Sheriff's East L.A. station holding gun buyback today (funded by forfeiture $$$)

[petronius]

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's East Los Angeles station will host a gun buyback program today, officials said.

--- Snip ---

Residents can anonymously exchange their weapons for gift cards redeemable at Target stores or Ralphs supermarkets, officials said.

--- Snip ---

The sheriff's station is prepared to hand out up to $35,000 in gift cards, while supplies last. The department used money from funds collected through the confiscation or forfeiture of narcotics-related assets.

--- Snip ---

...The weapons are destroyed.

--- Snip ---

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sheriffs-east-la-station-to-hold-gun-buy-back-program-today-20130615,0,2682314.story

This is the first time I've noticed mention of where the money comes from - I always assumed it was donated by gun control groups; I'm less sanguine about the use of 'public' funds for this, as I really don't think it's the most effective expenditure in terms of advancing public safety/health. On the other hand, it seems like a lot of this narcotics-related money gets wasted on overly-militarized and unnecessary equipment (not to mention the potential for abuse in the whole confiscation process), so at least this batch is going back to the community. I would rather that it just be cash, though, and not directed to specific companies.

As for destroying the firearms, that seems like a misguided (by gun-control thinking) use of public funds - if they still have value, they should be sold and the money used efficiently...

[gejohnston]

1. I wonder if Tom Sachs will be there

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172121707#post3

[rrneck]

2. Public money into corporate pockets. Hmmm. ntt

[BainsBane]

4. Like food stamps

There really is nothing more disgusting than programs that save human lives.

[rrneck]

38. Please see post #37. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. can you explain to me

how food stamps equates to Public Money into corporate pockets ...

that does not compute for me. Did I miss something? thanks.

[rrneck]

37. If the money is going to feed the poor that's fine.

But if the state is using money made from confiscating property under the RICO statute (and there are plenty of problems related to that) to give gift cards to anybody that shows up with a gun they want to dump the charity of the enterprise is significantly eroded.

It's one thing for somebody who is actually in need to exchange a gun for the ability to acquire the necessities of life and another for some suburbanite to bring a bunch of useless junk so they can go to Target and buy more useless junk. I didn't see in the article any reference to means testing. But I'm on a phone right now so I may be full of shit.

If the program helps the poor I'm all for it. But if the police chief, some two bit politicians and assorted lobbyists use the program to pat themselves on the back so 90% of those turning in guns can just go buy crap they don't need it's a waste of public resources to enrich corporate interests.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

39. ok, got it. thanks. and agree.

[BainsBane]

3. My God, what a travesty

Think of all those people who will live because those guns are off the street.

[beevul]

5. Do you have any evidence that any were "on the street" to begin with?

Or did you simply mean "out of the possession of the plebes"?

[BainsBane]

7. that's not what the street means

The street means the public, out in circulation.

These are willingly relinquished guns. Yet you people are outraged. I can't even begin to imagine the pathology that causes people to lament guns coming out of circulation more than the tens of thousands of lives lost every year form gun violence.

[beevul]

12. I don't believe I expressed any outrage.

So kindly keep your inner carnac to yourself please.

But thanks for the confirmation.

When you say "on the street", you do indeed include guns owned by people, in their safes, in their homes.

"Off the street" is just more dishonest rhetoric from the side of the debate that thrives on it.

Its the bread and butter of the anti-gun/pro-lots-more-control movement.

[BainsBane]

17. We are talking about the guns "willingly" relinquished

You do realize they aren't YOUR guns. These are guns that people have WILLINGLY decided they don't want anymore. Perhaps you can work on getting more of those laws passed that require everyone to own a gun.

I guess when the nearest street is miles away, you see the very use of the term as nefarious. The rest of us just see it as meaning "outside" the house. Then of course the ongoing advocacy in favor of concealed carry in this group means that those guns SHOULD be out on the street whenever their owner leaves the house.
Consistency doesn't mean much around here, does it?

Suddenly you're talking about gun safes? The last post in GD about gun safes had the Gungeon crowed rallying to indict gun safes as an undue burden under the Second Amendment. We were told that Heller impedes states from passing laws that require parents to safely store guns away from children. Evidently the Second Amendment now means the right to watch toddlers kill themselves with loaded guns left lying around.

[beevul]

21. Did someone say we weren't?

"You do realize they aren't YOUR guns. These are guns that people have WILLINGLY decided they don't want anymore. Perhaps you can work on getting more of those laws passed that require everyone to own a gun. "

I don't believe everyone should own a gun. I simply believe those that are not legally prohibited from owning or possessing one should be free from you and those like you, making that choice for them - free to make that choice for themselves.

Got a problem with that?

"I guess when the nearest street is miles away, you see the very use of the term as nefarious. The rest of us just see it as meaning "outside" the house. Then of course the ongoing advocacy in favor of concealed carry in this group means that those guns SHOULD be out on the street whenever their owner leaves the house. Consistency doesn't mean much around here, does it?"

I see the term "off the street" as dishonest, particularly since the guns that were turned in, whether turned in willingly or not, were likely IN someones house, possibly in a safe, rather than ON THE STREET (outside the house) with the exception of a few crime guns that criminals may have wanted to get rid of "no questions asked".

And once again, with concealed carry, its about preserving the choice of indivuduals , making sure they are to choose - that's the side I'm on.

With you and the rest of bansalot, its about preventing that choice.

So don't be throwing the "authoritarian" turd against the wall expecting it to do anything other than bounce back and stick to you.

[BainsBane]

26. You use the term street in correctly

It's a reference to the public sphere. Casa e rura, house and street, private and public sphere. When guns are out in circulation, they are in the public and therefore have the capacity to kill, which is of course what they are designed for.

You aren't about choice. You're about imposing YOUR choices on everyone else. You have guns, yet you're pissed off that some might willingly turn in their guns in a buyback program. You have the right to concealed carry, but you are angry that other jurisdictions don't want that right, so you will enforce it on them.

There is a basic fact that guns are far more deadly in cities than rural and exurban areas, which is why views on guns break down so differently according to geographic location. That is also why cities like to create their own gun policies in the interest of public safety. You know all that. So the question is why do you insist on imposing a rural exurban world view and policy on places where you don't live. You quite obviously don't respect the right of urban communities to make those choices. The result is also higher homicide rates. The only question is then whether gun zealots simply don't care about that or whether it's actually their goal. When it comes to the NRA and much of it's most active membership, I'm quite confident it's the latter.

[beevul]

29. Again with the carnac...

"You aren't about choice. You're about imposing YOUR choices on everyone else. You have guns, yet you're pissed off that some might willingly turn in their guns in a buyback program. You have the right to concealed carry, but you are angry that other jurisdictions don't want that right, so you will enforce it on them."

No my dear. Just no. I am completely about choice. I am not asking, proposing/lobbying for anyone to buy own or carry a firearm. I simply support that individuals be allowed to choose for themselves.

( I do not carry a gun, and have no desire to, for what its worth)

You and the other bansaloters on the other hand, are pissed off that ANYONE has a choice to carry a gun, and wish to remove the ability for individuals to make that choice.

its just that simple. There is no way you spin this that makes my side of the issue authoritarian, and yours the side of choice. You can wish all you like, but it is what it is. Sorry.

" So the question is why do you insist on imposing a rural exurban world view and policy on places where you don't live."


Oh the hypocrisy. You guys are no different. You wish to impose (what you would characterize as) an urban policy on all of America. Don't even try to pretend otherwise. I've seen your posts about the AWB and magazine laws.

"So the question is why do you insist on imposing a rural exurban world view and policy on places where you don't live."

For the same reason as I insist on imposing laws that allow women to choose whether they can have an abortion or not, rather than having it decided for them. Because its morally right, ethically right, and choice is the hallmark of a free society.

" You quite obviously don't respect the right of urban communities to make those choices."

I wouldn't respect any community that chose to restrict freedome of choice when it comes to abortion, or any community that chose to come down hard with restrictions against freedom of speech either.

Whats your excuse. Oh yeah..."guns bad".

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. Your geographic bigotry is unbecoming of DU

[Eleanors38]

34. Safes are not an "undue burden under the Second Amendment." Undue burdens are...

the kinds of laws which call for gun dis-assembly, with parts kept in separate rooms, ammo in another, etc. As long as a citizen has ready access to a usable firearm for self-defense, then safety measures (esp. with regard children) can be quite workable. These can be storage in safes and lock boxes, perhaps trigger locks. But if these measures are required at ALL TIMES, then that is an undue burden because it thwarts a citizen's self-defense efforts. At present, my firearms are locked in a safe or in a lock box because I am not at home; when at home, one handgun is unlocked & loaded and ready for immediate use -- no undue burden.

[BainsBane]

8. Moreover, given this group's commitment to making concealed carry

Last edited Sat Jun 15, 2013, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

universal, I find it bizarre that you would now try to pretend guns are not out and about on city streets. The very point of people here advocating to extend concealed carry is PRECISELY so that those guns are on people's person in urban areas.

[premium]

10. You still harping on that?

Things didn't go your way in ATA, so now you're back here again complaining?

[BainsBane]

13. Right, try some more sexist tropes

harping, lecture, add a few more.

I'm going to say whatever I fucking want. No one forces you to read it. So I will continue to speak out against murder wherever and whenever I want.

[premium]

15. Sexist tropes?

Not even close.
I just find it funny that things didn't go the way you thought they would in ATA so here you are again, complaining.
I don't want to shut you up, I want you to keep posting here, that way everyone can see just how wrong you usually are about the 2A.
I guess Castle Bansalot is just to dull for you.

[BainsBane]

20. Yes, well when one's concept of education

is limited to an intimate knowledge of guns, it's not surprising you don't know an obvious sexist trope when you use it. Look up harpy in the dictionary.

[petronius]

35. Is "harp on" (harping, harped, etc) automatically sexist?

The etymology doesn't seem to have anything to do with harpies, and I've never observed that the phrase is preferentially used to refer to female speakers...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. the old double standard

works both ways ... I think this is what I am witnessing here.

[premium]

65. Typical.

Can't refute the message so attack the messenger by attacking my education level, which I suspect is much more extensive than yours.
Now, you MIGHT have a point if I had used the word, harpy, but I didn't, I used the word, harping, which is slang for complain. Notice the difference? Here, I'll highlight the difference, Harping, Harpy, notice that one ends in ing and the other one ends in y. Get it now?

Is this an example of sexist trope also?

[beevul]

14. Its already "universal".

The thread to which you refer, the one in which you express oh so much outrage, is about making sure it is applied FAIRLY, as opposed to arbitrarily. If it were any other subject, you would be outraged about any level of arbitrary application, but since its about guns, you have to fight the idea tooth and nail.

Which says more about you than it does about the issue itself.

[BainsBane]

19. It is not universal

All states do not have concealed carry. But you'all are working hard to change that.

Amazingly, guns are not human beings and are not covered under the 14th Amendment. Though I suppose it's only a matter of time until the NRA convinces congress that killing people of color is covered under the Second Amendment. There is already a dispensation for children. Gun owners take out their kids without repercussion all the time. Most don't do a day's jail time.


Since we're talking about equal protection, wouldn't that principal mean you couldn't possibly accept current law that gives gun manufacturers special protection against law suits for negligence in distribution of their products? And then there are all the provisions imposing gag rules on people that criticize gun policy or doctors who would ask their patients about guns. Yes, the gun cabal displays an unyielding commitment to the constitution---as long as it means subverting the constitution in the interests of corporate profits.

[beevul]

23. Tell me, which state doesn't have concealed carry?

You may not be aware, or you may be in denial, but its a done deal.

"Since we're talking about equal protection, wouldn't that principal mean you couldn't possibly accept current law that gives gun manufacturers special protection against law suits for negligence in distribution of their products? And then there are all the provisions imposing gag rules on people that criticize gun policy or doctors who would ask their patients about guns. Yes, the gun cabal displays an unyielding commitment to the constitution---as long as it means subverting the constitution in the interests of corporate profits."

It means I support extending frivolous lawsuit protection to ALL manufacturers.

You got a problem with that?

As far as doctors go, I support any law that prevents doctors from with-holding care from a patient based on any answer they might be given when they ask a patient about guns.

Corporate profits? ROFL.

The domestic firearm market pales in comparison to just about any other, monetarily.

Its a neat talking point to use on the uninformed however, isn't it?

[gejohnston]

24. not quite

All states do not have concealed carry. But you'all are working hard to change that.

actually the courts are. IL is the only one that does not.

Amazingly, guns are not human beings and are not covered under the 14th Amendment. Though I suppose it's only a matter of time until the NRA convinces congress that killing people of color is covered under the Second Amendment. There is already a dispensation for children. Gun owners take out their kids without repercussion all the time. Most don't do a day's jail time.

Not the guns, the people who are discriminated under May issue.

Since we're talking about equal protection, wouldn't that principal mean you couldn't possibly accept current law that gives gun manufacturers special protection against law suits for negligence in distribution of their products? And then there are all the provisions imposing gag rules on people that criticize gun policy or doctors who would ask their patients about guns. Yes, the gun cabal displays an unyielding commitment to the constitution---as long as it means subverting the constitution in the interests of corporate profits.

You mean meritless lawsuits that are based on SLAPP suits? Brady never won one. If gun manufactures are in fact negligent in their distribution, it would be a criminal case. If a manufacture sells to the wholesaler in compliance with all federal and state laws, that wholesaler does the same with the retailer etc. None of them are responsible, in any rational world, for what an individual does 15 years later. Using your theory, if I get run over by a car, I should be able to sue the manufacture and the dealership for selling a car to a drunk.

[BainsBane]

27. Wikipedia has a map about concealed carry

I claim no knowledge in this area, but it does say everywhere doesn't have concealed carry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States I see that Illinois is the only no issue state but that other US territories and DC are no issue.

The reason I say "you" advocating for concealed carry is because of Friendly Iconoclast's thread calling for mobilization on the issue. By you I mean the gungeon rather than you in particular. I acknowledge that not everyone is going to think exactly alike. Some are more reasonable than others.

You mean meritless lawsuits that are based on SLAPP suits? Brady never won one. If gun manufactures are in fact negligent in their distribution, it would be a criminal case. If a manufacture sells to the wholesaler in compliance with all federal and state laws, that wholesaler does the same with the retailer etc. None of them are responsible, in any rational world, for what an individual does 15 years later. Using your theory, if I get run over by a car, I should be able to sue the manufacture and the dealership for selling a car to a drunk.

No, I don't mean meritless law suits. Meritless lawsuits don't succeed, and companies don't need special protection from them. I mean victims of gun violence having the same rights than other kinds of victims do. If their case has merits, they should be able to proceed. Car manufacturers do not have such protections, which is why they've worked so hard to make they products safe. This is a matter I have looked into, and courts have interpreted the law so broadly that companies are held exempt even when they knowingly provide weapons to illegal gun dealers. So no, you aren't talking AT ALL about what I mean.

So the answer to that question is that you do not support equal protection for American citizens. You support them for gun owners only. And obviously the First Amendment is irrelevant since you couldn't bother to comment on it.

[gejohnston]

30. they don't win, that's the point.

No, I don't mean meritless law suits. Meritless lawsuits don't succeed, and companies don't need special protection from them. I mean victims of gun violence having the same rights than other kinds of victims do. If their case has merits, they should be able to proceed.

and they haven't. The point of the SLAPP suit is to financially drain the opponent defending themselves, or get them to settle out of court to save a few bucks, but you make money anyway. Brady Campaign lawyers based their sue them to oblivion follow the same logic as a SLAPP. Guns and cars are not the same thing. Actually, they are protected because the car companies have deeper pockets to hire good lawyers, and it would be laughed out on the merits.

Using your theory, Glock should be held responsible this: So, the victim's family should go to Austria and file a law suit. AFAIK, you can't sue a foreign company in a US court. Problem is, if you it were any other item, even you would see that it would be merit-less.

[CokeMachine]

46. This one statement says all I need to know when you discuss this topic.

BainsBane: "I claim no knowledge in this area,"

Thank you for confirming what is very clear.

Note to Jury: These are her own words.

[Eleanors38]

36. Actually, states have powers to regulate the method of carry...

Concealed or open or both. They CANNOT ban both methods, nor can they impose laws which are open to abuse (Jim Crow-type "may issue" laws which give discretion to local LEOs to deny the right to carry, much as local sheriffs denied blacks the right to carry in the pre-Civil Rights Era).

SEE: MLK's attempt to acquire a carry permit in Birmingham in 1956: The "may issue law" was in effect. He was denied.

Please provide the data on how many kids are "taken out" by gun owners. That method of death occurs much less frequently than drowning, falls, electrocution, etc., and has fallen even more in recent years. If you want to propose legal "repercussions," do so. Understand that local DAs may not prosecute using the laws currently in place.

Your comments about "special protection" have been dealt with by the courts repeatedly: No manufacturer is liable for the misuse of a gun or other product; they ARE liable for damages due to defective products and always have been.

SEE: Remington's pay outs on lawsuits concerning safety mechanisms on their deer rifles, and others.

[gejohnston]

42. or Kimber's shitty security

when they had a felon or two on the assembly line.

[Eleanors38]

48. I don't get it. Though not widespread, There is a drip-drip reminder that human resources...

departments don't bother doing their jobs. How defrocked, uncertified or even un-credentialed teachers get on the payroll and others (including myself) are turned away at the door is disconcerting. There are standard B.G. checks, transcript reviews and accreditation procedures, yet some blow hole manages to get a job after "passing" all this. If the cynical refrain "it's not what you know, but who you know" is true, that says a lot about who is known.

[GreenStormCloud]

79. Negligence in distribution?

The gun manufacturers and distributors obeyed the law. Therefore they were not negligent. The real purpose of all of those lawsuits was to drown the gun industry in legal expenses. In 2005 your side's attempt to get a backdoor gun ban was stopped.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. What group has a commitment to making concealed carry universal? Did you just make that up?

Carnac again?

[BainsBane]

60. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=123735

No need for mind reading. You all have been quite open about it in the gungeon, all the while pretending to be for the President's gun control measures while in GD. The glee at the defeat of the background check amendment made clear that whole story was a complete fiction. This week I learned that instead people in the gungeon are working diligently to put guns in the hands of people walking around urban areas, where they shoot at people like me. It's only been less than a month since the shootout in front of my house. I haven't even gotten the $2500 worth of repairs to get the bullet holes out of my car yet. I was kind of hoping to make it through the year without being killed. Yet I'm told that I'm too "emotional." If I were a rational person I would understand that my life pales in comparison to profits for the gun industry and the desire of someone in rural Wyoming or suburban MA--people who live more than a thousand miles away from cities like Chicago--to put as many guns as possible at large in urban areas.

So concealed carry should be extended, while voluntary buy backs are a travesty because they take guns out of circulation that should be put to proper use. Because of the danger that gun violence poses in my life, I take such advocacy quite personally.

[gejohnston]

61. a lot wrong with that.

I can write a shall issue law that would disqualify most of the CCW holders in New York City. Shall issue simply means objective criteria outlined in the statute, and the cops or judge does not have any arbitrary authority.
It can by simply be "Concealed carry permits shall be issued to only to individuals who meet the following criteria
score 25 on practical test
score 75 on written test
have an income less than $30K per year"
If NYC adopted this shall issue law, it would disqualify most if not all of its current CCW holders including the publisher of the NYT, Sean Hannity, Don Imus, Bill Cosby, Donald Trump, Howard Stern.

Of course, it still wouldn't be recognized in Wyoming because because NY permits are issued by the counties instead of a state agency, and NY doesn't have any actual standards.

[BainsBane]

73. Hello? Earth to gun proponent?

It really is unfathomable that you can't even pretend to express concern about me or others who are victims of gun violence. Others on this site who have discuss deaths of their family members form gun violence have commented that gun proponents show absolutely no concern for those lost lives. It really is chilling to be in the virtual presence of such individuals. So point taken.. The life of me and anyone else killed by guns is completely irrelevant to you. You've made your point crystal clear. So carry on in your relentless efforts to spread guns into cities, where they are used to shoot at people like me. Obviously something as trivial as my life isn't worth concerning yourself with.

You can all stop swarming now. I will not have further discussions with people with display so little respect for my life. I've never encountered anyone like the members of this group. I pray that I never will again.

Do me a favor. ALL of you. NEVER RESPOND to any of my posts again, on ANY SUBJECT. We share no common values and NEVER will.

[gejohnston]

74. there is a difference between genuine concern

and offering real solutions vs theater and culture war.

[beevul]

62. So much whargarble.

The thread you refer to, is about creating OBJECTIVE standards for concealed carry. As opposed to discretionary standards.

But you knew that and doubled down on a claim which your link - that thread - does not support.

"This week I learned that instead people in the gungeon are working diligently to put guns in the hands of people walking around urban areas, where they shoot at people like me."

MN - My home state - already has concealed carry, shall issue. Do you believe that the shooting in your neighborhood was done by someone that had a concealed carry petmit?

If so, why?

"If I were a rational person I would understand that my life pales in comparison to profits for the gun industry and the desire of someone in rural Wyoming or suburban MA--people who live more than a thousand miles away from cities like Chicago--to put as many guns as possible at large in urban areas."

"Profits for the gun industry"...LOL. Every time an existing gun is destroyed, it could be argued that it helps the "profits of the gun industry". But I just bet you're still all for it.

"Because of the danger that gun violence poses in my life, I take such advocacy quite personally."

Compelling. Well, not really.

At first glance it looks entirely reasonable, however...

You make no effort to to evaluate how much danger gun violence poses to your life from those with concealed carry permits . I guess if one looks at concealed carry permit holders separately from those that just do drive by shootings for whatever reason, one can't lump them all together and pretend that they're all the same, like you're doing.

I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part...

[BainsBane]

72. I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part

to feel any sense of compassion for victims of gun violence.

[beevul]

76. How do you, personally, guage compassion?

How do you, personally, guage compassion?

And how would you know how much or how little compassion any given person feels?

[Duckhunter935]

78. the only way Bain sees compassion

is if we agree to his ban on all guns, other than that...............

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. And how many people involved in that shootout were legal gun owners?

All? Some? One or two? None? You wish to make a fairly law-abiding group take the responsibility
for what sounds like a business dispute amongst undocumented pharmacists, few (if any) of which
are legally allowed to posess firearms.

And BTW, "not letting politicians decide who gets to do what" does NOT equal
"working diligently to put guns in the hands of people walking around urban areas"

[BainsBane]

71. Who knows?

But what does it matter? The gun cabal works to make sure criminals have access to guns. They could support background checks, but then they couldn't profit off of criminality. You all could work here for background checks instead of mobilizing to make sure guns are proliferated throughout the city. You can hardly put up the canard about illegal gun owners when you celebrate the failure of legislation designed to keep guns out of your hands. Your also lamenting guy buy backs here. The idea that some guns might be voluntarily surrendered by illegal guns owners prompts great mourning here.

Once again you affirm your complete lack of compassion for victims of gun violence. What else is new?

[beevul]

77. You just can't quit can you.

Spewing falsehoods that are easily disproven, that is.

Exhibit A:

"But what does it matter? The gun cabal works to make sure criminals have access to guns. They could support background checks, but then they couldn't profit off of criminality."

EVERY firearm sold at the retail level - the ONLY level at which firearm manufacturers make any profit from a firearm sale what so ever -is sold ONLY after a background check is done. Its federal law. Anyone engaged in the business FOR PROFIT of selling firearms is required BY LAW to do so.

So you ma'am, are wrong. You might reply that this is simply your opinion, which is fine, but keep in mind, the holding of such an opinion, is akin to holding the opinion that milk originates in cartons, and that there were WMDs in Iraq.


" You can hardly put up the canard about illegal gun owners when you celebrate the failure of legislation designed to keep guns out of your hands."

Why wouldn't we celebrate the failure of legislation intended to keep guns out of our hands? Its what you lot keep proposing.

"Your also lamenting guy buy backs here."

Is so simple to be honest. To argue honestly. Yet instead, you imply thatle here hold a position which they do not in fact hold.

You KNOW the problems we have with so called gun buy backs. You KNOW that the name is misleading, and that we find it so. You KNOW that we have said time and time again, that this seems too easy a way to get rid of a crime gun no questions asked. You KNOW that we believe that these so called gun buy backs do nothing to deter gun violence.

And yet you just can't describe the positions we hold honestly.

"The idea that some guns might be voluntarily surrendered by illegal guns owners prompts great mourning here."

No. If someone has a gun they don't want, and its not a crime gun, if the person who has it wants to turn it in for a gift card or cash or whatever, I have no problem with it what so ever .

What I have a problem with, is any pretense that these so called gun buy backs are a solution to...ANYTHING.

[gejohnston]

16. Even Joyce Foundation shill Gaven Wintemute knows better

Still, independent follow-up studies of gun buybacks in Seattle, Sacramento, St. Louis and Boston found no evidence that the programs reduced gun crime. In Seattle, researchers also checked coroner's records and hospital admissions data for the six months following a buyback in 1992. They found no evidence of an effect on firearms-related deaths or injuries.

"The continuation of buyback programs is a triumph of wishful thinking over all the available evidence," said Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis.

The benefits may be too subtle to detect, said Clinton administration officials, who this year plan to devote $15 million to assist local gun buyback programs. While they concede the programs do not often directly disarm criminals or recover the types of guns preferred by criminals, they nonetheless contend that eliminating any gun ultimately reduces the risk of death or injury.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-06-09/news/0006090204_1_buyback-programs-violence-prevention-research-program-firearms-deaths

something more recent
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/experts-say-gun-buybacks-not-answer-violent-crime/nWJbQ/
http://watchdog.org/67151/meet-the-florida-congressman-who-wants-your-guns/

[BainsBane]

18. So what's the problem then?

If the homicide rate doesn't go down, what's the objection?

I suppose the point most of these buy backs only occurred within the past few months wouldn't enter the consciousness of anyone here.

[gejohnston]

25. because the money could be better spent

on more useful things than theater. If Bloomberg, Ceasefire, or some other private entity wants to do it, I would have no problem with it. I would prefer they get an FFL if they do it near a state border to avoid violating the 1968 Gun Control Act provision about interstate sales between private individuals.

[BainsBane]

28. Well if it's not your tax dollars

It's not really your business. I know the idea that gun proponents can't rule every local jurisdiction is offensive to you, but that's the way it goes. People can vote for mayors, city council members, governors and secretaries of state they choose. If they don't like their policies, they will vote them out. I might not a tax levy in Salt Lake City either, but I wouldn't for a second think it was any of my business.

[gejohnston]

31. You are assuming I don't have a house in East LA

which is correct. So, if Alabama wants to give money to the Elmer Gantry Evangelical High School then it isn't my business either since it isn't my tax money.

[BainsBane]

32. there is no constitutional issue in gun buy backs

Your example is cynical.

[BainsBane]

33. Obviously you don't live in East LA

No one who does thinks like you do. Some things don't have to be asked.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. wow.

gotta let that one sink in ....

just wow.

[BainsBane]

51. Do you actually think anyone in an urban area

with high rates of gun violence is so detached from the results of gun policy? We are acutely aware of what guns do. We hear gun fire out our windows, see neighbors killed, and attend funerals of loved ones killed by guns. That capacity to have absolutely no concern with the deaths that result from the policy one advocates is generally possible only from those who don't experience it, simply don't care, or even worse. If there is a anyone in this gungeon advocating for further dissemination of weapons who actually lives in the inner city, I would be surprised.

I am sorry our lives mean so little to gun proponents that they would work so diligently to bring about policies that result in our deaths. I guess there is no way to convince gun zealots that we are human beings whose lives are worth anything. We are simply pawns in gun cabal's power struggle to promote gun proliferation in pursuit of unbridled corporate profit. It's domestic war mongering, and we in the city are the people invaded so that the gun interests can flex their muscles and reap obscene profits from our corpses. We are nothing more than collateral damage. Gun violence that destroys families here doesn't register in the consciences of those who seek to increase gun proliferation in urban areas. Of course there are some who willfully promote guns as a way to kill us off and reestabilish white only rule, which is why the NRA is the equivalent of the 21st century KKK. I'm assuming people here are more thoughtless than willful, but who knows. Ultimately it doesn't really matter since the results are the same.

[gejohnston]

54. yet guns are banned there.

Let me repeat that legal ownership of guns is banned in those very places. Those guns were not purchased at any store or gun show.
Can you please explain to anyone how that could be? Can you explain how allowing a shop owner, barber, welder, to have a CCW will suddenly inspire more drive by shootings by people who can't get them and don't bother to even if they could? Am I saying every line of coke and every bowl of pot is soaked in blood? Yes I am. Those who profit from the war on drugs have blood on their hands too. If the US were to pass gun laws like Chicago and DC, no lives would be saved. The drivebys would continue. Just look at Mexico, Jamaica, USVI. UK has more gun violence since their bans than they did when they were laxer than Wyoming.
Australia? Gun ownership is above before since the semi automatic ban. In NSW alone, the number of registered privately owned guns doubled since then, yet their crime rates continue to fall. Since Port Author they had four mass murders. One shooting and three arsons.

Of course there are some who willfully promote guns as a way to kill us off and reestabilish white only rule, which is why the NRA is the equivalent of the 21st century KKK.

Funny, Alex Jones says the same thing about Planned Parenthood. Although I like the modern Planned Parenthood more than the modern NRA, I am not that big of a fan of PP's founder's views on race and eugenics. That said, her views on gays was much more enlightened. Real life and real people are more complex and nuanced than the caricatures that ideologues and propagandists make them out to be. The "gun lobby equals the Klan", IIRC, was first coined by some clown on ESPN named Costas. Please, don't let sports casters do your thinking for you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

57. you assume a lot.and your assumptions are insulting.

[beevul]

68. The woo is strong, I'll grant you that.

"We are simply pawns in gun cabal's power struggle to promote gun proliferation in pursuit of unbridled corporate profit. It's domestic war mongering, and we in the city are the people invaded so that the gun interests can flex their muscles and reap obscene profits from our corpses. We are nothing more than collateral damage. Gun violence that destroys families here doesn't register in the consciences of those who seek to increase gun proliferation in urban areas. Of course there are some who willfully promote guns as a way to kill us off and reestabilish white only rule, which is why the NRA is the equivalent of the 21st century KKK. I'm assuming people here are more thoughtless than willful, but who knows. Ultimately it doesn't really matter since the results are the same."

But at least you're consistent:

It has to do with promoting gun proliferation particularly in cities where people of color live. The gun cabal is the new Klan, and guns are their chosen means of regaining power by eliminating as much of the population of color as they can. It's not a coincidence that there are virtually no African-Americans in the NRA, or that the NRA and GOP are so cozy. They share the same goals.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017125145

If you keep this up, you'll "out-hoyt" hoyt.

[gejohnston]

43. Here I thought the it was the Wyoming flag

I sometimes use as my avatar.

[BainsBane]

52. That doesn't look like a flag to me.

Wyoming. What a shock. As I said, some things are obvious. If I lived in rural Wyoming or Northern Minnesota, I'd have a gun too. What I wouldn't do is try to spread guns into cities where they maximize body counts.

[gejohnston]

53. I said sometimes

I switch between it, AF symbol, and the SWA medal. There isn't an urban Wyoming.
As leading criminologist Gary Kleck put it, "it isn't the number of guns, it who has the guns." Legal gun ownership will not increase body count. Thinking otherwise is a theology, like creationism and supply side economics, that is based entirely on emotion and ideology but have no basis in empirical evidence.
Either end the drug war or have bong owners grow their own will decrease it.

[BainsBane]

55. Well, I did think that

I thought perhaps rural and Wyoming was redundant, but not having been there I couldn't say for sure. It's not only who has guns but WHERE they have guns. As I have said repeatedly, a gun is very different in the city from the rural area. Many gun homicides are not committed by people with prior felonies. Every week someone on DU posts stories of toddlers who kill people. Abusive men love to shoot their wives with guns. It really is important that they have the right to do that whenever we want. I'm pretty sure the NRA considers that a constitutional right, along with letting children blow each others heads off because criminally negligent parents leave guns around when the kids become a nuisance.

Emotion is a normal human response. The absence of emotion in the face of the loss of life is indicative of psychological disturbance. "Emotional" is used by gun advocates as a proxy for saying it's irrational to care about people dying.

BTW, what is the empirical evidence that says my life and those of my neighbors are less important than your desire to proliferate guns?

It's quite handy your allies have lobbied so determinedly to forbid research from being done on guns. Not only have they made illegal federal funding into research, which means forbidden research, they have created criminal penalties for doctors who ask patients about guns in the home (in places like FL) or who write ANYTHING down about guns on the national level. Did you know ACA forbids doctors from writing about guns? Did you lobby for that measure? So now you can evoke a Positivist notion of empiricism in an effort to delegitimate human compassion.

There of course is empirical international evidence that shows societies without guns have much lower homicide rates, something you (sorry if I'm confusing you with another member here, either you or geckosfeet) have repeatedly misrepresented in ways that echo NRA talking points. The NRA loves to throw in property crimes to confuse the numbers. I think that reveals their assumption that they value property more than human life. In fact, the entire pro-gun position is premised on the notion that property is worth more than human beings. I disagree. Yes, I'm emotional that way. I have more feeling toward my family members than my TV set. I'm just irrational that way.

[gejohnston]

56. once again you are wrong, please do some research

Last edited Sun Jun 16, 2013, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

It's quite handy your allies have lobbied so determinedly to forbid research from being done on guns. Not only have they made illegal federal funding into research, which means forbidden research, they have created criminal penalties for doctors who ask patients about guns in the home (in places like FL) or who write ANYTHING down about guns on the national level. Did you know ACA forbids doctors from writing about guns? Did you lobby for that measure? So now you can evoke a Positivist notion of empiricism in an effort to delegitimate human compassion.

Once again, that is not accurate. Research is still legal with federal funds and done by the DoJ. What was banned was lobbying by the CDC. Not research. That said, the the "research" done was as scientific as NRA propaganda. Once again, the DoJ still hires criminologists, some who have been accused of being NRA shills even though they worked during the Clinton administration.

There of course is empirical international evidence that shows societies without guns have much lower homicide rates, something you (sorry if I'm confusing you with another member here, either you or geckosfeet) have repeatedly misrepresented in ways that echo NRA talking points. The NRA loves to throw in property crimes to confuse the numbers. I think that reveals their assumption that they value property more than human life. In fact, the entire pro-gun position is premised on the notion that property is worth more than human beings. I disagree. Yes, I'm emotional that way. I have more feeling toward my family members than my TV set. I'm just irrational that way.

No there isn't. Even if it were true, it has nothing to do with cause and effect. Florida's gun ownership rate is about 25 percent. That is the same as France, Sweden, and Iceland. it is lower than Canada, Finland, Norway, and Switzerland. I'm guessing you don't know much about the gun laws in other countries do you? Did you know that before 1977 a Canadian could walk in a gun store and legally buy a machine gun easier than the US? Did you know a 12 year old can go into a Canadian gun store and buy any rifle or shotgun ammunition? Did you know until four years ago a 15 year old in Finland could buy a gun?

BTW, did you know that while guns are used in most murders in general, but not "crimes of passion" such as domestic violence. When guns are, they are mostly women defending themselves from an abusive male.

[petronius]

22. That's why I'm less supportive of public funds being used, and why this article

caught my attention.

My feeling on privately-funded 'buybacks' is neutral to positive: I think it's good that people are encouraged to dispose of an unwanted (and maybe improperly-stored) forearm, I like that money goes into the pockets of people who may need it, and I think they provide an opportunity for a positive interaction between police and the community.

On the other hand, I feel a bit badly for people who may dispose of a valuable firearm for a pittance, but much more importantly it's clear that the overall benefits of buybacks are extremely limited and it's almost certain that a better return on investment - in terms of lives saved, safety increased, health improved - could be obtained by directing the money elsewhere.

So, while I'm far from outraged about it (at worst, neutral), I think the event described in the OP is an inefficient use of funds which could be better used otherwise.

I would say that I'm actively disapprove of destroying the guns, as that seems to be motivated entirely for politics and appearance. The entire benefit of the buyback has already accrued once the firearms are sold by the owner who doesn't want them - destroying them (if they could be profitably transferred instead to someone who will want and keep them properly) is nothing but a waste of public property...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

6. The story is questionable. They are going to destroy all of them and not keep any as "drop guns"?

Not a single light-finger cop who wants to keep a drop-gun for himself?

[premium]

11. Oh, I'm sure they'll keep the best ones for themselves,

you know, good for me but not for thee, (thee being the citizens of LA County.)

[NYC_SKP]

47. I wonder how anonymous this really is. And when will there be a buy-back in Westwood, Santa Monica?

Or do we just want to take guns away from poor people, Hispanics and dark-skinned people?

[Eleanors38]

50. "A good negro is contaminated by the possession of a weapon.... Disarm the Negro."

Atlanta Journal, 1906.

http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/racist-roots-of-ga-gun-laws.pdf

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. In today's world the only color that matters is green.

[GreenStormCloud]

80. It has been that way since the Lydians invented money in about 700 BCE.

Except the color was gold or silver or copper.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

81. true but, even more so today as we have really moved away from hunting, farming, gathering,

bartering, canning, preserving, sewing ... etc.

we are all the same color to the 1%

skin color, to some degree, is no longer an issue as we all fight amongst ourselves for scraps.

[beevul]

49. This thread is a testament to the brokenness of the jury system.

One poster gets to call people uneducated, sexist, murderer (by association), and that's just fine and good...

While another poster gets a post hidden for pointing it out.

Objective standards are needed.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

58. Double Standards

the jury system is rife them.

Also, tends to stand with the offense and punishes the defense.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

63. x2

[beevul]

66. And there we have it.

Automated Message

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: One of your posts has been hidden by a DU Jury

At Sat Jun 15, 2013, 06:16 PM, an alert was sent on the following post:

Keep it up -- this is funny!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=124734

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Personal attack. And frankly the guy's a gun troll. If you can find a post where this guy isn't trolling for the NRA, or attacking progressive DUers, I'd like to see it.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Jun 15, 2013, 06:25 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: agree with the alerter, gun troll making DU suck with personal attack
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alert posts, not people.

CONSEQUENCES OF THIS DECISION

You will no longer be able to participate in this discussion thread, and you will not be able to start a new discussion thread in this forum until 7:25 PM. This hidden post has been added to your <a href="/?com=profile&uid=279126&sub=trans">Transparency page</a>.


A reminder:

The post which was hidden, pointed out quite accurately, that another poster was allowed to call others uneducated, sexist, murderer (by association). That poster, the one doing the namecalling, was allowed to do so and proceed on her merry way, with nary a consequence. The poster that pointed it out however, on top of being the target of the original name calling, was insulted again, and had a post hidden, for pointing out that another poster was engaging in personal attacks.

Frequenters of castle bansalot have engaged in arbitrary blocking of people within their group. One would think that would be enough, but noooo. They work to silence those with differing views outside their little castle as well.


The jury results speak for themselves.

[premium]

67. This is hypocrisy at it's best.

Alerter complains of a personal attack.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Personal attack.

And then launches a personal attack.

And frankly the guy's a gun troll. If you can find a post where this guy isn't trolling for the NRA, or attacking progressive DUers, I'd like to see it.

And then to top it off, Juror #4 launches a personal attack about an alert complaining of a personal attack.

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: agree with the alerter, gun troll making DU suck with personal attack

It don't get much better than this!

This is also pure comedy gold.

[ileus]

64. If people want to risk their lives by disarming I don't see a problem.

Kind of stupid to become a willing victim but that's their choice.

I know I love my wife and kids too much to give up the #1 device to protect their lives with.

Maybe it's true that most of the firearms turned in are broken unreliable junk. If you can't trust your life to the firearm you're carrying you should trade up, or trade it in...or in this case get a gift card.

People would be much better served buying Hi-points and ditching their Ravens. Saw a new Hi-point 9mm for 180 bucks yesterday at the LGS. Sure that seems kind of high, but in a post sandy age I suppose that's the new normal.