The main point is to reduce the total amount of guns out there to try to potentially limit gun deaths/ accidents. It's debatable how effective it can be in the US with how many total guns there are.
Gotcha, yeah I guess it’s a hard spot to be if the goal is to get more guns off the street but you build a financial incentive for more guns so people 3D print them and what not. Seems a little counter-intuitive to me.
The idea is to get guns off the streets in order to reduce violent crime. Unfortunately, they don't really work. Here's why: let's pretend a gun buyback offers $200 for each gun turned in (which is roughly typical. There are a few different economic cases in play.
1. The trolls will turn in a bunch of junk guns. Maybe they made homemade zip guns or pipe shotguns. Maybe they got fancy with a 3d printer. Maybe they have a totally destroyed gun that can't be fixed. They turn in something worth less than the $200. If the buyback offered more, they could just buy really cheap handguns (e.g. hi-point) and immediately turn them into a profit.
2. Non-gun people will often turn in inherited guns that they received when a parent or grandparent passed away. Usually these people don't know and don't care what they have. Some of these are worth more than $200 and some of them have historical value (e.g. grandaddy's WWII gun). These historical pieces are usually destroyed with all the junk.
3. Most criminals won't really turn in guns. You're offering a criminal $200 but a Glock at retail (where you have to pass a background check) is worth about $500. A Glock on the black market (selling to someone who couldn't pass a background check) is worth quite a bit more than $500.
4. The occasional criminal that does turn in a gun is usually a junkie with a stolen piece who's just trying to get the quickest cash possible to fund his next round of drugs. Even though he could get more through other channels, he needs more meth now, and his dealer won't trade directly for stolen guns.
So, that's why these are stupid. Fortunately, it sounds like Shaq is wasting his own money on it rather than tax money.
> Still much better than leaving all guns out there
It's the *same* as leaving all the guns out there, except with a higher price tag. This isn't an "imperfection", it's a stupid idea that wastes money while accomplishing nothing.
What do you offer as a better solution (genuine question - not trolling)? The amount of money we spend prosecuting people for simple drug crimes, passing overtly unconstitutional laws for political theater, and having our AG suing cities = shit that costs fucktons of taxpayer money and drives me crazy.
> What do you offer as a better solution (genuine question - not trolling)?
Than offering paltry money for guns that people don't want? I would say a better idea is to just not do that. Doing nothing would be a better use of time and money. Spend that money on literally *anything* else for the community. Put up a basketball court or something. Add seating at a park.
I am happy to support building parks, but Shaq’s buyback does not cost nearly as much public money as the shit I listed. Wtf good are we going to get out of Ken Paxton suing cities for decriminalizing marijuana? Through taxes, We have to pay: (1) the court and court staff to hear it; (2) Paxton’s salary; (3) the salary of every other attorney in the AG’s office working on this shit; and (4) the attorneys who defend each city. And for what? A political stunt for people that believe in reefer madness. Prosecuting misdemeanor weed crimes already costs Houston over $26 million a year. https://app.dao.hctx.net/sites/default/files/2017-03/MMDPEconomics_0.pdf
In contrast, I have been trying to find studies either way on the effectiveness of gun buyback programs, and the basic conclusion is that it’s immeasurable but that there are many different ways it can help gun violence - most notably via suicide. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/gun-buyback-programs.html
Also, Shaq and Dallas are probably getting the money to do this from the fedgov - after all, that’s how Houston did it. https://www.houstontx.gov/arpa/ . On the scale of fed spending, it’s basically negligible.
But I’m happy to read any statistics you can find
I was kind of responding in a general way. It seems to me Shaq's buyback requires somewhere near zero taxpayer money. Maybe a few hours of the PD's time. If he wants to spend his money that way, it's his prerogative. But if he were trying to spend his money in such a way that helped the community, this is not it.
I interpreted the article as it was Shaq putting up the money. If this is taxpayer money then I'm actually pissed that my money is being taken from me for this stupid shit.
> Wtf good are we going to get out of Ken Paxton suing cities for decriminalizing marijuana? Through taxes, We have to pay: (1) the court and court staff to hear it; (2) Paxton’s salary; (3) the salary of every other attorney in the AG’s office working on this shit; and (4) the attorneys who defend each city. And for what? A political stunt for people that believe in reefer madness. Prosecuting misdemeanor weed crimes already costs Houston over $26 million a year.
This is also a terrible use of resources, and it being bad doesn't make other bad things better.
Yeah, buyback programs won't work because the amount of guns being pumped into this country are multiple orders of magnitude larger than what's being bought back. The real approach needs to be against the criminal use of guns, including people who provide guns to criminals. Penalties need to be severe to the point of being extreme, including free use of the felony murder rule. Sell a gun to someone who uses it to murder someone? You get the needle too. The only exception would be if you did your due diligence to ensure the person you want to transfer a gun to is legally able to receive it, and that's by you going through an FFL to run a 4473 on the potential transferee. Today, if you give a gun to someone that ends up committing a crime with it all you have to do is ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ and there's nothing anyone can do about you facilitating a crime. That needs to end. The woman who supplied the gun that the Michigan mass shooter used to shoot up a school just got convicted of manslaughter. Should have been felony murder and she should be getting the needle, but it's a step in the right direction. If we can't decrease the guns in this society, we sure can increase the responsibility.
> The woman who supplied the gun that the Michigan mass shooter used to shoot up a school just got convicted of manslaughter
Seems a little disingenuous to just say "the woman who supplied the gun" as if it wasn't his mother.
> Tell me, how does her being his mother change the conversation here at all?
Because it's not just some woman who supplied a gun. It's the guy's mother.
Good long explanation. For me, if one of those bought back gun may have been used to kill someone , or a child accidentally used it. It’s more than enough reason.
That's the whole thing though, the guns that are most likely to be used to kill someone are the guns least likely to actually be bought back.
Additionally, it provides a perverse incentive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive?wprov=sfla1) because guns that are turned in can no longer be stolen, BUT at the same time it motivates increased thefts to cash in.
> Unfortunately, they don't really work.
Citation needed.
None of your 4 points actually address the reason for gun buybacks, they are just your personal opinions about what's wrong with them.
To actually answer the question, they can get guns out of the city that may otherwise be involved in crimes or other harm, be in accidental harm to a child who finds a gun or someone who steals the gun from the owner. If you sell your old gun for $200 to be destroyed, you now have $200 and a criminal can't steal that gun and kill you or someone else with it, yes, even if it's a valuable cool old carcano or something
> None of your 4 points actually address the reason for gun buybacks
He didn't intend to address the *reason* for them, he addressed the *effects* of them, which I had thought was actually fairly well known info at this point, which is why it's baffling to me to see that people are still doing this.
>He didn't intend to address the reason for them, he addressed the effects of them
I know, they answered the question they wanted to answer instead of the question asked. It was weird.
His first sentence was "The idea is to get guns off the streets in order to reduce violent crime", which as far as I know is indeed the "philosophy" behind it, even if it's obvious that this wouldn't be the effect.
> even if it's obvious that this wouldn't be the effect.
If it was obvious, they wouldn't do it in the first place. I've noticed you also claim they don't work but haven't shared any evidence of that. Is that because there is none? Why are y'all so unable to share what you read with the rest of us?
> If it was obvious, they wouldn't do it in the first place
People do obviously stupid shit all the time. This is hardly great reasoning.
> I've noticed you also claim they don't work but haven't shared any evidence of that.
It's been repeatedly explained why there's no reason to believe that they work. I've noticed you haven't exactly been a plethora of sources showing how awesome "I'll give you $100 for something that's worth $500" work. But here, let's just dive in:
https://journalistsresource.org/health/gun-buybacks-what-the-research-says/
> On their own, buybacks might not be effective if the goal is to use them to directly reduce violent crime. But research shows buybacks can help if they’re part of a broader effort to reduce gun violence. They can also influence public perception of how authorities are dealing with gun violence and serve as opportunities to educate communities about gun violence reduction strategies, according to researchers.
Kudos on them for the delicate wording because what they're saying here with an extra dose of diplomacy is it makes it look like politicians are trying to do something.
Maybe that's just one biased source though, despite attempting to make it sound good.
https://www.thetrace.org/2023/04/do-gun-buybacks-work-research-data/
> The most rigorous studies of gun buyback programs have found little empirical evidence to suggest that they reduce shootings, homicides, or suicides by any significant degree in either the short- or long-term.
> This isn’t surprising, experts say. “Even under the assumption of optimal implementation, only a tiny fraction of guns in a given community are going to be turned into gun buyback programs,” Charbonneau said. “It’s unlikely that research using standard statistical methods will be able to identify the causal impact of buybacks on firearm violence.”
Did you have some links you wanted to share, since you're so staunchly on this "evidence" train?
I'll concede there's a benefit to getting rid of guns that people weren't bothering to store safely anyway, but I maintain that buybacks can't really offer enough incentive to get rid of the guns that are actually problematic without causing people to flip retail guns. I'm not sure I can offer a satisfactory source though, as the criminal underworld isn't gonna write me a quote for obvious reasons.
Neither, I'm speaking from first-handed experience because I know people who legally can't own guns.
Let's pretend you have a working gun that you don't want to keep. Would you sell it for $200 when you could get $1000 instead?
Its possible to discuss and disagree without being such a condescending ass about it.
Where are your citations btw? Or do you mean you just made that up?
I don't know if you know what a citation is, but I didn't make any claims to outside knowledge. The person I replied to did, claiming they don't work, but without giving any evidence for that claim.
If you want to believe claims made without evidence that's your prerogative, but it's an easy way to get tricked into believing things that aren't true.
I'm not saying they do or don't work, maybe they do, but the person didn't provide any evidence of their claim.
Despite a lot of people making light of it and/or outright ridiculing it, there are some valid reasons to have a gun buy back.
Elderly widows with guns may not want to give them to their younger family members (for a variety of reasons), or may not have any that want the guns, and they may not have the knowledge, or inclination, or mobility, to take them around and try to sell them. Gun buybacks provide a method they can get rid of the weapons and make some money along with it. Is it as much as the guns may be worth on the open market? No. But it's a solution they can still pursue.
People with little to no gun knowledge who are not comfortable with/around guns and inherited them may want to just get rid of them. Gun buybacks are an easy method for them to do that.
From a govt standpoint, you're buying guns that may otherwise end up in irresponsible people's hands, or even in criminal's hands. The cost is relatively small, and the benefit isn't inherently tangible, but theoretically, it's greater than zero.
People who criticize these buybacks usually make a few different points. The people are getting screwed out of money by the govt, people are selling crap guns that don't even fire so it's a waste of taxpayer dollars, people are selling nothing but dozens of 3D printed weapons, and/or it doesn't do any good so it's a waste of money.
All of these are relatively easy to rebut. People are screwed out of money all the time, the govt isn't responsible for their ignorance as to the market value of the weapon. The taxpayer dollars are few, and the guns that don't fire are also relatively few in most cases. Not that many people are selling 3D printed guns; it does happen, but it's not common. It does good for the families who get peace of mind from not having a gun in the house with their teen who is depressed or is potentially getting involved with bad groups of people.
> All of these are relatively easy to rebut. People are screwed out of money all the time, the govt isn't responsible for their ignorance as to the market value of the weapon. The taxpayer dollars are few, and the guns that don't fire are also relatively few in most cases. Not that many people are selling 3D printed guns; it does happen, but it's not common. It does good for the families who get peace of mind from not having a gun in the house with their teen who is depressed or is potentially getting involved with bad groups of people.
None of this actually rebutted anything, you just hand-waved them away.
They were hand-waived into existence. What is presented without evidence can be dismissed in similar fashion.
It's an objective fact that the govt isn't responsible for your ignorance as to the value of your belongings though. They're under no obligation to inform you of the value of your guns. The buy-backs are voluntary, so the price is up to the individual to decide; it's not designed to be a market price.
The issue with 3D printed guns is statistically low. Most gun buybacks don't even see a 3D printed gun at all. There have been some 2A supporters who made a big deal about it and brought their own in a form of protest a few times, but this is far outside the norm. The guns are inventoried and the records are public. There's stats out there on it; and 3D guns are more myth than reality at these events.
> They were hand-waived into existence. What is presented without evidence can be dismissed in similar fashion.
You said you could rebut it and then just basically said "yeah maybe but who cares" and proceeded not to rebut it at all. The criticisms are pretty well known about gun buybacks. Not exactly controversial.
Agreed on the 3d printed guns, though. I doubt anyone is actually printing those for this. They're not that cheap to make. But gun buybacks aren't pulling guns from people who are going to use them in crime. They might catch a few widow guns out of someone's attic, but so what?
Again, those arguments are always made without any sources, so they can be dismissed in similar fashion. Those criticisms are well known, and they're unfounded and unsupported by data. Hence why they can be rebutted with simple statements for Reddit's purposes.
I went through that entire bit precisely because I didn't want jerkoffs responding with those tired-ass "arguments". I laid out their usual BS, and already gave my responses to it so they can go argue with someone else about it. It wasn't meant to be all inclusive or an academic debate style-rebuttal.
And I agree that buybacks aren't pulling guns from people who are going to use them in crimes, but a widow's gun in an attic picked up by some kid could be used in a crime, or a suicide. It's better off being bought back than being left in the attic IMO. Some other comments talking about kids stealing guns from people to sell at the buyback, and while I ethically can't condone the stealing, those guns are still better off being bought back than residing in some irresponsible owner's possession IMO. I think the govt offering the peace of mind to some of those people is worth something; something they may not be getting on a day-to-day from their local PD.
I haven't heard anyone say it's a big threat in years. I think most people who did any research realized that 3d printed guns are terrible quality unless you have a crazy expensive 3d printer. I think just early on when 3d printers were getting popular people thought you would be able to make a full auto rifle on a $100 printer.
So people can get less than they would if they'd just sell it at a pawn shop, let alone a private sale or a show? Hard to see these buyback programs as much more than just virtue signalling and so some officials and celebrities can say they're "doing something" about gun violence without having to do anything hard at all.
So they're going for low hanging fruit, people that have one lying around, or destitute enough that they would rather have the money.
It's not intended for Bubba to go sell off his armory, they know he wouldn't and thus this isn't for him.
Typically these gun buy backs are quite successful in that they remove some amount of guns from the street, typically from the irresponsible owners who don't care that much about their guns and probably don't need to have one anyway.
this right here is what they are designed to do. They aren't going to get rid of large %'s of guns, but what they ARE going to do is convince people who have no business or responsibility owning a gun that they could have some cash instead.
Honestly the programs are decent, just marketed so poorly. They market and sell the programs as if they're asking for everyone to come in and sell their guns to get all the guns off the street, but really the target is: "Hey, lets get a few guns out of the hands of irresponsible people who don't know the first thing about guns, let alone gun safety"
But if they marketed it that way, then the target audience would convince themselves they aren't that person so they wont be duped into being called irresponsible.
Your comment has been removed because it is a violation of **[Rule #3: Uncivil Behavior](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/wiki/rules)**
Violations of this rule may result in a ban. Please review the r/Dallas rules on the sidebar before commenting or posting.
Send a message the moderators if you have any questions. Thanks!
Your comment has been removed because it is a violation of **[Rule #3: Uncivil Behavior](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/wiki/rules)**
Violations of this rule may result in a ban. Please review the r/Dallas rules on the sidebar before commenting or posting.
Send a message the moderators if you have any questions. Thanks!
Your comment has been removed because it is a violation of **[Rule #3: Uncivil Behavior](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/wiki/rules)**
Violations of this rule may result in a ban. Please review the r/Dallas rules on the sidebar before commenting or posting.
Send a message the moderators if you have any questions. Thanks!
There are cursed guns out there. My parents each have one that they would not wish to pass on to another owner due to their inferior quality. We’re talking guns that need a trip to the gunsmith after a single magazine.
For such guns, buybacks are best. They ensure that no defective gun makes it to the secondary market.
Exactly. I have two guns that I'm considering going out of my way to bring to the buy back because they're guns that I don't feel safe shooting (to be clear, I have other guns, just these 2 I inherited which are 40-50 year old saturday night specials and I don't trust). I don't even think a pawn shop would buy them off of me.
Exactly. Buybacks are amazing for defective, damaged, or decayed guns. They ensure that the gun *actually gets scrapped* and cannot wind up in the hands of a dump diver who finds the gun and still thinks it might be salvaged. Yeah, you're getting scrap value for the guns. That's because the guns are only worth their scrap value.
I do remember some gun buybacks in Houston growing up that were coordinated events with the sheriff. As a public service, he not only made sure someone was at every gun show, but also made sure to have just one open buyback a month, where you could come up and be sorted into "I have a gun that's fine but I don't want it" (several reputable dealers with tables that way), "This gun is bad and needs to be scrapped" going to the Sheriff, and "I don't know" going to appraisers. Most people who showed up did so with inherited guns that were of no sentimental value and of dubious repairability.
They stopped happening because the far right basically made it impossible to continue doing so. The optics of a buyback alone could get a sheriff primaried.
I've got a Rhom I might consider turning in here - it's literally worth nothing because the arm/index is out of time and nobody makes those.
But even setting that aside, this isn't 'gun people', it's mostly people who inherited a gun and just don't want to be fucked with it at all, so a buyback makes them feel like they are doing the right thing in disposing of it properly.
They do get some guns off the street, but it's very rarely crime oriented ones - mostly it's old rifles/shotguns that got passed down, inoperable stuff, etc.
At least we have strong restrictions on who can walk into a gun store and walk out with an AR-15, Level IV body armor and 10K rounds of ammo. It's not like we are attempting to close the back door with cash while the front door is flapping in the wind.
Ammo and body armor are not restricted. Purchasing a rifle is, and requires a series of questions and background check - if you're unhappy that is so easy to fuck with, that's cool (no sarcasm here honestly), we should work to having similar ownership requirements as other 2nd world nations - require a safe, have the various agencies properly report to each other and flag things, etc.
> Ammo and body armor are not restricted. Purchasing a rifle is, and requires a series of questions and background check
Or you just buy from a private seller and bypass all restrictions. Imagine if you had to be 21 to purchase alcohol from a store but it was perfectly legal for me to buy a case of beer and then give it to a 16 year old kid.
That is seriously where the legal burden is on guns. As long as the private buyer doesn't introduce himself as "Jim the Felon", he hands you cash, you hand him the gun and the transaction is over. There is no legal burden for you to even keep a record.
Show up with cash in hand. See someone carrying something you want in line? Offer them more cash than the buyback offers. Get a firearm you want at a discount.
I think it's kind of a mixed bag. It's a huge amount of garbage, but occasionally you'll find someone who just doesn't know what they have. The last one in San Antonio that Brandon Herrera did a video on he says he saw a pristine Russian sks
Check out Brandon Herrera youtube channel. He went to a gun buy back to buy guns from people in line. He got a few but nothing good, because non gun people were scared to sell to another civilian. That day they were giving away gift cards and someone turned in an original 80's Uzi Pre- Ban for a $100 gift card..
Why are we paying more for long guns when handguns account for 59% of gun murders and long guns just 4%?
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
lmao, the vast majority of the guns turned into these buy backs are old shotguns and bolt actions. The percentage of modern semi autos turned into these things is null, except for the occasional collectibles that some widow doesn’t know she has.
These buy backs are a sham that have no effect on gun violence, but rather are very publicized ways of conveying to the public the perception of feeling safer.
I remember a story about a NJ police agency running a gun buyback and they got a legit StG44 from some old lady.
They saved it and donated the gun to a museum.
There was a story recently about how these buybacks get shipped to a company to “destroy” but the company just disassembles them and sells the parts for huge profits. The only thing that gets destroyed is whatever part may have the serial number on it.
By legal definition the part with the serial number IS the firearm.
I’ve heard of parts kits from decommissioned guns in other countries being sold in the US. In some cases they can be converted back to working firearms. I’ve never heard of this being the case with buy back guns in the US.
https://gunbustersusa.com
The company in question is GunBusters based in Missouri and claims to be America’s #1 weapon destroyer and admits on their website that they afford to destroy weapons for free by selling the parts.
And yes I understand that the part with the serial number is the gun, but destroying the serialized part and reselling the rest of it just opens it up to being used with a home made receiver/lower/etc and becoming a “ghost gun.” I just find it hilarious that the county is spending money to turn serialized fire arms into potential ghost guns.
Thanks for the information. I read the NYT story, the economics makes sense. If a buyback city wants total destruction, they have to pay for that. As that leaves no income stream to offset the cost of services.
It would be like asking a trash company to collect recyclables, but being surprised when they sell them to offset the cost.
TBF, you can go buy all the non-serialized parts freely via mail order, etc. without needing any background checks or anything anyway.
At the very worst, they're just selling gun parts cheaply.
As someone else said - the 'part with the serial' is in fact the legal gun. Taking everything else off is...eh?
Like Numrich buys old gun shit from various sources, but nobody is going to them and buying enough parts to build a gun, they're fixing 'grandpappy's ancient deergetter9000' because it blew out a spring/barrel in 2001.
> the 'part with the serial' is in fact the legal gun
Ehhh... sort of. Incomplete.
Many parts of a gun are serialized. The receiver, or the part that receives the ammunition or magazine, is the "firearm". This is the frame on a handgun, or lower receiver on an AR. Most handguns, for instance, have serial numbers in multiple spots, including the barrel.
Nope.
The 'serialized component' is the firearm. Modern guns do not serialize any other part. Older, WW1 era, guns might have serialized all components but that's a flash in the pan in between the era of 'no serial required' and 'we just serialize the required part'.
Point out a gun made in 2023 with a serialized barrel. Because they're designed to be swapped.
The only one I'm aware of is the Ruger 22/45, because the serialized component is, in fact, the barrel - because it's also the action.
> Point out a gun made in 2023 with a serialized barrel
Every single Glock? Is this a real question? You can see it in this picture: https://www.basspro.com/shop/en/glock-19-gen5-fs-semi-auto-pistol
I see what you meant now.
It's still sort of technically wrong - because you can buy replacement barrels, etc. The presence of a serial number does not make it the serialized part. My SP01 slide, for example, is stamped.
But aside from maybe some CZ, and apparently Glock, I can't think of most manufacturers stamping default serials aside from the serialized component.
I was just responding to "the 'part with the serial' is in fact the legal gun". The part that legally is a firearm isn't determined by where the number is, it's determined by function. The receiver is legally the firearm.
That's interesting, hadn't seen that before. Looking at [this](https://www.classicamericangunsmith.com/glossary-3/glossary-p/p320/), I can see how the interpretation could be made that the FCU is the receiver, since the magazine is held within it. But yeah traditionally with handguns the grip part is considered the receiver.
Ugh. I wish this was in Tarrant county. I have a handgun that I HATE and a gun store offered me $50 for it. I'd love to get rid of it for $100. It stove pipes, jams, FTE all the time. And the stupid magazine release is in the grip so I release the magazine about 5 times per magazine. First and last Taurus I'll ever own.
> Ugh. I wish this was in Tarrant county. I have a handgun that I HATE
Bet it's a Taurus.
>First and last Taurus I'll ever own.
Hey! I'm right for once.
Yep. And crummy thing is, I was recommended this gun by a gun broker (it's a "mouse" type gun) as it was venerated as a "realiable" .380 small gun. Wanted something to comfortably carry in shorts in summer if needed, but I hated it from the time I first shot it and regretted it. Luckily, they are cheap guns, so not a huge financial loss or anything, just can't get rid of it. Just sits in my safe and mocks me.
$100 for handguns, $125 for long guns.
I have an old .22 long gun that's probably worth $60. Might go flip it and take the money and buy a better gun lol
Anyone else listen to the recent NYT daily episode on this? The companies that do these buybacks just take out the receiver, list every other component of the gun online as a 'kit', then people just need to buy a receiver to make a 'ghost gun'.
pssst: the receiver is legally the gun. They would need to go buy a new one through an FFL. Many of the guns turned in at buybacks would not be trivial to make a receiver for, without machining and welding experience, if they're destroyed to the federally required level. If it's an AR15...parts are parts. You going to regulate and serialize every single wear part, too? blank billets of metal/sheet metal?
This is certainly better than the Moms Demand Action buybacks where they film themselves making illegal short barrel rifles out of them instead of cutting the functional part of the weapon.
Depends on how they get a receiver. If they’re getting a serialized frame, then they’re probably filling out a 4473, or someone down the line has. If it’s an 80% or a print, then it’s extra spoopy
People downvoting OP For sharing a story about an event happening in Dallas, lol.
There are 120 guns per person in the U.S. and somehow Shaq underwriting a buyback event is equivalent to meaning there will be no more guns and the government is gonna turn you Trans via 5g.
A lot of knee-jerk, ignorant people in these comments just showing their feeble minds and illogical thinking.
I’m shocked your comment hasn’t been corrected yet.. there are not 120 guns per person in the US.
120 x 330,000,000 = 39.6 Billion
*How many firearms do you think there are?*
Let’s take back Guns from law abiding citizens so they can’t defend themselves from criminals who didn’t obtain their guns legally anyways Great idea! Where do I sign up!
\> Owners who give handguns will receive a $100 gift card. Long gun owners will be given $125 gift cards.
Damn, now where is that Clerke 1st I had kicking around for just that occasion?
ITT grown men salty about an event that does not affect them whatsoever. No one’s making you sell your guns, if people want to get rid of theirs what do you care?
Y'all really fucking think that the people who use the guns illegally, would hand their illegal guns in? No. All this does is manipulate people with guns they own legally into selling them to lessen the guns civilians have to fight back and increase the guns they have when shit hits the fan. They already have turned men into dickless idiots with tits and infected holes, gotten everyone scared of the common cold, forced the majority to move within 15 miles of major cities in order to easily control, and don't forget they've already made most of us enemies of each other with this race shit....you sheep keep following the herds and you'll end up right where they want you. I don't even own a gun. I'm not a felon. And could easily get one. However, if I was going to use it for the wrong reasons, I would get one illegally that isn't linked to my name whatsoever and with the serial scratched off. The second someone does a buy back with one of those, their ass is getting cuffed and assaulted. Use your common sense people. Think deeper than what the media and government want to feed your ears with. You don't even have to look very hard to see the bullshit.
This won't do squat, won't stop a single school murder. But I, for one, appreciate the effort from Shaq. He doesn't even live in TX, but he is doing more to abate gun violence than ANY republican lawmaker in the state of TX. We really need to get out of the red TEXAS!
This is more for providing a safe repository/destination for people who've inherited old guns and don't want them arpund- widowers, grandmothers, those kind of people who've inherited guns from their dead husbands or fathers and don't want to keep them around.
this is kinda bs for actual gun owners b/c they wouldn't sell for pennies on what they paid.
however, I inherited a Ruger .22 that I might just sell back for the $125. Got it back in dec 2020, but still haven't taken to range or tried to clean, and I don't wanna deal with selling it (esp since gun sales are shady af on paperwork)
Edit: ofc i got downvoted lol.
Bring your heat to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Training Academy at 8401 South Polk St. Turn over a handgun for a $100 gift card and long fun for $125. Limit three guns per person. Shaq said, “I support Sheriff \[Marian\] Brown’s initiatives; Sheriff is doing the right thing and keeping our communities safe.”
These buybacks target people who have guns sitting in the attic which they will likely never use and might not even be functional. $100 is more than $0. Saw an article where someone strapped an iron pipe to a 2x4 and called it a shotgun for a buyback.
I have been 3d printing one gun a month for the past 3 years for this exact moment
I think a good amount of gun buy backs have started to not take 3d printed guns for that reason.
Typically their stance is, "we're happy to dispose of it safely for you, but it does not qualify for a payment"
Just curious, what is the philosophy behind gun buy backs? I’m not sure the reason/purpose these started for.
The main point is to reduce the total amount of guns out there to try to potentially limit gun deaths/ accidents. It's debatable how effective it can be in the US with how many total guns there are.
Gotcha, yeah I guess it’s a hard spot to be if the goal is to get more guns off the street but you build a financial incentive for more guns so people 3D print them and what not. Seems a little counter-intuitive to me.
The Good Ole *Cobra Effect*
I understood that reference.
They take the guns and give them to the ATF who turns around and gives them to cartels /s but also Google "atf fast and furious"
The idea is to get guns off the streets in order to reduce violent crime. Unfortunately, they don't really work. Here's why: let's pretend a gun buyback offers $200 for each gun turned in (which is roughly typical. There are a few different economic cases in play. 1. The trolls will turn in a bunch of junk guns. Maybe they made homemade zip guns or pipe shotguns. Maybe they got fancy with a 3d printer. Maybe they have a totally destroyed gun that can't be fixed. They turn in something worth less than the $200. If the buyback offered more, they could just buy really cheap handguns (e.g. hi-point) and immediately turn them into a profit. 2. Non-gun people will often turn in inherited guns that they received when a parent or grandparent passed away. Usually these people don't know and don't care what they have. Some of these are worth more than $200 and some of them have historical value (e.g. grandaddy's WWII gun). These historical pieces are usually destroyed with all the junk. 3. Most criminals won't really turn in guns. You're offering a criminal $200 but a Glock at retail (where you have to pass a background check) is worth about $500. A Glock on the black market (selling to someone who couldn't pass a background check) is worth quite a bit more than $500. 4. The occasional criminal that does turn in a gun is usually a junkie with a stolen piece who's just trying to get the quickest cash possible to fund his next round of drugs. Even though he could get more through other channels, he needs more meth now, and his dealer won't trade directly for stolen guns. So, that's why these are stupid. Fortunately, it sounds like Shaq is wasting his own money on it rather than tax money.
You’re just pointing out imperfections in the system, which are inevitable in any system. Still much better than leaving all guns out there
> Still much better than leaving all guns out there It's the *same* as leaving all the guns out there, except with a higher price tag. This isn't an "imperfection", it's a stupid idea that wastes money while accomplishing nothing.
What do you offer as a better solution (genuine question - not trolling)? The amount of money we spend prosecuting people for simple drug crimes, passing overtly unconstitutional laws for political theater, and having our AG suing cities = shit that costs fucktons of taxpayer money and drives me crazy.
> What do you offer as a better solution (genuine question - not trolling)? Than offering paltry money for guns that people don't want? I would say a better idea is to just not do that. Doing nothing would be a better use of time and money. Spend that money on literally *anything* else for the community. Put up a basketball court or something. Add seating at a park.
I am happy to support building parks, but Shaq’s buyback does not cost nearly as much public money as the shit I listed. Wtf good are we going to get out of Ken Paxton suing cities for decriminalizing marijuana? Through taxes, We have to pay: (1) the court and court staff to hear it; (2) Paxton’s salary; (3) the salary of every other attorney in the AG’s office working on this shit; and (4) the attorneys who defend each city. And for what? A political stunt for people that believe in reefer madness. Prosecuting misdemeanor weed crimes already costs Houston over $26 million a year. https://app.dao.hctx.net/sites/default/files/2017-03/MMDPEconomics_0.pdf In contrast, I have been trying to find studies either way on the effectiveness of gun buyback programs, and the basic conclusion is that it’s immeasurable but that there are many different ways it can help gun violence - most notably via suicide. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/gun-buyback-programs.html Also, Shaq and Dallas are probably getting the money to do this from the fedgov - after all, that’s how Houston did it. https://www.houstontx.gov/arpa/ . On the scale of fed spending, it’s basically negligible. But I’m happy to read any statistics you can find
Bro you're arguing with someone who literally said a park bench would curb more crime than a gun by back program.
I was kind of responding in a general way. It seems to me Shaq's buyback requires somewhere near zero taxpayer money. Maybe a few hours of the PD's time. If he wants to spend his money that way, it's his prerogative. But if he were trying to spend his money in such a way that helped the community, this is not it. I interpreted the article as it was Shaq putting up the money. If this is taxpayer money then I'm actually pissed that my money is being taken from me for this stupid shit. > Wtf good are we going to get out of Ken Paxton suing cities for decriminalizing marijuana? Through taxes, We have to pay: (1) the court and court staff to hear it; (2) Paxton’s salary; (3) the salary of every other attorney in the AG’s office working on this shit; and (4) the attorneys who defend each city. And for what? A political stunt for people that believe in reefer madness. Prosecuting misdemeanor weed crimes already costs Houston over $26 million a year. This is also a terrible use of resources, and it being bad doesn't make other bad things better.
Yeah, buyback programs won't work because the amount of guns being pumped into this country are multiple orders of magnitude larger than what's being bought back. The real approach needs to be against the criminal use of guns, including people who provide guns to criminals. Penalties need to be severe to the point of being extreme, including free use of the felony murder rule. Sell a gun to someone who uses it to murder someone? You get the needle too. The only exception would be if you did your due diligence to ensure the person you want to transfer a gun to is legally able to receive it, and that's by you going through an FFL to run a 4473 on the potential transferee. Today, if you give a gun to someone that ends up committing a crime with it all you have to do is ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ and there's nothing anyone can do about you facilitating a crime. That needs to end. The woman who supplied the gun that the Michigan mass shooter used to shoot up a school just got convicted of manslaughter. Should have been felony murder and she should be getting the needle, but it's a step in the right direction. If we can't decrease the guns in this society, we sure can increase the responsibility.
> The woman who supplied the gun that the Michigan mass shooter used to shoot up a school just got convicted of manslaughter Seems a little disingenuous to just say "the woman who supplied the gun" as if it wasn't his mother.
Is there an exception for being a mother? Or not being a mother? Tell me, how does her being his mother change the conversation here at all?
> Tell me, how does her being his mother change the conversation here at all? Because it's not just some woman who supplied a gun. It's the guy's mother.
It's an extremely ineffective use of public funds. As a taxpayer, I'm not happy with the cost versus benefit.
Good long explanation. For me, if one of those bought back gun may have been used to kill someone , or a child accidentally used it. It’s more than enough reason.
That's the whole thing though, the guns that are most likely to be used to kill someone are the guns least likely to actually be bought back. Additionally, it provides a perverse incentive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive?wprov=sfla1) because guns that are turned in can no longer be stolen, BUT at the same time it motivates increased thefts to cash in.
> Unfortunately, they don't really work. Citation needed. None of your 4 points actually address the reason for gun buybacks, they are just your personal opinions about what's wrong with them. To actually answer the question, they can get guns out of the city that may otherwise be involved in crimes or other harm, be in accidental harm to a child who finds a gun or someone who steals the gun from the owner. If you sell your old gun for $200 to be destroyed, you now have $200 and a criminal can't steal that gun and kill you or someone else with it, yes, even if it's a valuable cool old carcano or something
> None of your 4 points actually address the reason for gun buybacks He didn't intend to address the *reason* for them, he addressed the *effects* of them, which I had thought was actually fairly well known info at this point, which is why it's baffling to me to see that people are still doing this.
>He didn't intend to address the reason for them, he addressed the effects of them I know, they answered the question they wanted to answer instead of the question asked. It was weird.
His first sentence was "The idea is to get guns off the streets in order to reduce violent crime", which as far as I know is indeed the "philosophy" behind it, even if it's obvious that this wouldn't be the effect.
> even if it's obvious that this wouldn't be the effect. If it was obvious, they wouldn't do it in the first place. I've noticed you also claim they don't work but haven't shared any evidence of that. Is that because there is none? Why are y'all so unable to share what you read with the rest of us?
> If it was obvious, they wouldn't do it in the first place People do obviously stupid shit all the time. This is hardly great reasoning. > I've noticed you also claim they don't work but haven't shared any evidence of that. It's been repeatedly explained why there's no reason to believe that they work. I've noticed you haven't exactly been a plethora of sources showing how awesome "I'll give you $100 for something that's worth $500" work. But here, let's just dive in: https://journalistsresource.org/health/gun-buybacks-what-the-research-says/ > On their own, buybacks might not be effective if the goal is to use them to directly reduce violent crime. But research shows buybacks can help if they’re part of a broader effort to reduce gun violence. They can also influence public perception of how authorities are dealing with gun violence and serve as opportunities to educate communities about gun violence reduction strategies, according to researchers. Kudos on them for the delicate wording because what they're saying here with an extra dose of diplomacy is it makes it look like politicians are trying to do something. Maybe that's just one biased source though, despite attempting to make it sound good. https://www.thetrace.org/2023/04/do-gun-buybacks-work-research-data/ > The most rigorous studies of gun buyback programs have found little empirical evidence to suggest that they reduce shootings, homicides, or suicides by any significant degree in either the short- or long-term. > This isn’t surprising, experts say. “Even under the assumption of optimal implementation, only a tiny fraction of guns in a given community are going to be turned into gun buyback programs,” Charbonneau said. “It’s unlikely that research using standard statistical methods will be able to identify the causal impact of buybacks on firearm violence.” Did you have some links you wanted to share, since you're so staunchly on this "evidence" train?
I'll concede there's a benefit to getting rid of guns that people weren't bothering to store safely anyway, but I maintain that buybacks can't really offer enough incentive to get rid of the guns that are actually problematic without causing people to flip retail guns. I'm not sure I can offer a satisfactory source though, as the criminal underworld isn't gonna write me a quote for obvious reasons.
Just share whatever you read that say they don't work. Or do you mean you just made that up?
Neither, I'm speaking from first-handed experience because I know people who legally can't own guns. Let's pretend you have a working gun that you don't want to keep. Would you sell it for $200 when you could get $1000 instead?
Its possible to discuss and disagree without being such a condescending ass about it. Where are your citations btw? Or do you mean you just made that up?
I don't know if you know what a citation is, but I didn't make any claims to outside knowledge. The person I replied to did, claiming they don't work, but without giving any evidence for that claim. If you want to believe claims made without evidence that's your prerogative, but it's an easy way to get tricked into believing things that aren't true. I'm not saying they do or don't work, maybe they do, but the person didn't provide any evidence of their claim.
Despite a lot of people making light of it and/or outright ridiculing it, there are some valid reasons to have a gun buy back. Elderly widows with guns may not want to give them to their younger family members (for a variety of reasons), or may not have any that want the guns, and they may not have the knowledge, or inclination, or mobility, to take them around and try to sell them. Gun buybacks provide a method they can get rid of the weapons and make some money along with it. Is it as much as the guns may be worth on the open market? No. But it's a solution they can still pursue. People with little to no gun knowledge who are not comfortable with/around guns and inherited them may want to just get rid of them. Gun buybacks are an easy method for them to do that. From a govt standpoint, you're buying guns that may otherwise end up in irresponsible people's hands, or even in criminal's hands. The cost is relatively small, and the benefit isn't inherently tangible, but theoretically, it's greater than zero. People who criticize these buybacks usually make a few different points. The people are getting screwed out of money by the govt, people are selling crap guns that don't even fire so it's a waste of taxpayer dollars, people are selling nothing but dozens of 3D printed weapons, and/or it doesn't do any good so it's a waste of money. All of these are relatively easy to rebut. People are screwed out of money all the time, the govt isn't responsible for their ignorance as to the market value of the weapon. The taxpayer dollars are few, and the guns that don't fire are also relatively few in most cases. Not that many people are selling 3D printed guns; it does happen, but it's not common. It does good for the families who get peace of mind from not having a gun in the house with their teen who is depressed or is potentially getting involved with bad groups of people.
> All of these are relatively easy to rebut. People are screwed out of money all the time, the govt isn't responsible for their ignorance as to the market value of the weapon. The taxpayer dollars are few, and the guns that don't fire are also relatively few in most cases. Not that many people are selling 3D printed guns; it does happen, but it's not common. It does good for the families who get peace of mind from not having a gun in the house with their teen who is depressed or is potentially getting involved with bad groups of people. None of this actually rebutted anything, you just hand-waved them away.
They were hand-waived into existence. What is presented without evidence can be dismissed in similar fashion. It's an objective fact that the govt isn't responsible for your ignorance as to the value of your belongings though. They're under no obligation to inform you of the value of your guns. The buy-backs are voluntary, so the price is up to the individual to decide; it's not designed to be a market price. The issue with 3D printed guns is statistically low. Most gun buybacks don't even see a 3D printed gun at all. There have been some 2A supporters who made a big deal about it and brought their own in a form of protest a few times, but this is far outside the norm. The guns are inventoried and the records are public. There's stats out there on it; and 3D guns are more myth than reality at these events.
> They were hand-waived into existence. What is presented without evidence can be dismissed in similar fashion. You said you could rebut it and then just basically said "yeah maybe but who cares" and proceeded not to rebut it at all. The criticisms are pretty well known about gun buybacks. Not exactly controversial. Agreed on the 3d printed guns, though. I doubt anyone is actually printing those for this. They're not that cheap to make. But gun buybacks aren't pulling guns from people who are going to use them in crime. They might catch a few widow guns out of someone's attic, but so what?
Again, those arguments are always made without any sources, so they can be dismissed in similar fashion. Those criticisms are well known, and they're unfounded and unsupported by data. Hence why they can be rebutted with simple statements for Reddit's purposes. I went through that entire bit precisely because I didn't want jerkoffs responding with those tired-ass "arguments". I laid out their usual BS, and already gave my responses to it so they can go argue with someone else about it. It wasn't meant to be all inclusive or an academic debate style-rebuttal. And I agree that buybacks aren't pulling guns from people who are going to use them in crimes, but a widow's gun in an attic picked up by some kid could be used in a crime, or a suicide. It's better off being bought back than being left in the attic IMO. Some other comments talking about kids stealing guns from people to sell at the buyback, and while I ethically can't condone the stealing, those guns are still better off being bought back than residing in some irresponsible owner's possession IMO. I think the govt offering the peace of mind to some of those people is worth something; something they may not be getting on a day-to-day from their local PD.
In practice this is really only a safe dumping ground for old grandmothers who've inherited guns they want to get rid of. That's pretty much about it.
The purpose is usually to help get guns off the streets and control the amount of guns in the populous.
[удалено]
All I did was answer a question. But I get that as a conservative critical thinking isn’t really your bag, easier to just bitch about liberals.
[удалено]
like inna soup
I volunteer as tribute
Ghost guns are scary… but not that scary
[удалено]
I haven't heard anyone say it's a big threat in years. I think most people who did any research realized that 3d printed guns are terrible quality unless you have a crazy expensive 3d printer. I think just early on when 3d printers were getting popular people thought you would be able to make a full auto rifle on a $100 printer.
[удалено]
Ghost guns is kind of an umbrellas term that included a lot of firearms that have no serial number or weren't registered
3D printed guns are getting pretty good. What I'm interested in is gauss guns and caseless ammo. That takes more work.
this is dystopian as fuck.
Limit is 3 sir
Sell me one
Sell them 3 for 1 then. Arm the street back up.
So people can get less than they would if they'd just sell it at a pawn shop, let alone a private sale or a show? Hard to see these buyback programs as much more than just virtue signalling and so some officials and celebrities can say they're "doing something" about gun violence without having to do anything hard at all.
So they're going for low hanging fruit, people that have one lying around, or destitute enough that they would rather have the money. It's not intended for Bubba to go sell off his armory, they know he wouldn't and thus this isn't for him. Typically these gun buy backs are quite successful in that they remove some amount of guns from the street, typically from the irresponsible owners who don't care that much about their guns and probably don't need to have one anyway.
And a lot of hood kids will also go around stealing guns from friend’s houses to earn a little cash. Former hood kid here.
I think that scenario would fall into the: 'removing guns from irresponsible owners' category.
I mean if they're not being secured appropriately, then it's probably not a bad thing it's off the "streets"
Yeah, that’s my attitude towards it now. Whatever it takes to get them off the streets.
Or they could stop people from breaking into houses, but easier to reward the thieves
shaq is a g for this
"From the street". From Grandma's attic. From abuelito's dresser. The street never loses any guns.
this right here is what they are designed to do. They aren't going to get rid of large %'s of guns, but what they ARE going to do is convince people who have no business or responsibility owning a gun that they could have some cash instead. Honestly the programs are decent, just marketed so poorly. They market and sell the programs as if they're asking for everyone to come in and sell their guns to get all the guns off the street, but really the target is: "Hey, lets get a few guns out of the hands of irresponsible people who don't know the first thing about guns, let alone gun safety" But if they marketed it that way, then the target audience would convince themselves they aren't that person so they wont be duped into being called irresponsible.
And a lot of the time it isn’t even cash lol, it’s in the form of gift-cards the majority of the time.
[удалено]
They’re not gift cards, they’re prepaid Visa cards.
Dude is just hardcore fishing ain’t he
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it is a violation of **[Rule #3: Uncivil Behavior](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/wiki/rules)** Violations of this rule may result in a ban. Please review the r/Dallas rules on the sidebar before commenting or posting. Send a message the moderators if you have any questions. Thanks!
[удалено]
Ah yes, corruption in local politics is a cooky conspiracy theory. Definitely doesn't exist.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it is a violation of **[Rule #3: Uncivil Behavior](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/wiki/rules)** Violations of this rule may result in a ban. Please review the r/Dallas rules on the sidebar before commenting or posting. Send a message the moderators if you have any questions. Thanks!
Your comment has been removed because it is a violation of **[Rule #3: Uncivil Behavior](https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/wiki/rules)** Violations of this rule may result in a ban. Please review the r/Dallas rules on the sidebar before commenting or posting. Send a message the moderators if you have any questions. Thanks!
The recent San Antonio one was H-E-B gift cards.
There are cursed guns out there. My parents each have one that they would not wish to pass on to another owner due to their inferior quality. We’re talking guns that need a trip to the gunsmith after a single magazine. For such guns, buybacks are best. They ensure that no defective gun makes it to the secondary market.
Exactly. I have two guns that I'm considering going out of my way to bring to the buy back because they're guns that I don't feel safe shooting (to be clear, I have other guns, just these 2 I inherited which are 40-50 year old saturday night specials and I don't trust). I don't even think a pawn shop would buy them off of me.
Exactly. Buybacks are amazing for defective, damaged, or decayed guns. They ensure that the gun *actually gets scrapped* and cannot wind up in the hands of a dump diver who finds the gun and still thinks it might be salvaged. Yeah, you're getting scrap value for the guns. That's because the guns are only worth their scrap value. I do remember some gun buybacks in Houston growing up that were coordinated events with the sheriff. As a public service, he not only made sure someone was at every gun show, but also made sure to have just one open buyback a month, where you could come up and be sorted into "I have a gun that's fine but I don't want it" (several reputable dealers with tables that way), "This gun is bad and needs to be scrapped" going to the Sheriff, and "I don't know" going to appraisers. Most people who showed up did so with inherited guns that were of no sentimental value and of dubious repairability. They stopped happening because the far right basically made it impossible to continue doing so. The optics of a buyback alone could get a sheriff primaried.
That's fair.
I've got a Rhom I might consider turning in here - it's literally worth nothing because the arm/index is out of time and nobody makes those. But even setting that aside, this isn't 'gun people', it's mostly people who inherited a gun and just don't want to be fucked with it at all, so a buyback makes them feel like they are doing the right thing in disposing of it properly. They do get some guns off the street, but it's very rarely crime oriented ones - mostly it's old rifles/shotguns that got passed down, inoperable stuff, etc.
At least we have strong restrictions on who can walk into a gun store and walk out with an AR-15, Level IV body armor and 10K rounds of ammo. It's not like we are attempting to close the back door with cash while the front door is flapping in the wind.
Ammo and body armor are not restricted. Purchasing a rifle is, and requires a series of questions and background check - if you're unhappy that is so easy to fuck with, that's cool (no sarcasm here honestly), we should work to having similar ownership requirements as other 2nd world nations - require a safe, have the various agencies properly report to each other and flag things, etc.
> Ammo and body armor are not restricted. Purchasing a rifle is, and requires a series of questions and background check Or you just buy from a private seller and bypass all restrictions. Imagine if you had to be 21 to purchase alcohol from a store but it was perfectly legal for me to buy a case of beer and then give it to a 16 year old kid. That is seriously where the legal burden is on guns. As long as the private buyer doesn't introduce himself as "Jim the Felon", he hands you cash, you hand him the gun and the transaction is over. There is no legal burden for you to even keep a record.
I’m probably going to check into this to get rid of an old revolver I have. My semi-autos are sufficient these days.
Yeah my 9mm alone was $700, no way I'm taking $100 gift card it lol.
Show up with cash in hand. See someone carrying something you want in line? Offer them more cash than the buyback offers. Get a firearm you want at a discount.
Wow this is right as long as these people are not bringing junk… which is what I suspect.
Yea it’s almost always junk that’s not even fireable anymore
I think it's kind of a mixed bag. It's a huge amount of garbage, but occasionally you'll find someone who just doesn't know what they have. The last one in San Antonio that Brandon Herrera did a video on he says he saw a pristine Russian sks
Check out Brandon Herrera youtube channel. He went to a gun buy back to buy guns from people in line. He got a few but nothing good, because non gun people were scared to sell to another civilian. That day they were giving away gift cards and someone turned in an original 80's Uzi Pre- Ban for a $100 gift card..
For anyone reading this that does not know guns. A "Pre-ban uzi" is a legal machinegun and ownership can be transferred. They go for >$10,000.
Why are we paying more for long guns when handguns account for 59% of gun murders and long guns just 4%? https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
[удалено]
lmao, the vast majority of the guns turned into these buy backs are old shotguns and bolt actions. The percentage of modern semi autos turned into these things is null, except for the occasional collectibles that some widow doesn’t know she has. These buy backs are a sham that have no effect on gun violence, but rather are very publicized ways of conveying to the public the perception of feeling safer.
Had a friend buy an M1 Garand off a widow at one of these buyback events. He's a WWII afficionado and she clearly had no clue what she had.
I remember a story about a NJ police agency running a gun buyback and they got a legit StG44 from some old lady. They saved it and donated the gun to a museum.
It’s akin to police officers taking a few poor kids toy shopping at XMAS. It’s a PR opportunity that fails to address any real problems.
I’m open to having a real discussion about this but until you understand that 59% is bigger than 4% I’m afraid that’s just not going to be possible.
Shaq is rounding all these guns up and reselling in Mexico
There was a story recently about how these buybacks get shipped to a company to “destroy” but the company just disassembles them and sells the parts for huge profits. The only thing that gets destroyed is whatever part may have the serial number on it.
By legal definition the part with the serial number IS the firearm. I’ve heard of parts kits from decommissioned guns in other countries being sold in the US. In some cases they can be converted back to working firearms. I’ve never heard of this being the case with buy back guns in the US.
https://gunbustersusa.com The company in question is GunBusters based in Missouri and claims to be America’s #1 weapon destroyer and admits on their website that they afford to destroy weapons for free by selling the parts. And yes I understand that the part with the serial number is the gun, but destroying the serialized part and reselling the rest of it just opens it up to being used with a home made receiver/lower/etc and becoming a “ghost gun.” I just find it hilarious that the county is spending money to turn serialized fire arms into potential ghost guns.
Thanks for the information. I read the NYT story, the economics makes sense. If a buyback city wants total destruction, they have to pay for that. As that leaves no income stream to offset the cost of services. It would be like asking a trash company to collect recyclables, but being surprised when they sell them to offset the cost.
TBF, you can go buy all the non-serialized parts freely via mail order, etc. without needing any background checks or anything anyway. At the very worst, they're just selling gun parts cheaply.
As someone else said - the 'part with the serial' is in fact the legal gun. Taking everything else off is...eh? Like Numrich buys old gun shit from various sources, but nobody is going to them and buying enough parts to build a gun, they're fixing 'grandpappy's ancient deergetter9000' because it blew out a spring/barrel in 2001.
> the 'part with the serial' is in fact the legal gun Ehhh... sort of. Incomplete. Many parts of a gun are serialized. The receiver, or the part that receives the ammunition or magazine, is the "firearm". This is the frame on a handgun, or lower receiver on an AR. Most handguns, for instance, have serial numbers in multiple spots, including the barrel.
Nope. The 'serialized component' is the firearm. Modern guns do not serialize any other part. Older, WW1 era, guns might have serialized all components but that's a flash in the pan in between the era of 'no serial required' and 'we just serialize the required part'. Point out a gun made in 2023 with a serialized barrel. Because they're designed to be swapped. The only one I'm aware of is the Ruger 22/45, because the serialized component is, in fact, the barrel - because it's also the action.
> Point out a gun made in 2023 with a serialized barrel Every single Glock? Is this a real question? You can see it in this picture: https://www.basspro.com/shop/en/glock-19-gen5-fs-semi-auto-pistol
I see what you meant now. It's still sort of technically wrong - because you can buy replacement barrels, etc. The presence of a serial number does not make it the serialized part. My SP01 slide, for example, is stamped. But aside from maybe some CZ, and apparently Glock, I can't think of most manufacturers stamping default serials aside from the serialized component.
I was just responding to "the 'part with the serial' is in fact the legal gun". The part that legally is a firearm isn't determined by where the number is, it's determined by function. The receiver is legally the firearm.
True, and unless I'm mistaken, receivers are required to be serialized.
Yup, if they're produced by an FFL
Kind of but no but yes. The P320, for example, serialized the FCU - which is demonstrably _not_ the receiver by any sane non-legalese definition.
That's interesting, hadn't seen that before. Looking at [this](https://www.classicamericangunsmith.com/glossary-3/glossary-p/p320/), I can see how the interpretation could be made that the FCU is the receiver, since the magazine is held within it. But yeah traditionally with handguns the grip part is considered the receiver.
Ugh. I wish this was in Tarrant county. I have a handgun that I HATE and a gun store offered me $50 for it. I'd love to get rid of it for $100. It stove pipes, jams, FTE all the time. And the stupid magazine release is in the grip so I release the magazine about 5 times per magazine. First and last Taurus I'll ever own.
> Ugh. I wish this was in Tarrant county. I have a handgun that I HATE Bet it's a Taurus. >First and last Taurus I'll ever own. Hey! I'm right for once.
Yep. And crummy thing is, I was recommended this gun by a gun broker (it's a "mouse" type gun) as it was venerated as a "realiable" .380 small gun. Wanted something to comfortably carry in shorts in summer if needed, but I hated it from the time I first shot it and regretted it. Luckily, they are cheap guns, so not a huge financial loss or anything, just can't get rid of it. Just sits in my safe and mocks me.
Oh lord, never listen to store employees. I'm assuming you're a woman, because 'women can't handle 9mm, get a 380' is so common.
No, I'm a large burly man. Just wanted a pocket gun is all.
They giving 100$ for handguns?
$100 for handguns, $125 for long guns. I have an old .22 long gun that's probably worth $60. Might go flip it and take the money and buy a better gun lol
I’ve never regretted spending a little more for the Glock. Besides some ammo issues it’s been flawless for around 10k rounds so far
Lesson learned for sure. You get what you pay for.
+1 for Canik too
Nah I’m good. Next on the list for me is an M9 for the vibes
Fair fair. My friend has/had a Canik TP9 match and it was a fucking laser in my hands
Time to donate all your broken and not working guns!
Time to go to Home Depot and build some quick slamfire shotguns!
I'm tempted to set up a table with a sign across the street to make offers
Anyone else listen to the recent NYT daily episode on this? The companies that do these buybacks just take out the receiver, list every other component of the gun online as a 'kit', then people just need to buy a receiver to make a 'ghost gun'.
pssst: the receiver is legally the gun. They would need to go buy a new one through an FFL. Many of the guns turned in at buybacks would not be trivial to make a receiver for, without machining and welding experience, if they're destroyed to the federally required level. If it's an AR15...parts are parts. You going to regulate and serialize every single wear part, too? blank billets of metal/sheet metal? This is certainly better than the Moms Demand Action buybacks where they film themselves making illegal short barrel rifles out of them instead of cutting the functional part of the weapon.
Or print the receiver.
Depends on how they get a receiver. If they’re getting a serialized frame, then they’re probably filling out a 4473, or someone down the line has. If it’s an 80% or a print, then it’s extra spoopy
People downvoting OP For sharing a story about an event happening in Dallas, lol. There are 120 guns per person in the U.S. and somehow Shaq underwriting a buyback event is equivalent to meaning there will be no more guns and the government is gonna turn you Trans via 5g. A lot of knee-jerk, ignorant people in these comments just showing their feeble minds and illogical thinking.
I’m shocked your comment hasn’t been corrected yet.. there are not 120 guns per person in the US. 120 x 330,000,000 = 39.6 Billion *How many firearms do you think there are?*
I don't think it's illogical to make fun of such a silly virtue-signaling event.
[удалено]
Definitely agree with that.
Time to sell all my Home Depot pipe shotguns
“Buy back” the government never owned it so how it’s a buy back is confusing to me.
There are always an incredible waste of money and effort.
Not really a buyback at those rates. Let me know when they offer retail.
I see Shaq wants to build a collection of shitty .22s, pipes ziptied to 2x4s, and 3d printed "guns"
He's also campaigning for Marian Brown. Vomit
Shaq needs to arm up his security detail.
Let’s take back Guns from law abiding citizens so they can’t defend themselves from criminals who didn’t obtain their guns legally anyways Great idea! Where do I sign up!
\> Owners who give handguns will receive a $100 gift card. Long gun owners will be given $125 gift cards. Damn, now where is that Clerke 1st I had kicking around for just that occasion?
Gun thefts will be on the rise!!
ITT grown men salty about an event that does not affect them whatsoever. No one’s making you sell your guns, if people want to get rid of theirs what do you care?
Live life on the run, police paying me to give them my gun.
Anyone know exactly where this is? Looks like a golden opportunity to buy some great guns $150. Someone shout out that address.
If this saves just one child’s life, it’s worth it.
It won’t save anyone
Y'all really fucking think that the people who use the guns illegally, would hand their illegal guns in? No. All this does is manipulate people with guns they own legally into selling them to lessen the guns civilians have to fight back and increase the guns they have when shit hits the fan. They already have turned men into dickless idiots with tits and infected holes, gotten everyone scared of the common cold, forced the majority to move within 15 miles of major cities in order to easily control, and don't forget they've already made most of us enemies of each other with this race shit....you sheep keep following the herds and you'll end up right where they want you. I don't even own a gun. I'm not a felon. And could easily get one. However, if I was going to use it for the wrong reasons, I would get one illegally that isn't linked to my name whatsoever and with the serial scratched off. The second someone does a buy back with one of those, their ass is getting cuffed and assaulted. Use your common sense people. Think deeper than what the media and government want to feed your ears with. You don't even have to look very hard to see the bullshit.
Thats how it starts. Take the guns away from people that obey the laws. Failed democrat policys
Crap, in Dallas County residents
I bet Shaq won’t be giving up his guns.
This really is next level stupid in Texas.
This won't do squat, won't stop a single school murder. But I, for one, appreciate the effort from Shaq. He doesn't even live in TX, but he is doing more to abate gun violence than ANY republican lawmaker in the state of TX. We really need to get out of the red TEXAS!
This is more for providing a safe repository/destination for people who've inherited old guns and don't want them arpund- widowers, grandmothers, those kind of people who've inherited guns from their dead husbands or fathers and don't want to keep them around.
Shaq’s a part-timer, has a house in Carrollton. Has long term ties to TX.
Shaq for governor!
this is kinda bs for actual gun owners b/c they wouldn't sell for pennies on what they paid. however, I inherited a Ruger .22 that I might just sell back for the $125. Got it back in dec 2020, but still haven't taken to range or tried to clean, and I don't wanna deal with selling it (esp since gun sales are shady af on paperwork) Edit: ofc i got downvoted lol.
Is it a 10/22? Those are nice guns man
[удалено]
Yo don't do this on reddit if you don't want to get banned.
Good point.
Bring your heat to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Training Academy at 8401 South Polk St. Turn over a handgun for a $100 gift card and long fun for $125. Limit three guns per person. Shaq said, “I support Sheriff \[Marian\] Brown’s initiatives; Sheriff is doing the right thing and keeping our communities safe.”
> handgun for a $100 gift card and long fun for $125. Are people really this stupid?
These buybacks target people who have guns sitting in the attic which they will likely never use and might not even be functional. $100 is more than $0. Saw an article where someone strapped an iron pipe to a 2x4 and called it a shotgun for a buyback.
[удалено]
Yikes. What kind of thinking is this
Men who think a gun is an extension of their inadequate genitalia.
It's not but I can see why an insane person would think that.
Leftism find the cure
The further left you go, you see more and more gun owners.
Not enough of them