Communities across the U.S. are fueling a secondary arms market by giving seized and surrendered guns to disposal services that destroy one part and resell the rest.
When Flint, Mich., announced in September that 68 assault weapons collected in a gun buyback would be incinerated, the city cited its policy of never reselling firearms.
“Gun violence continues to cause enormous grief and trauma,” said Mayor Sheldon Neeley. “I will not allow our city government to profit from our community’s pain by reselling weapons that can be turned against Flint residents.”
But Flint’s guns were not going to be melted down. Instead, they made their way to a private company that has collected millions of dollars taking firearms from police agencies, destroying a single piece of each weapon stamped with the serial number and selling the rest as nearly complete gun kits. Buyers online can easily replace what’s missing and reconstitute the weapon.
Hundreds of towns and cities have turned to a growing industry that offers to destroy guns used in crimes, surrendered in buybacks or replaced by police force upgrades. But these communities are in fact fueling a secondary arms market, where weapons slated for destruction are recycled into civilian hands, often with no background check required, according to interviews and a review of gun disposal contracts, patent records and online listings for firearms parts.
Gun buyback programs are almost always a joke of one kind or another.
It’s wild how you get: gun buyback programs = bad. Rather than: corrupt corporations need watchdogs.
Removed by mod
How many mass shootings has Australia had in the past decade, again?
Mandatory confiscation and eliminating new sales =! US gun buybacks where the stores are still open
Kind of a weird position to say that gun buybacks played no part in removing the guns. 🤷♂️
What?
Australia had mandatory confiscation of ALL guns basically, and heavily restricted new sales. No guns, no shootings duh
The US has no such blanket ban, and so these kind of VOLUNTARY buybacks are generally pretty unhelpful for reducing gun crime and/or mass shootings. The buyback may ‘take off the streets’ X number of gun from a community, but if there’s still 5 million NICS background checks for new gun sales each year, then the US buyback are not achieving the stated goal of safer communities. The same money and time could be spent on better programs like Oakland CA is doing currently
deleted by creator
(Not sure if my other comment got deleted successfully or not, so posting this next to it)
Sorry, I reacted to your second sentence without reading the rest. (I am Australian, I was a bit offended by reading “Australia had mandatory confiscation of ALL guns basically”)
In Australia the gun buybacks were followed by decreases in gun violence. It’s debated whether that was because of the gun buybacks or other policies, it’s hard to be certain without two identical countries and A-B testing. Nonetheless: anything that makes guns and gun parts less available is likely to help and doesn’t seem to have much in the way of disadvantages other than money. These days it’s mostly through gun amnesties (not buybacks) so that problem is avoided.
Why would you “sell back” actual guns when you can build a functioning 12 gauge shotgun from $20 of parts from the hardware store? Slap a few of those together and turn them in for a solid contribution toward your next gun.
You think intentionally fraudulent programs with no meaningful oversight or meaningful accountability are OK? That’s what seems wild to me but ok.
There’s no way this is the first time this has happened either.
Maybe, then, you should be calling for more oversight and accountability of such programs rather than dismissing them as a joke.
You’re making a shitload of wild assumptions about me (also, they are wrong), but ok: Good chat.
By the way, if you look further up the thread, you’ll see that I called for just that.
You should use concrete to make sure those goalposts don’t move around so much.
You should misuse more buzzwords and make increasingly wild assumptions.
Anyhow, you’re going to have to try and start an argument with someone else now.
Goodbye.
Only in the US, again. Other places just crush that stuff and melt it.
Pretty much, yeah.
Why would you destroy a perfectly good gun, when you could sell it to someone who can legally own it?
Why is that?
There’s no real oversight, no accountability, little to no regulation, and the prices they offer are almost always well below the fair market value of the firearm (never mind the black market value) so most people end up keeping, selling, or pawning the gun instead. Functional firearms are kept in circulation as a result (the opposite of the supposedly intended goal).
There are also cases of people just making $20 pipe guns to rip off even the well intentioned programs, some programs try to mitigate this, some don’t, but there are no set rules beyond whatever the program decides.
I guarantee you, the program mentioned in the article is not the first to pull that reselling shit too.
These programs need to be regulated and there needs to be meaningful oversight or they will always be a joke. As it stands they are, at best, public relations campaigns and, at worst, fraudulent and potentially very dangerous.
That’s unfortunate. I wish we had competent government.
Groups like the NRA put a lot of money into lobbying politicians to protect the gun industry. They don’t even really care about the 2nd amendment, they care about protecting the bottom line of companies like Colt and S&W.
Too busy focusing on Not Abjectly Cruel Government. Competent Government is another step once non-rich people are safe and have rights.
Buybacks don’t make a lot of sense when the people turning in their guns can just use the money to buy new ones. May as well cut out the middleman and just give money directly to gun manufacturers.
I kinda doubt many are doing that, the prices buy backs offer are usually ridiculously low: They’d be financially better off just trading the gun, doing a private sale, or illegally selling it for even more to a convicted felon on the black market.
If buyback programs really wanted to get guns off the street, they’d pay more money and the process that occurs after the buyback would be transparent and verifiable.
What they actually seem to be are a mix of shady profiteering (like mentioned in the article above) or PR feel-good projects that allow politicians to act like they’re actually doing something to fix the problem, when the reality is, it’s a band-aid at best and profiteering off of undermining programs meant to reduce gun violence.
This assumes nobody has anything to do with their money other than spend it on guns.
It’s an exaggeration, but here’s something that’s not.
There’s demonstrably a big market for guns in the US. A certain number of gun sales will happen every year. Used guns reduce the demand for new guns, thus reducing the money gun manufacturers can make. By destroying surrendered guns rather than selling them, buyback programs are choosing not to let the surrendered guns satisfy part of the demand for guns, thus increasing the demand for new guns and thus the revenue of gun makers.
Buyback programs can reduce the number of guns in specific communities, but the number of people nationwide who have guns is limited only by the number of people who want guns and have legal access to them, not the availability of guns for purchase. In other words, the usefulness of a buyback program is largely predicted on the discredited theory of supply-side economics.
The alternative to “a portion of guns surrendered don’t get destroyed” can be far worse.
How about just banning the profiteering off of fraudulent buybacks and making sure buy backs adhere to reasonable standards and oversight?