I've been listening to this podcast, and the guy seems okay. He's a machinist, computer consultant, and photographer. Oh, and he despises gun buybacks with a passion.
I can't listen while at work. What's his argument against buybacks? Personally, I strongly oppose confiscation and other restrictions (for example, waiting periods), but buybacks? Market forces in action.
Of course, I'd prefer it if they weren't funded by taxes. Let the gun-fearers contribute to a buyback fund.
1) The programs are usually "no questions asked" allowing criminals to dispose of crime guns. 2) A fair price is almost never given for the guns. 3) The programs are frequently run contrary to Federal law.
I agree that I mostly have a problem with the use of tax dollars to fund the programs. Here in Connecticut, I'm far more concerned about the assault weapons ban, the 8-week waiting period on handguns, and the ongoing criminalization of gun-owners.
If the price isn't fair, people won't sell the guns.
I find it hard to believe that people are using these programs to dispose of guns used in crimes. It's much less risky to just disassemble the guns and throw them in the river.
Completely agreed that the direct infringements are worse by far.
The assumption there is that people will know the real value of their guns. A lot of the guns that come back in buybacks are from widows and surviving children that decide to "get them out of the house" on impulse. There is no reason to believe that any of those folks have the guns appraised before they get taken in.
In New Haven, throwing the guns into the river would work well (as Flint, MI proved for years), but I'm not sure that every municipality provides as convenient a cloaca. Heck, anyone who has ever ridden the train through Norwalk can tell that people figured out how to dump in a river a long time ago.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-09 04:23 pm (UTC)I can't listen while at work. What's his argument against buybacks? Personally, I strongly oppose confiscation and other restrictions (for example, waiting periods), but buybacks? Market forces in action.
Of course, I'd prefer it if they weren't funded by taxes. Let the gun-fearers contribute to a buyback fund.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-09 05:30 pm (UTC)1) The programs are usually "no questions asked" allowing criminals to dispose of crime guns.
2) A fair price is almost never given for the guns.
3) The programs are frequently run contrary to Federal law.
I agree that I mostly have a problem with the use of tax dollars to fund the programs. Here in Connecticut, I'm far more concerned about the assault weapons ban, the 8-week waiting period on handguns, and the ongoing criminalization of gun-owners.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 02:22 am (UTC)I find it hard to believe that people are using these programs to dispose of guns used in crimes. It's much less risky to just disassemble the guns and throw them in the river.
Completely agreed that the direct infringements are worse by far.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-11 10:34 am (UTC)In New Haven, throwing the guns into the river would work well (as Flint, MI proved for years), but I'm not sure that every municipality provides as convenient a cloaca. Heck, anyone who has ever ridden the train through Norwalk can tell that people figured out how to dump in a river a long time ago.