9
Gun buyback program underway in Los Angeles
At the gun buyback program on December 26, 2012 in Los Angeles, Calif.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
A police officer holding a rifle that has just been handed in from a car.
A cop pulling ammunition out of a pistol. The trash can was loaded with rifles that were turned in.
An annual gun-buyback event held Wednesday in Los Angeles netted more than 2,000 guns and firearms, the city reports, including 75 assault weapons and one rocket launcher.
City law enforcement initated Los Angeles' buyback program in 2009 and says it has taken nearly 10,000 off the street as a result. The gun buyback is typically held in May each year, but officials moved up a day in response to the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
"I think everybody was so traumatized," says L.A. mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. "People said, 'I don't wait on the Congress, I'm tired of the endless debates about responsible gun control legislation, I want to do my part."
Gun owners lined up for blocks to return automatic weapons and handguns at the L.A. Sports Arena to exchange guns for gift cards. The buyback program allows residents to anonymously trade in a handgun, shotgun or rifle for a $100 gift card to local grocer, Ralph's. Those who brought assault weapons (as classified by the state of California) received a $200 gift card.
Said one veteran returning a shotgun, "I'm not anti-gun, I'm from a Texas family... I'm not going to be gunless so to speak." But, he added, "There's no purpose for automatic gunfire in our cities. That is strictly a war weapon."
Despite the mayor's focus on gun control, a number of participants were mostly interested in the cash incentive.
As one man told Jeremy Hobson, "It's just about expendiency... not about gun control. This has not removed all the guns from my household." He added, "Truthfully, I don't think it's an effective way to get guns off the street."
But Mayor Villaraigosa countered, "There's a reason the police department supports this effort. All these cops that are here are here because they want to get these guns off the streets." He asked, "What do we need assault weapons on the streets of L.A. for? The answer is: we don't need them and we've got to do something about it."
Gun buyback programs in the United States
A number of gun buyback programs have popped up in the U.S. just in the last two weeks. Here's a sampling of who sponsored what, how many guns were returned, and how much was made:
"Mayor Villaraigosa ... asked, 'What do we need assault weapons on the streets of L.A. for? The answer is: we don't need them and we've got to do something about it.'" Who does he mean by "we"? If he means "What do THE POLICE need assault weapons on the streets of L.A. for?", that's a very good question. If the police need these weapons, why don't private citizens need them for the same reason? Is it because firing 41 shots at Amadou Diallo (19 of which hit) isn't enough?
Both Don B Kates and Gary Kleck found that private civilians were five times less likely to shoot innocent people (mistaken for criminals) than were the police (11% error rate for police; 2% for non-police). Of course this is not a "fair" comparison, as police have duties private individuals do not have -- but the claim that only police can handle firearms safely is clearly wrong.
Concerning assault weapons bans: Columbine happened during the Federal assault weapons ban. Connecticut HAS an assault weapons ban right now and has had one since before the Federal ban. These bans seem to be less than 100% effective.
"That man just wants to profit off the potential (or actual) murder of people." For what it's worth, at least 99.994% of all guns in the US have never been used to commit homicide (including justifiable homicide). And at least 97% of all violent crimes using guns are committed using handguns, not so-called "assault weapons". Banning assault weapons won't make them disappear, and even if they could be made to disappear, the effect on violent crime would be unmeasurable. Obviously, every murder is tragic and unacceptable and should be averted whenever possible, but an assault-weapons ban just won't have that effect.
Nobody does own an "assault weapon". Not with out a very expensive and through vetting process. (join the military or your police department if you want an assault weapon for less than $10,000). But what these victim disarmers are calling an "assault weapon" is a .223 caliber semi-automatic single shot rifle that happens to be black and have cosmetic features that make it LOOK like a military issued weapon. (pistol grip, adjustable stock, bayonet lug, mounting rails, etc nothing that changes the rate of fire or power of the weapon) .223 cal is a very popular hunting round for varmints where you will need to take several shots quickly to get several of them before they hide. (woodchucks, rats, coyotes, feral dogs, squirrels, etc) You can also hunt deer in many places with an AR-15, though some hunters feel the rifle is to underpowered to effectively do that.
No one is owning an assault rifle. They want to own a rifle that is very popular for hunting and highly effective for self defense. The AR-15 is well loved because 1) it is designed to feel like an M-16 something millions of people have been trained to use. This makes it an easy transition to own. Prior service or even current members of the armed forces like having a rifle that fits, and sights like what they trained with for years. Add in that they have been fully trained in how to maintain the weapon and care for it. 2) it is a good hunting rifle. 3) it is a great weapon for self defense. The AR-15 with an adjustable stock allows different sized family members to use it, its low recoil makes it easy for small frame people to use effectively, the ammo is cheep so more training can be done with it, it is light and gives you the ability to be less likely to run out of ammo if attacked.
But the victim disarmers don't want you to see that. They want to ban "assault weapons" by which they mean any rifle or handgun that could be used to defend your family or self from an attack by criminals. No one needs an "assault weapon". They do need a semi-automatic single shot per trigger pull small cal rifle.
I did take journalism 101 and radio production 302, let me first complement you on your editing. You provided an excellent (and balanced) selection of interviewees. I easily recognized the conservative view point through to the progressive, with a well represented middle-ground by the mayor. I also noted how you had to only minimally edit him. Lucky for us he is a very good speaker.
My opinion on the economics: They do work, with a little more tweaking for Fairness.
What do I mean? The $100 and $200 does work, you heard it in the interviews. For the people of “Good Conscience” like the man with the “Kennedy-Killing” gun. He sold a gun worth more than $200, because IT did not deserve to exist any longer. Society does not need it. I commend him, unlike the person previously commenting “(or more likely weapons the owner dose not know you could sell for much more)”. I think the guy knew it was worth more, but chose good over bad.
For those people who think their guns are worth MORE – and would sell them if only offered enough (he he ...so much for their cold dead hands attitude), they are right! Society should pay more, as it would be worth it. Just ask an Australian.
How does society pay for it? Through new taxes on the movement of Assault guns through the commercial chain - the easiest way to track. Wherever an Assault Gun is listed whether it be manufacturing, wholesale through to retail, we tax* it. Make it cumulatively equal to the final Retail Price. In this way, IF the person who bought the gun ever wanted to immediately get rid of it safely AND get back what they paid for it – they could -minus their share of the taxes. Make it Federal not state by state.
Example: $700 retail gun. $200 charge from manufacturer to wholesaler, add $100 tax. (* NOT DEDUCTABLE from revenues – so us – the non-assault gun buying public don’t end up paying for the whole damn thing anyway through an accounting trick), Wholesaler adds that cost to their price + $100 markup. Price paid by retailer is $400 +$200 tax. Retailer adds $100 markup- sells it to public for $700. Public pays $700 + $400 tax for an assault riffle “to be used for hunting animals” or to “defend his family”. Their family is worth it right, for hunting, maybe not? Important: Owner, retailer anyone in the chain can whenever they want sell it to the police for what they paid for it $700 / 400 / 200 no questions asked, but know ballistics would be run before destruction.
Make it count for “Gunshows” too. Want to sell your personal assault riffle – go ahead register it at the door, (YES WE would be tracking the gun from then on whether it sold or not) - the buyer will pay a 100% tax. Better now have a REAL NEED for it and not just a “want”, for now its getting real expensive to own an Assault Riffle…as it should be, because it is Real Expensive to our Society the way it is now.
Thanks again MarketPlace.
"You provided an excellent (and balanced) selection of interviewees." I must disagree. First, there was no mention of the defensive use of guns, something which happens at least thousands of times every year in the US. Second, there was no mention of, nor questioning of, the assumption that police need powerful weapons but private citizens do not. Third, there was no mention that wealthy and powerful individuals (some of whom live in Los Angeles), have the option to hire bodyguards -- who carry guns -- to protect them from violent attack, an option which is not available to most people. It is not clear whether these omissions were deliberate or (more likely) simply not part of the world-view of the reporters. They are significant in either case.
How about a little journalism 101. I highly doubt that people lined up around the block to turn in automatic weapons. those are very rare and highly regulated. The economics of this make no sense, you expect people to turn in a $500 to $1,000 item for a $100 gift card? Sounds like incentive to turn in stolen guns or non-working ones. (or more likely weapons the owner dose not know you could sell for much more).
They keep saying "assault" weapons. Yet they mean hunting rifles that are all black and scary. this is why gun control does not work. CA banned "assault weapons" back in the late 80's. in the late 90's they expanded the list of what an "assault weapons" was and did a confiscation from the registration lists. Yet here the mayor claims they are getting lots of "assault weapons" turned in? How is that possible, it is against the law.
Makes you wonder how many of these anonymously turned in guns were used in crimes and this is a way to dispose of them?
I was also puzzled by the willingness of people to exchange guns for gift cards, when they could probably get more money by selling the guns. One possibility is that the guns were possessed illegally. Another is that they were inherited. A third is that people derive some sort of satisfaction from being told that their gun will be destroyed (though the significance of removing a couple of thousand guns from the estimated 270 million in the US is questionable).
I also strongly doubt that 10,000 guns have been "taken off the street". Out of people's closets and attics, yes. Off the street, probably not.
