NRA challenges firearm buyback

[Stark]

Even if he believed you (ps, he doesn't and I doubt anyone does) why would he care? Increasing your responsibility for everything the NRA does might be bad, but for the rest of us (especially those of us safe from the results of your knee-jerk, troll-motivated political grandstanding) it's just funny as fuck.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I blacked out my last name because I changed it when I got married and I don't want to drag my wife into my extreme gun politics.

[Rogue 9]

I'm not remotely threatened by the NRA opposing the destruction of the guns, I just think it's stupid and a waste of time. It doesn't advance their agenda in the least and makes them look like fools in public; I'm flabbergasted that they think it's a good idea and can't understand why they think so.

[Stark]

Are screencaps proof of anything but you being a hysterical knee-jerk idiot?

Rogue, there is a non-zero chance that it will work, and it could be a serious victory. On the other hand, if it doesn't work, nobody who doesn't already think they're retarded will start, and their supporters won't change their mind either (as is obvious by the histrionics we see). This is the fun of a completely divided issue with crazy radicals on both sides.

[Rogue 9]

I agree there's a non-zero chance that they can achieve their goal of making the destruction of guns surrendered at buybacks illegal; I just question why this is a goal. The organization's stated reason for existence is the maintenance and advancement of the right to bear arms, which this action simply doesn't do; in no way is anyone's right to keep and bear arms threatened by a voluntary buyback so bothering with it is a frivolous and extraneous waste of their resources and political clout. It doesn't make sense as anything other than a reflexive reaction that no one thought through.

[Flagg]

Because it is a symbol of the disarming intentions of the American government leadership that the guns are being destroyed, without even being checked for historical status or collector's value. It is a demonstration that the objective of government policy is to reduce the number of guns in circulation whether or not they were legally held.

Are you crazy? Honest question here.

Because you asked me that question I'm donating $24.99 to the NRA's legislative action fund.

I'd feel bad, but their return on investment rating is around 2% IIRC. So can you just send me like $20?

[Nephtys]

I'm confused by the idea that this is 'abandonment'.
Last I checked, if I gave an item to another party, who gave me a wad of money, it's not abandoning it and them finding it. I just made a sale.
Hell, if I gave a person or entity an item, and they didn't give me anything, that could just be a donation. Abandoned goods here sounds like it'd be when you come across something without an obvious legal owner.

[Flagg]

I'm confused by the idea that this is 'abandonment'.
Last I checked, if I gave an item to another party, who gave me a wad of money, it's not abandoning it and them finding it. I just made a sale.

Well they are called buybacks for a reason.

[fordlltwm]

I can see that an arbitrary throw any gun we get from the buyback in the scrap pot could be a stupid thing to do. The sensible thing to do would be to have a few people who go through the guns to remove anything possibly significant historically, i.e. great grandpa's civil war gun that the yuppie inheritors can't stand to have, and also have a museum / (carefully selected) interested parties wanted list, say a museum / exhibition is being put on about say ganbangers they could ask to have a selection of weapons used by such individuals disarmed and dispatched to them for the duration of the exhibit to be returned for either reuse in another exhibit or their ultimate destruction.


I'm not a fan of government sanctioned lets destroy stuff for cash schemes, such schemes have had for example the effect of making 80's / 90's cars ridiculously rare in the future by convincing the public that getting the scrappage scheme was a good idea (uk based example I know), but this maybe because I'm a collector of antiquities of the machinery / engineering persuasion.

[Darth Holbytlan]

Because it is a symbol of the disarming intentions of the American government leadership that the guns are being destroyed, without even being checked for historical status or collector's value. It is a demonstration that the objective of government policy is to reduce the number of guns in circulation whether or not they were legally held.

And...? Is there something wrong with the objective of removing guns from circulation by a completely voluntary program?

While I don't have any problem with a buyback program checking for historic/collector's items so they won't be destroyed, I rather doubt that it is a serious problem. My very limited google search found only a bit of speculation that historic guns might be destroyed, but no evidence of it actually happening. Antiques Roadshow notwithstanding, most of the crap people have in storage is just that—crap.

Are you crazy? Honest question here.

Because you asked me that question I'm donating $24.99 to the NRA's legislative action fund.

That's your answer to what is essentially a your-point-makes-no-sense reply in standard SDN insult form? You realize that sort of knee-jerk response looks a lot like "Hell, yes!", right?

[LaCroix]

Isn't control for antique value a part of buybacks?

As far as I remember, (here) every gun is thoroughly checked if it was used in a crime, and evaluated by an expert. Valuable pieces are donated to museums instead of being destroyed. I remember seeing reports in TV, where they show the team the collection room where they store the rare pieces.

[Aaron MkII]

Depends where you are. I've heard anecdotal tales of cops at buy backs telling people they have an odd rare piece and telling them to sell it. But in general if you turn it in at a buy back in Canada, it will be destroyed. After it's been checked for use in a crime.

[PeZook]

Oh come on: is it really going to be such a huge deal if a few valuable antiques get destroyed by carelessness or dont-give-a-crapitis during a buyback?

First of all, only a small percentage of gun owners are going to participate ; Second, our of this small number, those who actually own valuable antiques probably know this. And lastly, guns are not Reneissance paintings: a Civil War era musket getting destroyed is not, by itself, a tremedous loss, destruction of something one of a kind.

I do understand the need to protect examples of historical artifacts by reasonable means, but it seems people are seriously overstating this particular problem with buybacks.

[LaCroix]

Especially since you'd only bring a gun to a buyback if the shop owner tells you that he won't buy that piece of crap.