for many)

[loli phabay]

15. not worth it for me to sell any of mine for only that much

I could sell for more to a neighbour or at the local paper.

[Robb]

16. Then you wouldn't have to.

This program could reduce by two thirds the number of weapons on the street. That would leave one third.

[backwoodsbob]

27. it wouldn't reduce shit

Cool...you do the buyback and I turn in every junk gun I can get my hands on at 500 a pop...now I have bill money for months and can use my extra cash to buy my desert eagle

[AgingAmerican]

47. Nobody would sell you junk guns to turn in

They would turn them in themselves.

[energumen]

17. Agree

I have a few I would sell for 500... and then, most likely, replace them with better models. Without a complete ban gun this is not feasible and would result in higher profiles for firearms manufacturers.

[Renew Deal]

18. I would use the card to buy a money order which I would then deposit

But aside from that, people would go on a gun buying spree. It would drive up the prices of certain weapons big time. I'm not sure this is the best idea. $200 is closer to reasonable.

This is all kind if a waste, because house republicans would nicer vote to spend money and on gun buy backs.

[Robb]

21. It's illegal to use food stamps to buy electronics.

Make it illegal to use these cards to buy more guns.

Look, SNAP fraud is somewhere around 1%. Are you suggesting gun owners as a group are more likely to break the law than people on public assistance?

Do some value added stuff, too. A handgun gets you a $500 card, maybe GM, Ford and Chevy all offer to redeem it for twice that on a sale of a new car or truck. Various foundations could do matching grants if you use the card for charitable giving.

[Revanchist]

29. But what's to stop them

From using the $500 to pay for other things like rent, utilities, etc. then use the money they would of spent on those things to purchase a new firearm?

[Robb]

37. A crappy economy?

You think every gun owner who got an extra $500 would run right out any buy more guns? None of them would fix up the house, car, put it into a vacation or college fund?

[AgingAmerican]

49. Massive fines if you get caught

like $10k for every gun involved in the scam. Or even $100k per gun.

Some people are crooks. Those people would scam the system. Most people aren't crooks

[backwoodsbob]

64. agreed

and a mimimum 10k fine for speeding...and a minimum 10k fine for shoplifting...we could lower all sorts of crimes with 10k or 1,000 days in jail minimum penalties

[AgingAmerican]

66. More false equivenancy

and attempts at changing the subject.

You are obviously intimidated at the thought of being fined for abusing a gun buy back, which tells us it would work.

[Robb]

93. +1.

BTW, you are making this thread look good, excellent responses.

[Robb]

155. Interesting idea, but you could put a time limit in there

...to discourage the gun flippers.

Every weapon you redeem adds 60 days to the period of time you must wait to buy another. It won't discourage the private collector who is determined, but it will keep profit-minded opportunists from dumping 50 guns at a time.

[EOTE]

59. I understand where you're coming from, but I think this is a different situation.

Let's consider if it's made illegal to use these cards to buy more guns. Would they then make it illegal for people to EVER buy guns? Would there be anything in place to prevent the people from selling their guns to use their $500 to buy groceries and then use the money they would have used for groceries to buy another gun? I believe the proponents of this idea have their heart in the right place, I just don't know how effective it would be and I fear it might be a huge gift to gun manufacturers.

[slackmaster]

30. I'd sell all of my Mosin-Nagant rifles for $500 each

And use the money to buy something really nice.

[kelly1mm]

34. Exactly! I got in on the 2008 Mosin Nagant M44 blowout (5 M44's shipped for $200), cleaned them,

sold two of them for $300 total and still have 3 left. I would sell 2 for $1000 total in a heartbeat (will keep one just for kicks - it is a blast (literally) at the range).

The real arbitrage play on this would be to pick up 10 or so Mossburg 702 plinksters (.22 cal, semi-auto, 10 shot mags) for $125ish each brand new at Dicks (total about $1500 out the door with tax) and drive them straight to the turn in location and get $5000 for a $3500 profit.

Sweet!

[Robb]

39. Any number of structures could make that plan illegal.

Do you actively seek to commit other kinda of fraud?

[kelly1mm]

53. Arbitrage is not fraud. There were no exceptions in the OP for guns valued at less than $500

or time limits for ownership. If there were, or if you would propose them in a new OP you may have a point. However, as is, you are presenting a new fact that was not part of the proposal and thus, your allegations are without basis.

Do I look for oppertunities for arbitrage? Yes, nearly every day. Just like the 5 pack of M44's. I knew I could sell 2 of the 5 for more than the cost of the 5 total. They came packed in cosmoline so it took about an hour to clean each one. So, there was some oppertunity cost in that. Still, at the endof the day, for 6 hours of work I got 3 M44's and about $75 in cash (total value about $500) so not to bad fr 6 hours of work.

Another example would be coupons. I do a lot of couponing. I just had a super deal where GE CF lightbulbs were on special for $1 each. I had 80 cupons for $1 off GE CF bulbs. Plus, for every set of 10 you got $3 off your next purchase atthat store. So, I did 8 sets of 10 bulbs each paying only $4.20 tax, got $24 off groceries, and sold 70 of the light bulbs on ebay for (net) $55.

[aikoaiko]

168. Excellent idea.

[IMG][/IMG]
http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F3M53&name=Chinese+Type+53+7.62x54R+Mosin+Nagant+Carbine&groupid=12

Even with FFL transfer and shipping, you could more than double your money.

[-..__...]

31. What about my "hi-cap" magazines and ammo?

I think I should be paid $5,000 per bullet, just like Chris Rock suggested.

[krispos42]

33. This program would net a shitload of .22 rifles...

I paid $200 for my Ruger 10/22, and I have an old Mossberg .22 that i got for free and a cheap .22 pistol that I got for $110. I'd trade all three of those in, buy a 9mm handgun, a really nice .22 pistol and then re-buy a new 10/22. And I'd have money left over.


The idea is not workable; too many guns are worth less than $500. And taking bolt-action or break-action .22 rifles off the market is not going to make any dent in any crime rate. Neither is taking off single-barrel break-action shotguns.

[Robb]

36. Handguns always outnumber rifles in buyback programs.

Why is that, do you suppose?

[slackmaster]

42. It's probably because handguns are used far more often in crimes. There are many "dirty" handguns...

...that people are eager to get rid of, and a "buyback" with no questions asked creates a perfect opportunity.

Not only can the gun be ditched safely, the person who wants to get rid of it even gets paid.

[krispos42]

71. Well, they are usually done in cities...

... where sporting guns and recreational shooting is rarer. Particularly in poor neighborhoods with lots of crime. The preferred tool of the career criminal is a disposable handgun, remember.

And the cash has not generally been that high so people are not inclined to travel long distances to turn in old guns.

But I would certainly travel to NYC to trade in the 3 guns I mentioned for $ 1, 500. Especially when they cost me $320 to buy. One I would simply re-purchase, and the other 2 would be upgrades. I would actually wind up with more firepower!

Understand that I am not against the guy buying programs, as they sure an opportunity to clean things out. I disagree with destroying the guns, because that obviously is far less efficient than simply reselling them to new, legal owners.

[Robb]

74. The dog whistle is beneath you, krispos.

[krispos42]

99. Reply:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2093005


Sorry, I put it in the wrong spot!

[krispos42]

98. Show me a gun buyback program being done in a small, rural town.

Or an affluent suburb. They're rare. New York, DC, Chicago, LA, San Fransisco, Miama, Detroit... they're known for them. Pierre, South Dakota... not so much.


Where I live, the city of Bridgeport, which has a fairly heavy crime and poverty problem, does gun buying programs on a regular basis. The affluent suburbs around it does not. Nobody is pushing a gun buyback program in Westport or Fairfield or Trumbull or Easton... or Newtown.

Violent crime is much more of an urban problem than suburban, and gun buying programs are centered in those areas in an attempt to reduce violence.

[Robb]

110. Small rural towns can barely keep their streets sprayed with mag chloride.

Gun buying programs are centered where there is money to have a gun buying program.

[krispos42]

120. Hmmmm....

...i thought the money was donated for some reason. My error, then.

[JDPriestly]

149. Gun buyback programs work best in densely populated areas in which you have crime in the

streets. That is where they are needed and appropriate.

[AgingAmerican]

50. The gun buy back in LA netted rocket launchers

You were saying?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/28/16221808-rocket-launchers-surface-during-los-angeles-guns-buyback?lite

[Duckhunter935]

57. no, empty tubes

I have one of those empty tubes that we used as a training aid. useless as a weapon, probably could get 20 dollars for it.

[AgingAmerican]

61. It also netted 75 assault weapons

Explain that away.

[krispos42]

73. The term "assault weapon"...

Applies to rifles, shotguns, and handguns with certain combinations of secondary features.

The term invokes military-style rifles, but they could also be TEC-9 pistols, which used to be inexplicably popular and not particularly expensive.

[AgingAmerican]

75. Nice try

They did not lump shotguns and handguns in with assault rifles.

The buyback netted 901 handguns and 363 shotguns.

Why are you so intimidated at the thought of people turning in guns?

[hack89]

77. From the California definition of Assault Weapon

A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
A folding or telescoping stock.
A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2

[AgingAmerican]

81. You can spin until your head explodes

Doesnt change the facts. The LAPD collected 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns and 75 assault weapons.

"L.A. gun buyback nets 2,037 firearms, including 75 assault weapons"

Do the math Einstein: 901 + 698 + 363 + 75 = 2,037

Shotguns and handguns were not counted as assault rifles. You are grasping at straws.

[hack89]

83. They collected assault "weapons" correct?

why are you talking about "rifles"? Don't you think the cops in California understand their own laws?

[AgingAmerican]

124. It is third grade arithmetic

The LAPD collected 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns and 75 assault weapons.

L.A. gun buyback nets 2,037 firearms, including 75 assault weapons.

901 handguns + 698 rifles + 363 shotguns + 75 assault weapons = 2,037 total weapons. This isn't rocket science. This is third grade arithmetic.

Why are you so desperately trying to spin this? Why are you so intimidated by people turning guns in? Do you perceive this gun buy back as some sort of threat?

Jaysus.

[hack89]

130. Some pistols are pistols, some pistols are assault weapons

some shotguns are shotguns, some shotguns are assault weapons. Some rifles are rifles, some rifles are assault weapons.

By law, those assault weapons included pistol, shotguns and rifles.

[AgingAmerican]

131. So...

you are saying they counted some of the weapons more than once?

[hack89]

132. Just pointing out that those assualt weapons

are not all AR-15, AK-47 type weapons. That's all.

You said:

They did not lump shotguns and handguns in with assault rifles.

Just admit you were wrong.

[AgingAmerican]

137. So they counted the weapons twice?

Read the article. Your obfuscation is absurd.

[hack89]

142. What type of weapons constitute assault weapons according to CA law?

Think about it.

[obamanut2012]

86. My 9mm is 12+1

So, in CA, that is considered an assault weapon. Interesting.

[AgingAmerican]

126. I have a 9mm T33 Tokarev

Used as a side arm by Russian officers in and after WWII. Does this count as an assault weapon?

[obamanut2012]

129. How am I supposed to know?

I don;t even know wtf that is.

[AgingAmerican]

133. My point exactly

The gun folks on this thread are attempting to obfuscate the fact that 75 assault weapons were turned in by implying that handguns and shotguns were counted in that 75, even though anyone can just add them up themselves.

[krispos42]

101. *sigh*

Definition of "assault weapon" (general definition; being arbitrary, there is no fixed definition)

A semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, or pistol, fed from a detachable magazine, with a protruding pistol grip, and that has more than an allowable number of secondary characteristics such as folding buttstocks, bayonet lugs, etc.



Definition of "assault rifle":

A rifle that shoots a cartridge more powerful than a submachine gun but less powerful than a battle rifle, and that is capable of firing more than one shot per trigger pull. Generally speaking, the rifle has an effective range of up to 300 meter, and shoots a cartridge that develops between 1,200 and 1,600 foot-pounds of energy. It is intended to replace both the submachine gun and the battle rifle.





A shotgun or pistol can be an "assault weapon" as easily as a rifle, by the definition of "assault weapon". Common (mis)perception is that an "assault weapon" is an AK-47-type or AR-15-type rifle. The fact that this is confusing is what makes the discussion so difficult to work through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

[AgingAmerican]

127. The gun count is cut and dried

Not sure why people are trying to obfuscate simple arithmetic.

[krispos42]

146. I'm not. I'm letting you know that "assault weapons"...

the 75 guns that the LAPD collected, were either rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Because of secondary features, they were collectively put into a 4th group.

In reality, the LAPD collected 901+x handguns, 698+y rifles, and 363+z shotguns. x+y+z=75, the number of guns that could be classified as "assault weapons".

x = number of handguns that are also assault weapons. y=number of rifles that are also assault weapons. z= number of shotguns that are also assault weapons.

By California's definition of assault weapon, of course, which may or may not be the same as other states, or the now-expired federal definition.

Since a rifle that would be classified as an "assault weapon" generally costs a minimum of $600 and generally in the range of $1,000, I'm saying I doubt people turned in 75 AR-15 rifles.

I find it far more likely that what was turned in were old TEC-9 pistols that would be classified as "assault weapons". I could be wrong, but they were the hip thing for gang members to have back in the 80's and 90's, so finding some of them and getting cash for them seems to be a reasonable theory.



You seem to think that the definition of "assault weapon" applies only to rifles. A lot of people share this belief, which is understandable because most of the controversy surrounds rifles like AR-15s and AK-47s and such. I'm trying to disseminate knowledge.

[AgingAmerican]

147. Absolute made up nonsense

And you know it.

[krispos42]

157. I'm sorry we've reached an impasse.

There are only 3 core categories of guns. Long guns that shoot a single projectile, long guns that shoot a group of projectiles, and guns that are designed to be fired with one hand.

If a gun from one of these categories has certain characteristics, it's defined as an assault weapon.

I've shown you examples and provided definitions and explanations. If you can't or won't understand, then you will be perpetually disappointed with the law and the issue.

[ManiacJoe]

166. You really need to educate yourself on this topic.

We are more than happy to help you, but you will need to start asking questions.

krispos42's post #146 is accurate.

[krispos42]

72. It netted 2 war trophies.

Used, non-reloadable fiberglass tubes that used to hold an anti-tank rocket.

Look up "AT4" on Wikipedia.

It's good PR, but that's all. Its like paying $200 for a used 88mm flak-gun casing from WW2

[AgingAmerican]

76. Why are you so intimidated

at the thought of guns and military weapons coming off the street? Do you see it as some sort of threat?

[Duckhunter935]

90. no

I just would like for there to be accurate reporting. Those empty tubes are no threat. I would like to see pictures of the assault weapons as I do not trust the reporting. More power to them if they pay to get unwanted weapons off the street. A lot will not be operational and I expect will not make much difference. But if they want to do it more power to them, just be accurate in the reporting and descriptions.

[krispos42]

96. I dislike hysteria-based politics and policy and legislation.

"military" weapons is a useless term; pretty much every firearm sold is either a copy of a military weapon or a derivative of one, no matter how far back in the history of this country you go.

I don't inherently care about the number of guns owned, but I do object to the government using its power to tax and regulate to make the process so complicated it act as a depressant to, well, most things. What some are trying to do with guns is the exact same thing that others are trying to do with voting and abortion and other things like civil lawsuits or fighting eminent domain or whatever.

[Posteritatis]

161. Says the person freaking out at the equivalent of a pair of scabbards? (nt)

[Spirochete]

38. Yeah! Good idea.

I'd sell every gun I have for $500 each. I never ever use them anyway. And they sure aren't worth that much.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. For one year followed by a strict prohibition of future sales.

After that semiauto military style weapons are done.

[rrneck]

46. As long as you're buying them from people who will misus them.

Otherwise it's a waste of money.

[shintao]

48. What would I buy with worthless rifles?

Oh, I would probably go get a few semi-auto hand guns & 100,000 rounds of additional ammo, clips & Lazar sights. etc. That will also stimulate the economy. Now that is what your shooter is going to be thinking. Just by changing the designed assault stock of the rifle to the hunting version (mechanisms the same) exempts them, even though everything else is the same. I wonder if there is a law against buying the assault style stocks & changing them out on the rifle??

Here is a R-10/23 and as you can see, just changing the stock changes whether it is baned.

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

[AgingAmerican]

52. Put a stipulation in the buy back law

That anyone caught buying guns, gun accessories and ammo with the buy back money would be fined, say ten thousand dollars per item.

A few numbskulls would still do it but only a tiny minority.

[Revanchist]

70. But that's the problem

Use that $500 card to make a rent or mortgage payment and get a receipt. Then turn around and use the money you would of spent on such items to buy guns. Legally they didn't use the money to buy anything firearm related there's no way to enforce any sort of stipulation against anyone with half a brain.

Do I think that there are too many firearms in the wrong hands and taking some of them off the street would be a good thing? Sure, but the majority of the time the guns that are turned in are cheap pieces of junk are aren't worth a third of what the government pays for them or is a great way for a shady individual to dispose of a "hot" weapon. I think the money would be better spent on firearm related education or mental health programs.

[AgingAmerican]

78. Your position is very convoluted

Any system can be beat, if someone is desperate enough to beat it. I don't believe a very high percentage of gun owners turning in guns would go to such extremes to commit the crimes you describe.

And those that did would be exchanging multiple guns for single guns, which would mean less guns on the street.

Any way you spin it, less guns would circulate.

[Walk away]

51. So they can go out and buy new ones? The NRA would be delighted...

a gun stimulus!

[farminator3000]

55. throw this in with it, now we're talking!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022050329

[AgingAmerican]

56. A tiny minority of gun owners would be livid, or abuse the system

But the majority is not beholden to their whims.

"When Los Angeles police moved up their annual Citywide Gun Buyback program to this week, they collected an arsenal that included 75 assault weapons, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns, 901 handguns and — more surprisingly — two rocket launchers."

All these weapons were traded for grocery vouchers.

"all ya gotta do is stand in front of a grocery store and sell the voucher for .75$ on the dollar and run out and buy a gun with the money"

There is always a way to abuse a system. Nothing a massive system of fines couldn't deter.

[Arctic Dave]

65. I think it is a great idea.

Even if, as people here are saying, they trade in multiple gun for a single one that would be good. Doing that would also cause inflation on new ones and drive the price out of range.

Supply and demand.

[divineorder]

84. A lot of guns would be permanently off the street

Plenty of guns out there belong to people who don't need or want guns-and those are likely to be the ones most stolen or misused in some way in an impulsive moment. Reducing that number would help immensely, like it did in Australia in reducing gun crime that occurs in a heated or drunken moment. $500 is a good number, but I would increase it to $1000 for assault rifles and military ordinance turned in.

Don't laugh at the rocket launcher. God knows how many old grenades and other things are out there too, and any incentive to get those out of the hands of untrained civilians is a plus as well. Those can be used in underworld crimes as well (arson, car bombings)

[Kurska]

91. I'd just sell my 3 guns for 1500 dollars and then rebuy them for like the 700 I originally paid

I of course totally support this plan.

[Robb]

92. Would you do that if it were against the law to do so?

Just curious. Nearly every gun owner in the thread has some clever way to break the hypothetical law in mind. Law abiding gun owners to a man, surely.

[Kurska]

181. No, but I'd manipulate the hell out of it.

It is an unjust law so it doesn't deserve my respect, I'm sure I'd be able to find a legal way around it even if it means just moving a few numbers around in my budget.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

94. Seeing as how a Bushmaster .223 costs about 50% more than $500...

Nice AR15s commonly break the $1000 pricetag. I think alot of gun owners could refuse $500. Even cheap glocks and stuff are only about $500 (yes, glocks are pretty inexpensive in the world of modern pistols). Not to mention that when you start to talk about banning and gun control, the price shoots sky high. Currently, the cheapest "basic" model AR15s are running about $1100-$1500 over the past 2 weeks. AR15 receiver prices have pretty much tripled.

I would say average offer should be about $1000/gun... then you might take a good chunk of them off the street.

[lynne]

97. Gun theft would go through the roof so thieves could turn them in for the $$$ -

- and what people would legally turn in would be junk/outdated/not in usable condition.

I have no illusion that gun owners would turn in all their guns as they would be concerned they couldn't get a replacement.

[ZX86]

100. Similar to my gun buy back idea.

$50 - $300 per firearm depending on type and condition and a lottery ticket for a 5 million tax free monthly prize open to gun buy back participants only. Since the pool of participants would be smaller than normal lotteries the chances of winning would be much greater.

For those with more expensive guns an additional lottery ticket could be issued for values above $300 in $100 increments (ex. if you bring in a gun worth $400 you get $300 and 2 lottery tickets, a gun worth $500 you get $300 and 3 lottery tickets.)

Retailers could be encouraged to donate gift cards in exchange for tax incentives. Made in USA products could receive larger tax incentives. A program like this could be a win-win for everybody.

[Deep13]

102. We need to stop thinking about this as a class issue.

This would encourage people to turn in their old .22s and some pistols. Expensive guns like AR15s, Sig pistols, or quality shotguns cost a lot more than $500. All the talk about buy-backs, or insurance requirements, on taxes on ammunition are directed at poor gun owners. And this plays right into the NRA narrative. The implication is that middle class people with a house in the suburbs has to protect his family and property from some drug-crazed, non-white, poor person from the city.

Anyone can be violent and I have not known lower class people to be more violent than middle class people.

[ZX86]

104. My idea would address your concerns.

Additional lottery tickets for expensive guns. The more expensive the gun, the more lottery tickets you receive and better chance at winning a 5 million dollar prize.

[doc03]

106. You would get a bunch cheap rifles, shotguns and pistols. But it wouldn't

bring in any of the guns that need to be eliminated, most of those are worth far more than $500. I have a Ruger .380 LCP, a black powder .44 revolver, a .22 revolver I would give up for $500. I wouldn't give up my Springfeild XDM or my 870 shotgun for $500.

[Robb]

107. Are only expensive weapons dangerous?

[doc03]

111. No I am talking mostly about the military style semi-autos

with high capacity magazines. Any gun can be dangerous if in the wrong hands but you can't kill 20 kids with a black powder revolver unless you pack a lunch.

[Robb]

113. You can kill 20 kids with 20 guns in 20 hands pretty easily, too.

We kill that many 6-and-unders in this country every four months, mostly with cheap weapons.

[doc03]

115. You will never eliminate those deaths unless you eliminate all guns

and that has zero chance of happening. At best maybe we could prevent some of the mass murders like in Newtown. Sad but that is the way it is.

[Robb]

117. I know, zero chance because there are so many guns.

300 million or so, right?

This program would chop that number by 200 million.

[GreenStormCloud]

108. Overpay? Have you priced guns lately?

You might be able to buy a Hi-point for that, but you won't get a SIG-Sauer.

[Robb]

109. I can walk outside and get five pistols for $500 in under an hour.

The world does not revolve around Sigs and Glocks.

[GreenStormCloud]

152. If you want Jimenez Arms, go for it. N/T

[Robb]

154. Are cheap handguns somehow less dangerous?

[backscatter712]

114. $500 is more than a lot of guns are worth. And some guns are worth a hell of a lot more than that.

I'd say pay fair market value. If you bring in a junker that has no collector value and doesn't even work, here's $10. Valuable antiques could be worth thousands, and should go to museums rather than being melted down. For that matter, collectors of valuable historical pieces could be given the option of having their guns disabled and keeping them.

Of course, there's lots of functional weapons in the mid-range, which could be worth anything from $150 to $1,000.

[ZX86]

121. Lottery idea bypasses a lot of your concerns.

Cap the cash pay out at $300 with an additional lottery ticket for every $100 of value. Trust me. Greed will champion over fear of a zombie apocalypse and the market value of guns that are used for posing in front of mirrors anyway. Even gun nuts will realize that the chances of winning a 5 million doillar lottery in a restricted pool of participants is a lot more likely to happen than their fantasies of defending themselves against marauding hordes of the undead or food stamp recipients.

[ZX86]

116. Is it just me or.....

A lot of people here are poo pooing the idea of a gun back program just because? I don't sense a spirit of concern for the the amount of guns in our society and the need to reduce them. I don't see a willingness support an idea that would bypass all constitutional issues while also stimulating economy. What I do hear is smug debbie downers proclaiming their laser scoped, semi-automatic, massacre class, Kill Master 5000 assault rifle w/optional shopping mall, movie theater, and school yard settings is way too expensive for some silly buy back program that wouldn't work anyway.

[Robb]

119. It's because with 300 million guns in the US, gun control is "impossible."

With the idea of a simple plan that shrinks that to 100 million, suddenly it looks a lot different.

[Xithras]

122. Actually, gun buybacks aren't a bad idea.

It's the notion that you can use buybacks to significantly reduce the overall number of guns in our society that is being pooh pooh'd. Gun buybacks can be very effective at getting already-illegal firearms off the street, and for removing inherited firearms that are simply sitting in a closet owned by someone with no interest in them. This is a laudable thing, but guns and rifles like these are a fairly small percentage of the overall number of firearms in the United States. The FBI has stated that there are about 200 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. (the overall number of civilian-owned firearms is higher, but the difference includes firearms held by security companies, police departments, museums, etc.) , so the OP's plan was to remove them ALL via this buyback.

That plan isn't even remotely realistic. A buyback like this would certainly remove MILLIONS of firearms from circulation, but how many millions? Five? Ten? That's a worthy goal, but isn't much of a dent in the overall number of firearms held by private owners in this country. If the PLAN is to eliminate all private firearms via a $500 buyback, the plan will never work. If the plan is merely to offer a buyback to take as many as possible off the street, then it will work as well as any other buyback.

[ZX86]

123. Straw man?

I didn't see where the OP claimed that a buy back eliminate all guns in private hands.

[Xithras]

125. No straw man. Preschool level mathematics.

Title in the OP, and in the article: "A $100 billion, one-time program aimed at buying back 200 million firearms at $500 a pop"

In 2009, there were an estimated 310 million firearms in the United States. According to the FBI, just over 200 million of these are in purely private hands (the rest belong to the military, to police forces, to private security companies, museums, etc). According to the always disagreeable NRA, the number of purely private firearms is actually 270 million.

I'm presuming that the writer of the article in the OP isn't interested in buying back guns from the military or police departments, so I'd guess that the 200 million purely private firearms, as estimated by the FBI, are the target. If you HAVE 200 million guns, and you want to REMOVE 200 million guns, that pretty much means that you want to remove ALL guns. Even if you're going to use the NRA's estimate of 270 million firearms, you're still talking about removing 75% of the private firearms in the country.

Quite frankly, I'd be floored if you could net even 10% of that in a $500 buyback. The notion isn't being mocked because of an anti-buyback sentiment, it's being mocked because $500 per gun is a trivial amount compared to the value of many firearms, and it's not going to make a dent.

It's the equivalent of a politician saying, "I have a plan to remove 100% of the smog spewing SUV's from the roadway...we're going to offer a $1000 government buyback to all SUV owners". A program like that would unquestionably remove SOME SUV's from the road, but most SUV owners wouldn't give a seconds serious thought to selling their $20,000 SUV for a thousand dollars. The IDEA of the trade-in isn't a bad one. The notion that such a trade in could remove all, or even a majority, of SUV's from the roads is a joke.

[AgingAmerican]

138. More of the same

No single law/program will cure the problem thus no new laws/programs should be implemented.

We hear different versions of that meme every day.

[SQUEE]

136. Actually its definately a great idea,

It would remove a lot of lower end firearms from the poor and untrained, it would not entice all the people that can afford those higher end firearms, and special schools and training, and gated communities as well. Great idea, keeping the bourgeois well armed and making sure the rabble have far less Jennings, Lorcins and Tec-9s....

[Robb]

139. Placating the "rabble" with the false sense of power guns offer is better?

[SQUEE]

140. The right to protect yourself is no false sense.

I live in a rural area of Tennessee, with very little LE presence. Most of my neighbors are the incredibly poor, and the Sheriff is in no hurry to head back in to the 'hollers around here. I recognize this is not reality for many, but being well armed around here is the only security we have.
Not to mention coyotes and feral dogs and hogs are a constant nuisance. That among other things is why I am adamant in remaining armed

[Robb]

141. Everybody's got their story about how their guns aren't part of the problem.

And how no one else can possibly understand. All gun owners justify their weapons in the same way everyone with high-clearance 4WD is POSITIVE they need it. Some do. Most don't.

I've lived and worked in places where people did a lot of shooting. Funny thing, guns don't stop bullets, no matter how nice the weapon.

The bullets only stop when everyone stops shooting.

[SQUEE]

143. either way as long as it is legal and my right..

I do what I do, you do what you do. Only difference is I do not advocate you have to do exactly what I want you to do, I believe it is your choice, and respect and defend it.

[Robb]

144. To mangle Holmes, your right to swing your gun ends where my nose begins.

Too many kids are dying for an imaginary empowerment, sold to the vulnerable by soulless corporations in the name of profits above public safety.

People are starting to notice.

[SQUEE]

145. I will rely on H.L. Mencken

"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”

[JDPriestly]

148. That would only work if you controlled gun sales.

And I think that it would not violate the Constitution under any interpretation of the Second Amendment if you strongly controlled gun sales.

The Second Amendment speaks to the bearing of arms, not the selling of arms. Seems to me there is some wiggle room there, and to be very honest and practical, considering the population growth in our country since passage of the Second Amendment and the population density that population increase has caused, we need more wiggle room -- both literally and figuratively speaking.

[Robb]

153. There is regulation already.

So it's obviously not an absolute, yes.

[JoeyT]

150. I think you'd have to limit what kind of guns were included.

Otherwise you're going to end up with boxcars full of cheap .22s, .25s, etc that would have never been used in a homicide anyway. You can get a cheap .22 for $100 used.

Limit it to .223, .38, .45, .357, 9mm, etc. Those are the rifle and handgun rounds that kill the most people and cost enough to discourage the "I'm gonna buy a thousand .22s used and make half a million dollars to buy more guns with!" strategy.

[Robb]

156. Or "blue book" x 1.5, up to $500. (nt)

[ileus]

158. I'd pull 3 or 4 of my sub 500 bucks guns for this.

Take the debit cards to the LGS and pick up some Ammo or a new AR or two, maybe an AR and a fullsized 45.

Not a bad idea IMHO.


Hell I'd go buy up all the Ravens, Hipoints, and RG's in the country.