Here is a fantastic article written by Joel McDurmon, which I highly recommend to you all. I think you will find his clear, logical, and simple explanation of what is really going on to be very insightful and helpful!
~The Dangerous Farce of Gun Buyback Programs~
By Joel McDurmon
Despite local police departments hailing themselves with “success”
and touting the acquisition of allegedly dangerous weapons, the various
“gun buyback” programs of which you hear (and will likely hear of more)
are a total joke. Worse yet, they’re actually dangerous for the public.
Here’s why.
Most average citizens are not stupid. Neither are most criminals. In
comparison, considering the level of street wisdom and savvy required to
remain a successful criminal, it may very well be the case that the
average successful criminal is a bit cleverer than the average decent
citizen.
The problem with most criminals, at any rate, is not stupidity but immorality.
Criminals prefer to use their wit and experience to prey upon the
weaknesses and ignorance of decent people. But it isn’t just criminals
who do this. It is the heart of all immorality: the advance of selfish
ambition to the hurt or damage of other persons and property.
The immediate motive in most thefts and robberies is economic gain. A
thief or robber is willing to risk potential punishment in exchange for
potential material gain. There are many factors in such a calculation,
of course, and not all criminals consider all the factors, but this is
the basic outline. This is self-interest without basic morals.
Now, the inherent self-interested economic savvy of the average
person is the main reason gun buyback programs are a total joke. Most of
these programs present an economic loss to the gun owner. The highest
offer I’ve seen yet was
$250 for certain guns in Trenton, NJ. The recent program in Seattle (
hilariously hijacked by private gun dealers a block down the road) offered up to $100 for handguns and rifles, and
$200 for “assault rifles”—and this was only in the form of gift cards,
not cash. Now what person who has any economic sense whatsoever would
hand over a $600 Glock for a $100 gift card? Who would trade a $1200
Bushmaster for $200?
And if an average citizen wouldn’t do this, what criminal do you
think would trade in his Glock or Uzi for such a pittance, especially
with the added risk of being identified and arrested on the spot?
There are only a handful of explanations, then, for why someone would make such an exchange:
1) Ignorance of the value of their gun
2) Desperation for some quick cash, or
3) Ideological motivation trumping economic sense
In cases 1) and 2), the police are merely preying upon the weaknesses
or ignorance of the seller (and you thought only criminals did that!).
Case 3) is extremely unlikely because people who are so ideologically
driven that they would take a significant economic loss to advance the
gun cause probably don’t own firearms to begin with. If there are any
such people exchanging at these events, they have to be very few.
The number of instances of 1) and 2) are also very likely few. Most
people who own decent and pricey firearms are aware of what they have.
They are unlikely to be ripped off in selling a piece, and if they were
desperate enough for cash to sell one, they would know to go to a pawn
shop or gun shop (where they probably bought the thing to begin with)
and get the best price they could.
This means, however, that the vast majority of the transactions
taking place at these events are probably very close to rational
exchanges if not purely so. Average, law abiding citizens are selling
legally-owned guns to cops for $100 or $200
and not taking an economic loss in the process.
This leaves us asking, then, what types of guns are most likely being
sold in these buyback events. Well, what types of guns are worth less
than a $100 to most average gun owners? As you can probably imagine,
these guns are junk, trash, defunct, worn out, or cheap, old,
hand-me-downs. With few exceptions, you can bet the allegedly dangerous
weapons being taken off the street are actually dusty junk being removed
from people’s closets.
I’d take $100 for that, and probably make my wife happy in the process.
Indeed, one report bears out the truth of this analysis. Seattle KOMO
channel 4 reported, “Most of the weapons appear to be older rifles and
handguns.”
And consider this: how many of the people who decluttered their closets of junk guns actually sold the cops
every single gun they own?
Consider “David,” who played the part of the sacrificial citizen,
gladly handing over his dangerous weapons to increase public safety. He
told the Seattle media of his guns, “I don’t want them to ever end up in a bad place.”
And yet in the same breath the guy confessed, “I’ve got a lot of guns.” Think he turned them
all in that day? Ha! The report made clear he traded in only “two old rifles” among “two dozen firearms” that he still owns.
So both economic sense and the empirical data tell us that 1) most of
the guns collected were cheap junk, 2) most of the guns were not “on
the streets” (and probably never would be) but in people’s closets, 3)
at least some people traded in only
some of their weapons (the cheap, junky ones) but still remain armed as we speak.
Considering further that in some cases, IDs were being checked, and
yet there was not a single mention of any arrest being made at these
events, we can safely assume that no violent criminals disarmed
themselves at these events.
What can we learn from these facts?
Gun buyback programs can be better understood as junk purchasing
programs. They’re an economic loss for the municipality, but with
statist-friendly local press outlets, they’re somewhat of a net profit
in terms of publicity for the state. The city is exchanging money (tax
money?) for positive publicity with the message that it’s advancing
public safety. Of course, it could have achieved much the same by
purchasing air time for a well-produced commercial, but the event adds
the benefit of camera shots of community involvement and one-sided
interviews, and the media provides a free commercial anyway.
The exchange, however, presents absolutely no gain in terms of actual
public safety. In fact, considering that some functioning weapons may
be taken in from well-intentioned but deceived law-abiding gun owners,
it may represent a net
loss in public safety, for some formerly
armed citizens are now less well-armed or even totally disarmed. The
citizen should consider that even a dusty old gun could save your life
in a pinch.
The exchange does, however, provide a boost for the police department in terms of
perceived public safety. But this, also, can be a net
loss in actual public safety. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Criminals especially prefer unarmed
and
mentally complacent victims. Unprepared on your part is good for them.
Unprepared and unsuspecting is even better. In the absence of any actual
advance of public safety, the perception of heightened safety is all
the worse. People are then unprepared, unsuspecting,
and overconfident.
But what about those dangerous
"rocket launchers" and
"missile launchers" we hear about being confiscated? Aren’t those dangerous weapons being
taken off the street? Most people by now have seen this hot air
debunked: the weapons were the empty shells of one-time-use-only weapons already
used up by the military. In short, more trash, more junk. No danger was
taken off the streets at all, these plastic “weapons” are no more
dangerous than a wiffle ball bat.
In the end, therefore, gun buyback programs amount to nothing but an
economic farce foisted upon the public at public expense. No criminals
are caught or even hindered, hardly any serious guns or “assault
weapons” are taken off the streets. Average citizens trade in their junk
for petty cash, but keep as many of their good guns as they like (thank
God). In short, it’s an expensive closet cleaning for a handful of
people.
The police and the media take the opportunity to tout their trash
haul as a success for public safety. It is nothing of the sort. If
anything, it makes the general public less safe. But as long as the
right people believe otherwise, police can pretend, and their smiling
marketers in the local media will like it, too.
So will criminals.
And for this, your local police may very well be happy to pay big
bucks. Which means, to some extent at least, you’ll be paying for it,
too.
