So, how many guns were "real" in Austin's gun buy-back?

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A1039750

Last week, I sent an e-mail to the Austin Police Department asking them to list by make and model the "weapons" they collected in its recent gun buy-back (using pay outs of $50, $100, $200 in food coupons). They sent this instead:

"The funds were provided by the Greater Austin Crime Commission which is funded by donations.

343 total weapons were turned in:

166 handguns
96 rifles
79 shotguns
2 assault rifles"

________

In the photo at the Austin Chronicle's link, you can see a number of these "weapons." Some sure look like BB guns to me. Are there also pellet guns in the mix? Is the Chronicle correct in saying that "toy guns" were also collected and paid for? No definition of "assault rifle" was provided, so I'll assume it is the usual media-derived term for "ugly black rifle."

What is this Commission all about, if it spends its donations on the usual hoo-doo of gun buy-backs? Austin is not only "Weird, Inc.," but increasingly dated in its "progressive" politics.

called "guns" in the picture are bb-guns and pellet rifles.

That fact may be unimportant to those who are anti-RKBA but then facts never bother them.

The majority he wrote were handguns.

How does this post have anything to do with your leap to RKBA? Our is that just a tick?

deadly weapons as the Daisy BB Gun 25 Spring prominently displayed in the picture.


Given that ignorant statement in the article, it's highly probable that some of the handguns collected might include the deadly Daisy Pellet BB Pistol below but of course you already knew that, didn't you?

of these arms. In this fashion, they -- and the public -- would have a clearer notion of what was being taken off the street for $30,000 in food vouchers; after all, this is a public policy action subject to some kind of scrutiny as to effectiveness. Instead, the APD calls them all "weapons," and comes up with its own bulk-rate definitions. BTW, BB and pellet guns can also be "handguns."

The Greater Austin Crime Commission may be doing some good, that will bear further examination. But gun buy-backs have not been shown to be effective in removing firearms from the streets so as to somehow improve the crime situation. And the expenditure of $30,000, while not tax funds, may give some contributors pause when they are hit up again.

To clarify, APD said "166 handguns," not I.

Can you tell when ticks are around over the Internet?

If this photo is actually of the "firearms" that the Greater Austin Crime Commission received in their "buy-back," they have a problem.



Because what we're seeing here appears to be largely--possibly entirely--a collection of .177-cal air rifles (BB and "diabolo" pellet), including at least one Daisy Model 25 (lower right, with the faux engraving) and a couple of Daisy Model 10s (the lever-action models in the lower right). The "buy-back" of such weapons isn't going to prevent any convenience store robberies or drive-bys; they're kids' toys!

But even if the photo isn't of the weapons "bought back" but merely an archive picture, then we have to conclude that the Chronicle didn't actually send anyone to cover the event, but just copied the press release without verifying it, and that the sub-editor doesn't actually know enough about firearms to know the archive pic isn't of actual firearms. Which raises the somewhat disconcerting possibility that the organizers of these "buy-backs" and claim just about anything they want, and the news media will unquestioningly repeat it.

buy-back as ridding the streets of 343 "assault rifles".

Wikipedia has an interesting list of phobias that include "Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia – fear of the number 666 . . . Koumpounophobia, the fear of buttons"

needy family.

Not sure where your trying to go with this post, but I'm sure some very needy people were happy to trade some toys for food.

I'm laughing my ass off. I need to chase it across the room now before it can hide.

It's so so sad the great extent crazy has been taken on some issues.

a family might be needy?

I would call it 'fraud', at the least.

"The funds were provided by the Greater Austin Crime Commission which is funded by donations."

Did the crime commission define a standard for what to buy, or for what purpose to buy them?

... "buying back" a BB gun is not going to improve public safety by taking a potential crime gun "off the streets," which is the ostensible point of these "buy-backs." Therefore, it would be dishonest to characterize a "buy-back" as a success, based on positive effects that were not part of the event's stated objective.

Did they not also purchase other real weapons? That was the goal after all, buy guns. They did.

I'm not certain any of the guns bought in these buy back drives is successful in any meaningful way. In a way though, this one may (no evidence to back it up, I admit) have been more successful in a very indirect way by feeding a family in need through the purchase of a toy gun.

but it shouldn't be offered in the form of an unConstitutional subversion of Civil Rights, promoted by the government and thinly veiled under the piss-poor excuse of "Public Safety".

There is a phrase I recall that would seem to fit here....

Something like "transparency in Government" comes to mind.

And 15 minutes later, they all come strolling back past the gun buy table with a case of Pepsi Throwback under each arm .

It's not like they went door to door and demanded their guns in return for a grocery card. These guns were brought in voluntarily with no questions asked in exchange for the card.

They offered, the people participated through their own free will.

I fully support gun rights, but to say this event was a restriction of those rights is silly.

and most especially getting fleeced while attempting it, with my tax dollars.

If people want to get rid of actual firearms, let them be taken to a gun shop, properly evaluated, and put into legitimate commerce.

If the "firearm" is valueless, it can be turned in to the nearest government office for disposal, no payment.

While I can agree these programs are basically useless in their main objective, lowering gun violence, they are in no way unconstitutional.


Taxes get spent on all kinds of shit I don't agree with. One example marijuana laws and their enforcement. Now there's a serious waste of money. However, that's a totally different point isn't it.

Thanks
:hi:

that would authorize "gun buy-backs" by the Federal government.

If you have a suggestion, I'm all ears.

I will note one mistake I made, however. As far as I know, these programs are all at the State or lower level. Unless they are using Federal funding for law enforcement activities, they probably aren't unConstitutional.

in the constitution.

It's a voluntary program. Therefore not a violation of any right.

This particular program was paid for through donations as per the OP.

Edit to add:

As another poster said down thread I'm sure some people were happy to trade a rusting and worthless 'weapon' for 50 or 100 dollar grocery card. The value of an item is based on what you can get for it. While some may have been ripped off, others made out like bandits themselves. Fact is it was voluntary and not a single person was forced to participate by any government power or program.

Private money, no problem.

But I'd have an issue if public funds were used for this.

Admittedly, possibly less so in the United States as it would elsewhere, but definitely elsewhere. By some estimates, the Mexican cartels derive ~60% of their revenue from sales of marijuana in the United States; legalizing the product and permitting a legitimate, regulated market like that which already exists for alcohol and tobacco would deprive the cartels of that money, concomitantly reducing their ability to fight each other and the Mexican government employees (policemen, soldiers, prosecutors, judges) who oppose them.

Another place where legalization of marijuana would improve matters would be the Netherlands. I know that sounds odd, but the thing is that while simple possession is decriminalized, as is the sale under certain circumstances, the production, import and wholesale trade in cannabis is not. As a result, that end of the market is still firmly in the hands of organized crime, and over the past two decades, there has a been a slow but steady trickle of marijuana growers/wholesalers being rubbed out by, or on the orders of, competitors. One of the more spectacular hits occurred a couple of years ago, when the car the target was riding was fired upon from a pursuing vehicle on the freeway at night; the killers used at least one automatic weapon, possibly two, and left over a hundred cartridge cases along a five mile stretch of highway.

Yeah, the Netherlands, where weed is "legal" and guns are not.

In some cities, gun buy-backs and police pressure on gun shows are demonstrations to the elected bodies of these cities that the chief, sheriff, etc. is "on our side," and identifies with the "culture" or ideology of the cities' voters. In this year alone, with new Chief Acevedo, both have occurred for the first time in Austin. No effect on crime will come from this, no public interest benefit will accrue. But symbolism will be served.

Austin has a well-funded and effective food bank system; this effort is superfluous. But that wasn't the purpose of it, either.

(I place "buying back" in quote marks, because strictly speaking it is neither a purchase, nor can one buy back what has never been one's property. Call me pedantic.)

The ostensible point of the exercise is to prevent violent crime by removing from private ownership firearms that were at least somewhat likely to have been used for criminal purposes. When you manage to acquire some decades-old hunting rifle that had been gathering dust in the attic since its owner died, and which the owner's next of kin barely remembered was even there, you have not taken a potential crime gun "off the street," and therefore, you have not achieved any part of your stated objective.

If you manage to feed a family in need by "buying back" an old Daisy BB gun, that's fine in and of itself, but you could achieve the same goal more efficiently by dispensing with the "buy-back" bullshit and just donating the money and manpower involved to the local food bank instead.

I admit, I did a drive by while multitasking during my reply and agree with you completely.

There is a reason there is no make, model, serial number data available from the police. Every single one of these buy-backs stress they are "NO QUESTIONS ASKED!" Besides wasting money on highly visible, largely ineffective, but "feel-good" anti-gun activities which will have no real impact on the number or availability of real guns to real criminals, they are a perfect way to dispose of a crime gun.

Why toss your murder weapon off the bridge into the river where a persistent cop with a magnet on a rope can find it. Turn it into the cops on a buyback, get a hundred bucks and laugh while the self-deluded, mis-guided, do-gooders get all misty-eyed, with cum drops big as horse turds running down their legs, watching the police melt the evidence into slag.

http://prairiestater.com/detail.php?c=1301934&t=Chicago-Holds-Gun-Buy-Back-Program-Today-Despite-Evidence-Showing-Programs-Don%27t-Work

Daisy, crossman, crossman, daisy, break-action pellet gun x 2, daisy, stripped & chopped stock, couple more break-actions.. could be a savage 22lr close to the left end.

I hope the donors feel their money was well spent *snicker*

I have a 20 year old .22, that isn't really safe to shoot, but not worth fixing, so its collecting dust. I would be more than happy to give it to a buyback for 100.00.