Worthless gun buybacks

Many so-called “gun control” efforts are nothing more than feel-good,
public relations schemes for which there isn’t the slightest evidence of
their effectiveness, which is to say that they do not reduce crimes
committed with guns.

Take, for example, a recent “buy back” program in Atlanta, Ga., where the
city, using private funds, would buy guns ($50 each, no limit on the number
of guns bought) from anybody, no questions asked. In this particular
program, which lasted four hours, 520 guns were purchased for a total cost
of $26,000.

Now, the first thing wrong, and stupid, about such a program as this is
that obviously — since no questions are asked — this is a financial
incentive for people to steal guns, sell them and make some quick cash. And,
perhaps, a lot of cash with no limit on the number of guns the city would
buy.

Was this possibility considered in Atlanta? Well, no it was not,
according to Bonni Ware, Community Affairs Manager in the office of Mayor
Bill Campbell who supervised this program. In an interview, when asked if
buying guns with no questions asked might not be an incentive to steal guns,
she said this possibility never occurred to her: “It did not. I guess any
program you have could have some sort of improprieties.”

At this point, Ware was asked why those who turned in firearms were not
required to prove that they were, in fact, the real owners, as this would
greatly reduce the likelihood that stolen weapons would be purchased. The
idea of government officials running background checks on its citizens is
certainly an idea that is repugnant to the Constitution. But as long as
officials like Ms. Ware are conducting a buy-back program for guns — an
idea that is also contrary to sound constitutional doctrine — why should
they draw the line at a solution that might keep criminals from stealing
guns and then cashing them in?

So, why wasn’t such proof of ownership required before any gun was paid
for? Ware said, “Because we don’t want people to fear coming to City Hall to
turn in their weapons and fear that they may be incarcerated for coming
down.”

Now, this is a truly amazing statement. Because what Ware is saying, in
so many words, is that they wanted to protect any possible criminals who
were turning in guns! She’s saying that any such background check might have
discovered that some turning weapons in were criminals who should be jailed.
So, no such check was made.

It is, of course, highly doubtful that any criminals would be voluntarily
giving up their guns, right? Right. And even Ware seems to agree. “Maybe
not,” she said. “That’s why they’re criminals, because they don’t obey the
law.” Exactly.

Still, Ware insisted her program was an “overwhelming success.” How so?
Because, she said, there are 520 less guns on the streets of Atlanta “and
this makes it less likely that people will be killed from dangerous
weapons.” But, more guns doesn’t, necessarily, mean more crime. Besides, as
Ware has said, they have no idea who, exactly, was selling them guns, much
less whether these guns had been “on the street,” in homes or where they had
been.

When asked about the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the right of
people to bear arms and defend themselves — particularly poor people in the
inner city where the crime rate is high — Ware said, “Well, you know, we’re
hoping we can appeal to peoples’ sense of trying to find other ways of
solving their differences rather than using guns.”

Great. But, what about this constitutional right to have guns? Is she
against people using guns in self-defense? She’s already admitted that the
crooks aren’t turning in their guns. “I’m not in favor of guns, period,” she
replied. “I’m not an advocate of guns, period.”

So, here we have it, at last. This is the real agenda of the
gun-grabbers. They are against guns — all guns — period. And they couldn’t
care less about what our Constitution allows.

---

Larry Pratt is the executive director of Gun Owners of
America.