13News Now Investigates: How effective are gun buybacks

[Dial H For Hero]

https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/13news-now-investigates/gun-buyback-effectiveness/291-cac061a5-f299-4c87-bfab-e3932040436b?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

The idea of gun buybacks is simple: turn in a firearm and receive a gift card in exchange. No questions asked. The weapons are then turned over to the police department, where they will be destroyed.

But do gun buybacks actually work in reducing gun violence?

A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found gun buybacks are "ineffective at deterring gun crime."

Researchers offered several reasons that gun buybacks could fail to reduce gun violence, including:
The gift cards aren't priced high enough to incentivize donations
Most participants come from low-crime areas
The firearms exchanged "tend to be older and less well-functioning than the average firearm."

(Excerpt)

No surprise.

[LT Barclay]

1. This is my buyback story: St. Louis had one with $10,000 total funding and

when it ended the front page news bragged about getting 1250 guns off the street (many not functional). Buried on the national news page a tiny little column reported that the Department of Commerce had just approved the import of 800,000 handguns from China.

[Chainfire]

2. For the most part, the only guns that get handed in are ones that can't be sold otherwise.

Gun prices are through the roof and the makers can't satisfy the demand of guns or ammo. People will only turn in their guns if they get more than the value of the piece, and then there is nothing to prevent them from buying another gun with the proceeds. It is a feel good program. Gun issues will have to be dealt with with gun laws. The only gun laws that I see changing are making it easier to buy and carry guns. Thank your Republicans.

A couple of days ago, I read a post by a right-winger that was going on and on about how Ukrainians were only able to fight back only because they had guns to defend themselves. I posted a link showing that Ukrainian gun laws were far more restrictive than America's gun laws and, low and behold, no reply. Of course, after the invasion, gun laws restricting ownership and use were suspended in Ukraine, but that had nothing to do with the poster's supposition.

The way to change gun laws is to elect lawmakers who have the guts to get the job done and whittle down the Right activist SC, Don't expect it in your lifetime. The truth of the matter is guns are here to stay until the Fascist gain complete control and then they will do what we can't. Among the first things that repressive regimes do is remove the Intelligentsia and the guns, so, in effect, most of us won't see it.

The dumbass right wingers know not what they ask.

[yagotme]

3. Well, technically, the RW'er was right,

you have to have guns to suppress an invasion. The government was handing them out to fighters, initially, THEN they suspended their possession/usage laws. I guess you could say they had a bit of an awakening.

[Chainfire]

5. No, not at all

The right-wingers are wrong because they contend that the only thing that protects their perverted vision of freedom are the guns that they have today. The Ukrainians proved that you can both have reasonable gun laws and still arm the public in an emergency.

Back to the original question, no, gun buybacks don't work. They may, in fact take some guns out of circulation, but the American gun industry is a 5 billion dollar a year business, buybacks don't make a noticeable dent in the number of guns in circulation. That can only be addressed by laws, like the rest of the civilized world does.

[yagotme]

6. The US public is a LOT bigger than Ukraine's,

and with a lot of our gear overseas (prepositioning), arming a large section of civilians would be a little more problematic. Would the Russians have gotten as far as they did, if the public had a lot more arms than they did, initially? A guerilla force is hard to fight, a well armed one, even more so.

[Chainfire]

7. Well we just don't know, do we?

I suspect that might near every Ukrainian that wants one now has an automatic rifle or some even more effective, previously banned weapon. These weapons were denied, or seriously restricted, to citizens before the war started. So contrary to what the NRA would have you believe, citizens with more restrictive firearms laws than the US were able to be armed in very short order, by their government.

I contend that a majority of American of civilians armed with semi-auto weapons are much more danger to a free society than to a foreign government. I also content the the vast majority of Americans who own semi-automatic, carbine length, high-capacity removable magazine, rifles are the very same type of folks who wanted to overthrow the last free and fair elections, the same folks that march under a swastika or KKK flag, and the same kinds of folks who are devoted and proud racists. This is just my opinion based upon personal observation, over a long period of time, and I could be wrong.

[yagotme]

8. That's a rather broad brush you're using there...

"I contend that a majority of American of civilians armed with semi-auto weapons are much more danger to a free society than to a foreign government. I also content the the vast majority of Americans who own semi-automatic, carbine length, high-capacity removable magazine, rifles are the very same type of folks who wanted to overthrow the last free and fair elections, the same folks that march under a swastika or KKK flag, and the same kinds of folks who are devoted and proud racists. This is just my opinion based upon personal observation, over a long period of time, and I could be wrong."

What's a majority of civilians owning semi-auto weapons? That's a popular class of firearm, be it .22, high power rifle, or shotgun. 50.0001%? That's a lot of gun owners. We should be under authoritarian rule by now, shouldn't we?

What's a vast majority of the "high cap. carbine length" gun owners? Hard to say exactly how many are in circulation. That would still be a few million, at least, gun owners, and I don't see that many Klan rallies with those numbers taking place here. And to your statement, this is my personal observation opinion, living in a small town/rural area.

If 1/2 of the "evil" gun owners decided to take over the country right now, they'd pretty well get the job done. Jan 6 in Washington was a sh*t show, and there were no civilian firearms used. Only death by gunshot was a protestor by Cap. Police. Imagine if 1/2 those Trumpers had been armed, and didn't care about shooting police. How far could they have gone? I mean, really think about it. Couple hundred AR carbines, 7 30 rd mags apiece, and it would have been all over. The House would have fallen, and quickly, and the Senate wouldn't have taken much longer. SWAT response would have been too little, too late.

[DashOneBravo]

10. Where did you read this?

“ I contend that a majority of American of civilians armed with semi-auto weapons are much more danger to a free society than to a foreign government. I also content the the vast majority of Americans who own semi-automatic, carbine length, high-capacity removable magazine, rifles are the very same type of folks who wanted to overthrow the last free and fair elections, the same folks that march under a swastika or KKK flag, and the same kinds of folks who are devoted and proud racists. This is just my opinion based upon personal observation, over a long period of time, and I could be wrong.”

[DashOneBravo]

11. Ferguson MO

[DashOneBravo]

12. Boston bomber

Last edited Sat Mar 26, 2022, 08:12 PM - Edit history (3)

Remember all the no knock without any warrants?



?output-quality=auto&output-format=auto&downsize=640


You always hear how much people from Boston are badass but they all lined up and left without a warrant.

That’s why politicians want you disarmed

[Chainfire]

13. I wrote it, you read it.

I prefaced what I said with it was my "contention", I also said it was my opinion. I even said that I could be wrong, however, I don't believe that I am.

It comes from years of experience with the people who are the fans of the "assault rifle" that are so popular in the US. These types of rifles have one real purpose and that is to kill as many people, in as short at time as possible, in a format that is legal to mass produce and distribute. That is why they are the weapons of choice of mass murderers and modern Fascists that call themselves "Patriots."