• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun "Buybacks" -- Is there a Fiduciary Responsibility?

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I recently found myself having a discussion on the concept of a gun byback -- specifically (for the purposes of the discussion) an event in Utica that was sponsored by the state Attorney General's office. The funding came from monies and assets seized in criminal investigations as a pose to tax dollars.

I'm not a fan of seizures (especially as they take place in America today), but that's a subject for another day and I'd appreciate it if we could save it for some other thread.

At any rate, a question came up that I'd like to put to all of you -- if the government buys a bunch of guns, do they have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers to either use those guns in public service or resell them? Does this responsibility differ based on whether the funding for the purchases comes from taxes versus criminal seizures? How about if the government does some fundraising and then uses donated funds to buy the guns?

I'm sure that buybacks that result in destruction are legal, otherwise the AG wouldn't be involved -- so unless they're clearly illegal, I am of course talking about moral responsibility.
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The guns should be destroyed unless they are going to be used by LE or are a rare gun worthy of donation to a museum.

as a side note, my local police chief is opposed to having a buy back because he thinks it will encourage break-ins.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I recently found myself having a discussion on the concept of a gun byback -- specifically (for the purposes of the discussion) an event in Utica that was sponsored by the state Attorney General's office. The funding came from monies and assets seized in criminal investigations as a pose to tax dollars.

I'm not a fan of seizures (especially as they take place in America today), but that's a subject for another day and I'd appreciate it if we could save it for some other thread.

At any rate, a question came up that I'd like to put to all of you -- if the government buys a bunch of guns, do they have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers to either use those guns in public service or resell them? Does this responsibility differ based on whether the funding for the purchases comes from taxes versus criminal seizures? How about if the government does some fundraising and then uses donated funds to buy the guns?

I'm sure that buybacks that result in destruction are legal, otherwise the AG wouldn't be involved -- so unless they're clearly illegal, I am of course talking about moral responsibility.
I think the moral responsibility they bear is to destroy them. The advertised purpose of these events is to get guns off the street. Reselling them hardly accomplishes that goal.
 

ChuckBerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
2,546
Location
Lafayette, Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If the point of gun buybacks is to get weapons off the street, the moral test has already been fulfilled. Presumably, reduction of guns result in reduction of crime, and thus of the need for public expenditure on enforcement, and so fulfilling the fiduciary responsibility.

I don't see how reselling the guns works if the goal is to reduce the number of guns available on the street. Inspecting the guns and then distributing those fit for use to law enforcement officals, I would guess, would be more expensive than just buying new guns.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,623
Reaction score
16,369
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I recently found myself having a discussion on the concept of a gun byback -- specifically (for the purposes of the discussion) an event in Utica that was sponsored by the state Attorney General's office. The funding came from monies and assets seized in criminal investigations as a pose to tax dollars.

I'm not a fan of seizures (especially as they take place in America today), but that's a subject for another day and I'd appreciate it if we could save it for some other thread.

At any rate, a question came up that I'd like to put to all of you -- if the government buys a bunch of guns, do they have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers to either use those guns in public service or resell them? Does this responsibility differ based on whether the funding for the purchases comes from taxes versus criminal seizures? How about if the government does some fundraising and then uses donated funds to buy the guns?

I'm sure that buybacks that result in destruction are legal, otherwise the AG wouldn't be involved -- so unless they're clearly illegal, I am of course talking about moral responsibility.
I do not think government gun buy back programs are moral.Government should not be literally paying citizens to fork over their right to keep and bear arms.Usually the government is ripping off people by paying way below market value for the guns.

PLus why is it called a gun buy back program.People didn't buy their guns from the government.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I do not think government gun buy back programs are moral.Government should not be literally paying citizens to fork over their right to keep and bear arms.Usually the government is ripping off people by paying way below market value for the guns.

PLus why is it called a gun buy back program.People didn't buy their guns from the government.
So far as I know, no pressure is applied nor authority used to compel people to sell their guns to the government at below market value. Where is the immorality?
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I do not think government gun buy back programs are moral.Government should not be literally paying citizens to fork over their right to keep and bear arms.Usually the government is ripping off people by paying way below market value for the guns.

PLus why is it called a gun buy back program.People didn't buy their guns from the government.
I think a lot of people use these programs to get rid of guns they don't want. Even guns they shouldn't have. When I was helping a friend get his family's hoarder home ready for sale, we found five guns. No one in the home was ever licensed. What to do with them? This program gives people a tangible reason to get rid of them. I sure don't see programs like this as having anything to do with gun rights.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I recently found myself having a discussion on the concept of a gun byback -- specifically (for the purposes of the discussion) an event in Utica that was sponsored by the state Attorney General's office. The funding came from monies and assets seized in criminal investigations as a pose to tax dollars.

I'm not a fan of seizures (especially as they take place in America today), but that's a subject for another day and I'd appreciate it if we could save it for some other thread.

At any rate, a question came up that I'd like to put to all of you -- if the government buys a bunch of guns, do they have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers to either use those guns in public service or resell them? Does this responsibility differ based on whether the funding for the purchases comes from taxes versus criminal seizures? How about if the government does some fundraising and then uses donated funds to buy the guns?

I'm sure that buybacks that result in destruction are legal, otherwise the AG wouldn't be involved -- so unless they're clearly illegal, I am of course talking about moral responsibility.
I'd call it a misuse of government funds. That money should be going towards things like crime prevention, education, hell...even sprucing up the local park. Not giving below resale price to people gullible enough to sell to them and come away thinking that they got a good deal.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think a lot of people use these programs to get rid of guns they don't want. Even guns they shouldn't have. When I was helping a friend get his family's hoarder home ready for sale, we found five guns. No one in the home was ever licensed. What to do with them? This program gives people a tangible reason to get rid of them. I sure don't see programs like this as having anything to do with gun rights.
Take em to your local pawn shop and sell them. :shrug:
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'd call it a misuse of government funds. That money should be going towards things like crime prevention, education, hell...even sprucing up the local park. Not giving below resale price to people gullible enough to sell to them and come away thinking that they got a good deal.
That's how they justify the expenditure -- they describe it as a measure to reduce certain kinds of crime. Their opinion on whether or not it is an effective tactic differs from yours, is all.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That's how they justify the expenditure -- they describe it as a measure to reduce certain kinds of crime. Their opinion on whether or not it is an effective tactic differs from yours, is all.
Except that my opinion is based on facts. Theirs is based on fantasies. Its been shown that most of the people that go to those "gun buyback" programs are either A: poor and need the money or B: are older folks that just simply do not want the gun anymore. No criminal is going to use these buy back programs and the programs do nothing to stem the tide of guns being legally sold...or straw purchased....and being put back into the streets. It is at best a useless gesture.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Except that my opinion is based on facts. Theirs is based on fantasies. Its been shown that most of the people that go to those "gun buyback" programs are either A: poor and need the money or B: are older folks that just simply do not want the gun anymore. No criminal is going to use these buy back programs and the programs do nothing to stem the tide of guns being legally sold...or straw purchased....and being put back into the streets. It is at best a useless gesture.
I've done some reading on the subject, and the worst I've seen critics say is that there's no evidence that they work, but that's not the same thing as saying there is evidence they don't work.

In other words, it's merely the weight of opinion on both sides.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've done some reading on the subject, and the worst I've seen critics say is that there's no evidence that they work, but that's not the same thing as saying there is evidence they don't work.

In other words, it's merely the weight of opinion on both sides.
Think about the two statements I made. That will answer your doubt....

No criminal is going to use these buy back programs and the programs do nothing to stem the tide of guns being legally sold...or straw purchased....and being put back into the streets.

Can you dispute that?
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Think about the two statements I made. That will answer your doubt....

No criminal is going to use these buy back programs and the programs do nothing to stem the tide of guns being legally sold...or straw purchased....and being put back into the streets.

Can you dispute that?
I can't dispute it any more than you can prove it. :)
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I can't dispute it any more than you can prove it. :)
Actually I can prove it. There is not one single gun that is stopped from being sold at any retailer or pawn shop during these gun buyback programs due to the buyback programs.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Nope, actually I didn't. Or do you care to try to show me how I did?
It's a simple equation. Your original statement ...

and the programs do nothing to stem the tide of guns being legally sold...or straw purchased....and being put back into the streets.
... minus your revised statement ...

There is not one single gun that is stopped from being sold at any retailer or pawn shop during these gun buyback programs due to the buyback programs.
... leaves a difference of:

and being put back into the streets
That's how far you moved them.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
253,802
Reaction score
76,645
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The guns should be destroyed unless they are going to be used by LE or are a rare gun worthy of donation to a museum.

as a side note, my local police chief is opposed to having a buy back because he thinks it will encourage break-ins.

so if someone steals my gun-I report it stolen and some scumbag sells it to the cops and they destroy it do I have grounds to sue the cops

I SURE DO.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,511
Reaction score
50,111
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Gun buybacks are such a useless and futile dog-and-pony show that I cannot use the word "responsibility" in conjunction with them while maintaining a straight face and serious demeanor.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's a simple equation. Your original statement ...



... minus your revised statement ...



... leaves a difference of:



That's how far you moved them.
No goal post was moved. My original statement equals the second statment as one is a claim, one is the proof. The reason that the third part that you quoted was left out was because it should be obvious to anyone that if a gun is sold to a private individual then that gun is going to be on the streets. I thought it kind of redundant to state the obvious more than once. But if you really want it said again here ya go...

There is not one single gun that is stopped from being sold at any retailer or pawn shop during these gun buyback programs due to the buyback programs. ....and thereby being put back into the streets.....Better? There are of course multiple ways to restate this...all of them will be the same in the end though. :shrug:
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No goal post was moved. My original statement equals the second statment as one is a claim, one is the proof. The reason that the third part that you quoted was left out was because it should be obvious to anyone that if a gun is sold to a private individual then that gun is going to be on the streets. I thought it kind of redundant to state the obvious more than once. But if you really want it said again here ya go...

There is not one single gun that is stopped from being sold at any retailer or pawn shop during these gun buyback programs due to the buyback programs. ....and thereby being put back into the streets.....Better?
I'm not going to keep doing this dance with you, because I refuse to be led in circles. You have offered no evidence that buybacks fail to reduce the number of guns falling into the hands of criminals, and I've already said I have no way of proving that they succeed by any measure. Until you produce such evidence, which neither the critics nor the proponents have in their position, that's where it sits.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Take em to your local pawn shop and sell them. :shrug:
I don't know that pawn shops buy guys other than collector types over a certain age. That may depend on the state, though.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not going to keep doing this dance with you, because I refuse to be led in circles. You have offered no evidence that buybacks fail to reduce the number of guns falling into the hands of criminals, and I've already said I have no way of proving that they succeed by any measure. Until you produce such evidence, which neither the critics nor the proponents have in their position, that's where it sits.
Now you are the one that moved the goal posts.

Your original statements that led to what I posted...
That's how they justify the expenditure -- they describe it as a measure to reduce certain kinds of crime. Their opinion on whether or not it is an effective tactic differs from yours, is all.
I've done some reading on the subject, and the worst I've seen critics say is that there's no evidence that they work, but that's not the same thing as saying there is evidence they don't work.
Your current statement....

You have offered no evidence that buybacks fail to reduce the number of guns falling into the hands of criminals, and I've already said I have no way of proving that they succeed by any measure.
One of your quotes is about reducing crime and opinion. Another is about lack of proof. The other is about not having proof that the buy back is keeping guns out of criminal hands. Three things seperated enough that neither can be directly tied to the other and is an arguement on their own.

My posts to you was about proof and facts from the get go.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't know that pawn shops buy guys other than collector types over a certain age. That may depend on the state, though.
It might depend on the state...would seem kinda weird to me though. :shrug: But then you do live in a highly gun rights restricted area so I guess I could see it.
 
Top Bottom