Boston Gun Buyback yields just ONE Gun

[orionengnr]

putting police woefully behind last year’s pace in the overall number of guns they’re removing from the street, a Herald review found.

Therein lies the inherent fallacy--they are not "removing guns from the street."

Well, aren't these funds ultimately from your taxes anyway? And isn't this another case of government blithely spending your hard earned income ... and now having wasted resources on gun buybacks ( instead of spending the money on other needed services ) won't they eventually need to tax you further for taxes to pay for these little initiatives?

Bingo.

 

[OldMac]

How do they define success or failure. The cost to advertise, staff, set up and organize likely exceeds that of the payment for firearms. We all know these are junk in most cases and not reducing violent crimes. I would continue to exploit them until a overzealous reporter digs into the real cost benefit ratio. Government waste is not something to accept willing

 

[WestKentucky]

Guys, your missing the good one...ar lowers registered as pistols. I guess that's probably why they threw in the "functional" bit...probably got burned with a few hundred PSA blemished lowers....wish I could claim to be "that guy"

 

[OldMac]

The impact of buyback programs have long been debated, with critics arguing they rarely bring in the guns that are actually driving the violence in neighborhoods.

Officials in Sonoma County, 
Calif., for example, found in a research project launched in 2013 that while buybacks were good at “garnering a favorable media response, the programs do not have a substantial impact on reduction or prevention of gun violence and typically have no long term effects.”

They know it's a PR stunt. Now they know that we know they know it's a pr stunt.

 

[ironworkerwill]

Now they know that we know they know it's a pr stunt.

I think they know that we know they know....It doesn't work, or maybe they are just finding out.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Boston Gun Buyback yields just ONE Gun
CNB: This has been around for ten years now. Maybe more have read it.

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
"Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" (2004) Gun Buy-Backs
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=95

Gun Buy-Backs

Gun buy-back programs involve a government or private group paying individuals to turn in guns they possess. The programs do not require the participants to identify themselves, in order to encourage participation by offenders or those with weapons used in crimes. The guns are then destroyed. The theoretical premise for gun buy-back programs is that the program will lead to fewer guns on the streets because fewer guns are available for either theft or trade, and that consequently violence will decline. It is the committee’s view that the theory underlying gun buy-back programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs.

The theory on which gun buy-back programs is based is flawed in three respects. First, the guns that are typically surrendered in gun buy-backs are those that are least likely to be used in criminal activities. Typically, the guns turned in tend to be of two types: (1) old, malfunctioning guns whose resale value is less than the reward offered in buy-back programs or (2) guns owned by individuals who derive little value from the possession of the guns (e.g., those who have inherited guns). The Police Executive Research Forum (1996) found this in their analysis of the differences between weapons handed in and those used in crimes. In contrast, those who are either using guns to carry out crimes or as protection in the course of engaging in other illegal activities, such as drug selling, have actively acquired their guns and are unlikely to want to participate in such programs.

Second, because replacement guns are relatively easily obtained, the actual decline in the number of guns on the street may be smaller than the number of guns that are turned in. Third, the likelihood that any particular gun will be used in a crime in a given year is low. In 1999, approximately 6,500 homicides were committed with handguns. There are approximately 70 million handguns in the United States. Thus, if a different handgun were used in each homicide, the likelihood that a particular handgun would be used to kill an individual in a particular year is 1 in 10,000. The typical gun buy-back program yields less than 1,000 guns. Even ignoring the first two points made above (the guns turned in are unlikely to be used by criminals and may be replaced by purchases of new guns), one would expect a reduction of less than one-tenth of one homicide per year in response to such a gun buy-back program. The program might be cost-effective if those were the correct parameters, but the small scale makes it highly unlikely that its effects would be detected.

In light of the weakness in the theory underlying gun buy-backs, it is not surprising that research evaluations of U.S. efforts have consistently failed to document any link between such programs and reductions in gun violence (Callahan et al., 1994; Police Executive Research Forum, 1996; Rosenfeld, 1996).

Outside the United States there have been a small number of buy-backs of much larger quantities of weapons, in response to high-profile mass murders with firearms. Following a killing of 35 persons in Tasmania in 1996 by a lone gunman, the Australian government prohibited certain categories of long guns and provided funds to buy back all such weapons in private hands (Reuter and Mouzos, 2003). A total of 640,000 weapons were handed in to the government (at an average price of approximately $350), constituting about 20 percent of the estimated stock of weapons. The weapons subject to the buy-back, however, accounted for a modest share of all homicides or violent crimes more generally prior to the buy-back. Unsurprisingly, Reuter and Mouzos (2003) were unable to find evidence of a substantial decline in rates for these crimes. They noted that in the six years following the buy-back, there were no mass murders with firearms and fewer mass murders than in the previous period; these are both weak tests given the small numbers of such incidents annually.

CNB: Buy-Backs are supposed to prevent suicides by removing guns from the household. FS/S is the proportion of firearm suicide to total suicide.

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
"Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" (2004)
Chapter 7 Firearms and Suicide
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=169

In Box 7-2, for example, we present the results of a simulation conducted by the committee. In this Monte Carlo simulation, we study the relation between the suicide rate and FS/S as a proxy for gun ownership**, but we derive very different results than those reported by Miller et al. (2002a, 2002c). In particular, we find a negative association between the suicide rate and FS/S: in this simulation, if FS/S is a good proxy for ownership, gun owners are less likely than nonowners to commit suicide.

CNB: If gunowners are less likely to commit suicide than non-owners as NRC found, owning a gun does not make you more likely to commit suicide, and encouraging people to sell their guns to the government won't lower the suicide rate.

Applying CDC-speak, the gun is not the germ of the gun suicide epidemic, and elimination of the "germ" will not cure the disease. Gun suicide does not appear to fit the germ theory of disease;it does appear to fit the immune system failure model, where the actual germ (a death wish) overrides a weakened immune system (the will to live), regardless of exposure of healthy people to the suspected germ (gun in the home).

____________
* In 2011, approximately 6,220 homicides were committed with handguns. There are approximately 112 million handguns in the United States. Thus, if a different handgun were used in each homicide, the likelihood that a particular handgun would be used to kill an individual in a particular year is 1 in 18,000.
--figures updated to 2011 statistics assuming that guns turned in by buybacks are typical of guns used in murder.


** Proxies used in research for rate of gunownership in a jurisdiction under study have included:
o proportion of suicides by shooting;
o subscriptions to Guns & Ammo magazine;
o NRA memberships;
o NICS background checks;
o CCW permit/license issuance.
None of these are accurate measures of rate of gun ownership in city X or county Y, there are arguments for and against using them.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Matt Stout, Laurel J. Sweet, "Boston's gun buyback program founders". Boston Herald, 19 Aug 2015.

"Boston's gun buyback program founders". The photo shows Boston cops at a crime tape scene. Commenters complain "What founders?" or cite founders as a misspelling of flounders. Not founders, noun plural. "Founder", verb, as in go under, sink, fail; syn. flounder. If the title had been ""Boston's gun buyback program flounders", commenters would have compalined those aren't fish, they're Boston cops.

If the money spendt on the Gun Buy Back had been spendt on non-clogging pens for Boston P.D. the efficiency of LE in Boston would have been enhanced far more than any gain from a gun buyback.

Typical big city machine politics response to a problem: propose a feel-good non-solution that tramples other people's rights, so the liberals can gloat at least we're doing something and look down on their critics with moral superiority. Boys and girls, it is better to do nothing than do something useless.

 

[Devonai]

I'm absolutely astonished they avoided the temptation to use typical headline puns and didn't say "misfires." Good for Stout & Sweet.

Stout & Sweet: A portly, grizzled old cop and a young female rookie patrol the packed Downtown Crossing area, learning to live, love, and laugh. Coming this fall on ABC.

Stout & Sweet: Guinness and brown sugar? It's so simple, you'll wonder why nobody's done it yet. Coming this fall from Harp Brewing Co.

 

[JTHunter]

The only gun I have that I could use at one of these fiasco's is a .38 revolver that is about 100 years old. It's the one my grandfather kept under his store's cash register and used to be a cop's duty gun. The problem is that the cylinder no longer locks up properly and is out of alignment with the forcing cone, a very dangerous situation.

My problem is whether I want to part with a little "family history" or not.

 

[DaisyCutter]

“I’m asking any family members out there that you know have a gun in the house — or you might know that one of your kids has a gun — we will come and pick it up. We will take the gun out of the house.”

I can't hardly believe this quote from the article. The chief is asking people to turn in guns that they don't even actually own.

As an AZ LEO, I'd charge the police chief and the person who turned in the gun with a felony for trafficking stolen property.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02307.htm

Controlling the property of another with intent to permanently deprive is THEFT. Selling it for profit is TRAFFICKING, as is buying property you know to be stolen.

This chief is a felon. Attempted trafficking in stolen property is still a felony. As is conspiracy to traffic in stolen property. As is solicitation to traffic in stolen property. Attempted, conspiracy, and solicitation are all preparatory crimes.

I'd have three felony charges based upon his public address alone

How irresponsible is this?!?!?!?

 

[TruthTellers]

That quote was from the mayor, but I wouldn't doubt it if the chief thinks the exact same thing.

 

[Midwest]

I can't hardly believe this quote from the article. The chief is asking people to turn in guns that they don't even actually own.

As an AZ LEO, I'd charge the police chief and the person who turned in the gun with a felony for trafficking stolen property.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02307.htm

Controlling the property of another with intent to permanently deprive is THEFT. Selling it for profit is TRAFFICKING, as is buying property you know to be stolen.

This chief is a felon. Attempted trafficking in stolen property is still a felony. As is conspiracy to traffic in stolen property. As is solicitation to traffic in stolen property. Attempted, conspiracy, and solicitation are all preparatory crimes.

I'd have three felony charges based upon his public address alone

How irresponsible is this?!?!?!?

Excellent points. The laws of Massachusetts need to be looked at.
.

 

[Speedo66]

And just who is going to bring the charges? We all know even if you commit a crime, say having illegal large capacity magazines at a news conference in DC, nobody will be arrested.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

Soooo...how come we never hear of police officers turning in their privately owned firearms at these buy-backs?

Or, for that matter, their service firearms, as well? I mean, if the goal is disarming the public, then the police, by default, would likewise have no need to carry firearms. Look at their UK police buddies. They don't carry firearms, either, and only a select few are qualified and allowed to do so and even then only under certain circumstances.

I guess I'd be a troublemaker to ask these questions of them, huh?

Now, now, now, you can't use simple logic in these situations. Haven't you heard? There's two sets of rules for the left--one set of rules for the general population and then another set of non-rules for the left. See Hillary Clinton for your primary example.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

I can't hardly believe this quote from the article. The chief is asking people to turn in guns that they don't even actually own.

As an AZ LEO, I'd charge the police chief and the person who turned in the gun with a felony for trafficking stolen property.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02307.htm

Controlling the property of another with intent to permanently deprive is THEFT. Selling it for profit is TRAFFICKING, as is buying property you know to be stolen.

This chief is a felon. Attempted trafficking in stolen property is still a felony. As is conspiracy to traffic in stolen property. As is solicitation to traffic in stolen property. Attempted, conspiracy, and solicitation are all preparatory crimes.

I'd have three felony charges based upon his public address alone

How irresponsible is this?!?!?!?

Dude, the left don't care. They make their own rules.

 

[SSN Vet]

Dude, the left don't care. They make their own rules.

Aint it the truth!

 

[SSN Vet]

Stout & Sweet: A portly, grizzled old cop and a young female rookie patrol the packed Downtown Crossing area, learning to live, love, and laugh. Coming this fall on ABC.

Stout & Sweet: Guinness and brown sugar? It's so simple, you'll wonder why nobody's done it yet. Coming this fall from Harp Brewing Co.

That's absolutely hilarious!

 

[SSN Vet]

Liberals and gun buy back programs?

Stupid is as stupid does.

(resurrecting this old Forrest Gump quote.... on of my all time favorites)

 

[mdauben]

I laugh when I see these articles talk about getting guns "off the street". I'll bet none of these gins were ever on the street, they were in the back of closets, in basements or attics. Probably many of the haven't been touched in years or don't even work. Gun "buy backs" are nothing but safety theater and wastes of taxpayer money.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Here's a (rhetorical) question for you:

Exactly how can the government "buy back" anything that they never sold to you in the first place?

Especially when they're using your own money (in the form of taxes that you pay) to do the buying?

Some people might call that "symantics". I call it "deliberately misleading". (To be nice about it.)