3 ms·

> James’ office said it responded to the loophole by giving buyback personnel more discretion to determine the value of weapons being handed in, [...] Paying f

> James’ office said it responded to the loophole by giving buyback personnel more discretion to determine the value of weapons being handed in, [...] Paying fair market value for the guns is the solution. Asking for gun donations without paying for them is another. If they do either of these, then the shenanigans stop. > and setting a standard that all 3D-printed guns accepted by the program must be capable of being fired more than once. This is dumb and will be ineffectual at stopping shenanigans. If they did even a minute of research they would know this new rule won't help. The people 'pranking' these buyback programs can and do make extremely cheap guns that are made out of metal pipe and can fire more than once: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/12/22/5-homemade-shotguns-handed-100-gun-give-back/ https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/12/22/5-homemade-sh... If you want to stop that, pay fair market value for the guns. Homemade guns have essentially zero market value, so stop paying people to make them.

mizzack 4y ago
> pay fair market value for the guns. Seeing a P38 on the table next to a $100 HiPoint in the article photo drives this home. That's a $1k+ relic that the seller probably got $150 for.
tablespoon 4y ago
> Paying fair market value for the guns is the solution. Asking for gun donations without paying for them is another. If they do either of these, then the shenanigans stop. But both of those suggestions may undermine the real motivations for these programs, especially the second one.
- chomp 4y ago
  Yep. You want to pull guns out of the population that people don't care about enough to where they're willing to trade them for a cheap gift card. The people who'd actually participate in this program likely do not covet the weapons enough to protect and keep up with them, which are more likely to be stolen, or mishandled.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I am more concerned with the people participating in the other side of this exchange. If somebody wants to get a gun out of their house so they can stop worrying about it and want it destroyed, then the money is unnecessary. If the money is their motive for selling their gun to the police, then they should be given fair market value. These programs are calculated to exploit people desperately in need of cash. How would you like it if you and your whole family were poor, and you learned that your grandmother sold a $1000 rifle for $100 of walmart gift cards because she was desperate, didn't know what the gun was worth, and trusted the police to not scam her? BTW, many of these "buyback" programs are funded by people like Doris Buffett. Run by the police but paid for by wealthy donors. They can afford to pay fair market value, they just prefer to scam people.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > If the money is their motive for selling their gun to the police, then they should be given fair market value. I agree there. I guess the point I was trying to make the program's logic could mean it makes sense for it to pay more than fair market value, even for 3D printed guns. I didn't realize they could be low-balling prices and exploiting desperate people.
leetcrew 4y ago
> If you want to stop that, pay fair market value for the guns. Homemade guns have essentially zero market value, so stop paying people to make them. this approach also has issues. if someone wants to sell a gun for fair market value, they don't need the state as a counterparty. unless of course they don't legally own the gun, in which case the "fair market value" is zero. I guess you could appraise the gun as if it were legal, but then what if the person doesn't like the offer? are they expected to trust that there will be no repercussions for walking back out holding all the evidence needed to charge them with a felony? seems to me the best and simplest approach is an amnesty box. getting to walk away without risk of prosecution should be enough of a reward for turning in a hot gun. and if the gun is in fact legally owned, why does the state want to take it off their hands so badly?
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > if someone wants to sell a gun for fair market value, they don't need the state as a counterparty. unless of course they don't legally own the gun, in which case the "fair market value" is zero. Or, Old widow has some rifles her dead husband left in her closet. She legally owns them, but she doesn't know that and she's afraid she might have done something wrong.

mizzack 4y ago

> pay fair market value for the guns. Seeing a P38 on the table next to a $100 HiPoint in the article photo drives this home. That's a $1k+ relic that the seller probably got $150 for.

tablespoon 4y ago

> Paying fair market value for the guns is the solution. Asking for gun donations without paying for them is another. If they do either of these, then the shenanigans stop. But both of those suggestions may undermine the real motivations for these programs, especially the second one.

chomp 4y ago
Yep. You want to pull guns out of the population that people don't care about enough to where they're willing to trade them for a cheap gift card. The people who'd actually participate in this program likely do not covet the weapons enough to protect and keep up with them, which are more likely to be stolen, or mishandled.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
I am more concerned with the people participating in the other side of this exchange. If somebody wants to get a gun out of their house so they can stop worrying about it and want it destroyed, then the money is unnecessary. If the money is their motive for selling their gun to the police, then they should be given fair market value. These programs are calculated to exploit people desperately in need of cash. How would you like it if you and your whole family were poor, and you learned that your grandmother sold a $1000 rifle for $100 of walmart gift cards because she was desperate, didn't know what the gun was worth, and trusted the police to not scam her? BTW, many of these "buyback" programs are funded by people like Doris Buffett. Run by the police but paid for by wealthy donors. They can afford to pay fair market value, they just prefer to scam people.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > If the money is their motive for selling their gun to the police, then they should be given fair market value. I agree there. I guess the point I was trying to make the program's logic could mean it makes sense for it to pay more than fair market value, even for 3D printed guns. I didn't realize they could be low-balling prices and exploiting desperate people.

leetcrew 4y ago

> If you want to stop that, pay fair market value for the guns. Homemade guns have essentially zero market value, so stop paying people to make them. this approach also has issues. if someone wants to sell a gun for fair market value, they don't need the state as a counterparty. unless of course they don't legally own the gun, in which case the "fair market value" is zero. I guess you could appraise the gun as if it were legal, but then what if the person doesn't like the offer? are they expected to trust that there will be no repercussions for walking back out holding all the evidence needed to charge them with a felony? seems to me the best and simplest approach is an amnesty box. getting to walk away without risk of prosecution should be enough of a reward for turning in a hot gun. and if the gun is in fact legally owned, why does the state want to take it off their hands so badly?

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> if someone wants to sell a gun for fair market value, they don't need the state as a counterparty. unless of course they don't legally own the gun, in which case the "fair market value" is zero. Or, Old widow has some rifles her dead husband left in her closet. She legally owns them, but she doesn't know that and she's afraid she might have done something wrong.