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...