Arizona GOP blocks gun buyback programs, because neener neener.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ariz-bill-requiring-resale-buyback-guns-signed-19070191#.UYXYo7VwrZc

People have been following debate over this bill for awhile now. Last month, Democrats desperately tried to amend the bill, with all of their amendments blocked by Republicans who didn't even bother debating against them, and at one point forced a roll call vote, wherein several Senators decided to conveniently disappear, before the Republicans just shut down debate altogether.

Maybe I'm just being oversensitive, but I find this whole thing senseless and offensive.

The rationale behind the bill seems petty and just all-around dumb, not to mention the whole thing doesn't really strike me as particularly "small government"y. So, in a few months, law enforcement and local government will no longer be able to hold gun-buyback drives with the intent of dismantling the weapons collected. Why? Because. That's why.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Like I've said...  it's a game to them.  And what do you do in games?  You win.

[Smash255]

Nah no extremism in the Republican Party.....

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Buybacks would still get guns out of the hands of those who aren't supposed to have them legally in the first place.  It also presumably would get unsafe guns (in the sense of being in bad condition and thus prone to malfunction) out of circulation.  Actually I'm surprised that Republicans would be wanting the guns sold to dealers.  Increasing the supply of used guns will hurt the sales of new guns, so I'd imagine the NRA would be opposed to it since they are the rifle makers' shills.

[後援会]

Good. Gun buybacks are useless anyways.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Good. Gun buybacks are useless anyways.

I wish I could understand the desire for government action based on "haha, what now, losers!" I mean, I'm a pretty bitter jerk sometimes, but not even I could imagine projecting my own completely baseless personal kneejerk reactions onto acts of public policy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Good. Gun buybacks are useless anyways.

Not entirely useless, but I don't see any of the positive things they accomplish being impeded by this bill.

[DrScholl]

Overreach of the state government, local government has the authority to make a decision like that. And, if gun buybacks are useless, what is the point in passing laws regarding them?

[後援会]

Good. Gun buybacks are useless anyways.

I wish I could understand the desire for government action based on "haha, what now, losers!" I mean, I'm a pretty bitter jerk sometimes, but not even I could imagine projecting my own completely baseless personal kneejerk reactions onto acts of public policy.

Except they're not baseless. Your knee-jerk support of feel-good programs is coming off as far more baseless.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/29/gun-buybacks-mostly-a-waste-of-time-and-money-experts-say.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169439243/newtown-prompts-gun-buybacks-but-do-they-work

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/13/04/04/do-gun-buybacks-reduce-gun-violence/

I can go on and on. I don't agree with the whole "get rid of all government programs" sentiment, but if we can use that as an excuse to kill stupid programs, I'm all for it.

Though there is probably a farcical element to this all. Who is buying guns from buy-backs? Most of those guns are probably already effectively destroyed.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Good. Gun buybacks are useless anyways.

I wish I could understand the desire for government action based on "haha, what now, losers!" I mean, I'm a pretty bitter jerk sometimes, but not even I could imagine projecting my own completely baseless personal kneejerk reactions onto acts of public policy.

Except they're not baseless. Your knee-jerk support of feel-good programs is coming off as far more baseless.

You're absolutely right that gun buyback programs in America have largely been small-scale affairs that haven't had a dramatic impact.

But this effort doesn't shut down gun buyback programs, so supporting this by that rationale is just kind of stupid. This effort is designed to use private and public money to funnel serviceable guns obtained through these programs back to federal gun dealers instead of dismantling them and removing them from circulation entirely. It effectively turns the gun buyback program into a government assisted gun refurbishment program.

All the money and time that you and others oppose are still being spent, and the idea that the government of Arizona would prohibit local government and law enforcement from dismantling guns.. just because, is kind of crazy; it's a hop skip and a jump away from saying guns are such sacrosanct objects that they can't be destroyed under any circumstances. It's coming from a completely bananas place.

Gun buyback programs aren't useless, they get guns off the street, thousands each year. Most of those are hunting weapons, very few are assault weapons, but much of these efforts are community or privately funded, and even when local government does chip in it costs pennies in the grand scheme of things, and they do succeed at the most direct goal they have: getting different kinds of guns out of circulation. Are they solving the problem singlehandedly? Of course not, but opposition to them is either insanely petty or comes from a fetishistic approach gun ownership that we should be working to discourage to begin with.

If anything, this is an excellent example of a potentially very effective idea going completely to waste because of lack of real support. Almost all gun buyback programs in this country are super small scale, community supported, few-hundred-thousand-dollars supporting, volunteer affairs. No s[inks] they're not very effective at getting hundreds of thousands of guns off the street and making a serious dent in gun accidents and crimes. But the deliberate lack of support and increasing GOP sabotage of the ideas doesn't invalidate the ideas; they've worked elsewhere (Australia) because they had real funds to work with and large scale cooperation.

It is difficult for me to take opposition arguments to these kind of insanely timid programs seriously, when anti gun control arguments have reached the nth degree of disengenuousness, and the American Conservative movement is even more petty and jockular than ever. It's like opposing public support of food pantries and soup kitchens because they only save a few people from starvation in the grand scheme of things, so it's totally useless and wasteful.

[Vosem]

Welcome back to the Forum, koenkai!!!

[TJ in Oregon]

Buybacks would still get guns out of the hands of those who aren't supposed to have them legally in the first place.  It also presumably would get unsafe guns (in the sense of being in bad condition and thus prone to malfunction) out of circulation.  Actually I'm surprised that Republicans would be wanting the guns sold to dealers.  Increasing the supply of used guns will hurt the sales of new guns, so I'd imagine the NRA would be opposed to it since they are the rifle makers' shills.

^^^
These are my thoughts as well. It seems like a common-sense bill honestly. Buybacks are a great idea, but why destroy the guns? Why not sell them to a licensed dealer to bring in money for the local government?

[後援会]

Welcome back to the Forum, koenkai!!!

Thanks. Got busy, but I have maybe two weeks to kill, so yeah.

Anyways, I think there's this assumption that if $xxx does something, $ (1000) * xxx will do 1000 times what it did. That does not seem accurate. Like any market, the amount of people willing to sell (their gun) are limited. If I had good reason to believe that I would be using my gun in the future, I probably wouldn't be bringing it to a gun buyback unless I already didn't want it. Gun buybacks are great at getting unwanted or broken guns out of people's attics, but it doesn't seem like you'll be getting the guns actually used for crimes unless you're willing to offer a huge price for them, at which point there are far better uses for that money - like hiring more police or fighting poverty.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Buybacks would still get guns out of the hands of those who aren't supposed to have them legally in the first place.  It also presumably would get unsafe guns (in the sense of being in bad condition and thus prone to malfunction) out of circulation.  Actually I'm surprised that Republicans would be wanting the guns sold to dealers.  Increasing the supply of used guns will hurt the sales of new guns, so I'd imagine the NRA would be opposed to it since they are the rifle makers' shills.

^^^
These are my thoughts as well. It seems like a common-sense bill honestly. Buybacks are a great idea, but why destroy the guns? Why not sell them to a licensed dealer to bring in money for the local government?

Except this bill forces local governments to do something they may not want. So much for limited government.

[MaxQue]

Isn't that an infringment of cities' rights?

[Vosem]

Isn't that an infringment of cities' rights?

The powers (and lack thereof) of local government in the United States are governed by state constitutions, so it would depend on what the Arizona Constitution has to say on the matter. If this was a matter of dispute I think we would've already heard about it, though; most criticisms from Democrats are about the effects of the policy itself, not its legality. (And legality is a much easier thing to attack, so...)

[MaxQue]

Isn't that an infringment of cities' rights?

The powers (and lack thereof) of local government in the United States are governed by state constitutions, so it would depend on what the Arizona Constitution has to say on the matter. If this was a matter of dispute I think we would've already heard about it, though; most criticisms from Democrats are about the effects of the policy itself, not its legality. (And legality is a much easier thing to attack, so...)

Well, the idea of "cities' rights" isn't really more or less sensical than the beloved "states' rights" of right-wingers.

[DrScholl]

As long as incorporated cities are allowed to exist, they can implement measures such as buybacks, since it is explicitly a local issue and cities can make expenditures. I don't see how it can be enforced.

[badgate]

Like I've said...  it's a game to them.  And what do you do in games?  You win.

When you play the game of gun control...you either win or die.

[Link]

As long as incorporated cities are allowed to exist, they can implement measures such as buybacks, since it is explicitly a local issue and cities can make expenditures. I don't see how it can be enforced.

Considering that some of these buybacks are financed heavily by the private sector I don't see how Constitutionally the state can come in and say what you do with the guy once you buy it off someone.  If I was a billionaire I would fund one of these buybacks and destroy the guns just to see what happens.  Just from the point of view of small unintrusive government this is crazy.  It really demonstrates another fable about small government Republicans.  It joins fables about Republicans managing the economy and the military as well.

This is interesting though.  It's funny to watch tea party bozos waste their money rallying in Washington when a lot of the really intrusive and dumb regulations happen on the state and local level.

[DC Al Fine]

Isn't that an infringment of cities' rights?

The powers (and lack thereof) of local government in the United States are governed by state constitutions, so it would depend on what the Arizona Constitution has to say on the matter. If this was a matter of dispute I think we would've already heard about it, though; most criticisms from Democrats are about the effects of the policy itself, not its legality. (And legality is a much easier thing to attack, so...)

Well, the idea of "cities' rights" isn't really more or less sensical than the beloved "states' rights" of right-wingers.

The relevant question is which one is more likely to hold up in court.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As long as incorporated cities are allowed to exist, they can implement measures such as buybacks, since it is explicitly a local issue and cities can make expenditures. I don't see how it can be enforced.

Considering that some of these buybacks are financed heavily by the private sector I don't see how Constitutionally the state can come in and say what you do with the guy once you buy it off someone.  If I was a billionaire I would fund one of these buybacks and destroy the guns just to see what happens.  Just from the point of view of small unintrusive government this is crazy.  It really demonstrates another fable about small government Republicans.  It joins fables about Republicans managing the economy and the military as well.

This is interesting though.  It's funny to watch tea party bozos waste their money rallying in Washington when a lot of the really intrusive and dumb regulations happen on the state and local level.

Once you get to a certain level of sales or purchases of guns, you are considered a dealer under Federal law.  Keep in mind that one attraction of these buybacks is that guns which are stolen, or which the person who held them should not have had can be disposed of anonymously, which I am doubtful that a Federally registered dealer could do.  Basically, the government sanction is needed here to do this, even if someone else provides the money.

Now that I  think of it, has anyone checked to see if there is a surge in gun thefts shortly before these buybacks?  Seems like a fairly perfect crime assuming you don't get caught doing the stealing since you can be reasonably certain that the fence you sell the goods too won't be turning you in.