Such as a gun buy back program cause such consternation for gun activists?

If a group (private, commercial, government) has money to offer individuals for their firearms in order to reduce the amount in circulation it is really no ones business but the group offering the money and the individual selling the gun. Yet anytime a program like this is initiated invariably gun activists bemoan and deride the effort. The same with the gun activists who threaten to burn down the store of the firearm dealer back east who wanted to add "smart guns" to his inventory for sell. It lacks common sense.

I understand the push back on a ban like the AWB and new regulations such as expanding BG checks to all sales, even pushback on ammunition capacity limits. Misguided as those are the pushback makes sense when viewed thru the lens of a borderline paranoia that bbelieves the one ban will lead to another or one new regulation will lead to more even though data does not back up that view.

But what a gun dealer wants to offer his/her customers or what a community group want to do with their money is nobody's business but theirs.

And politicians use it as a pandering tool to gullible constituents.

Yeah, I know... It's a mix of public and private money. But then corporations get all kinds of publicity for donating gift cards, so they also benefit.

Politicians benefit, corporations benefit, and nothing changes for the city or the neighborhood.

And let's not forget that what you buy with a $50 gift card always costs the store less then face value, so it's even cheaper publicity then you think.

The real idiocy comes from destroying the collected guns.

...I would applaud the idea dedicating some of Mr Bloomberg's billions to buying guns. It's his money (or his company's, trust's or other investment instrument's) to do with as best pleases him/them. I feel the same about any other individual or commercial interest. I feel it's a waste but it just doesn't matter to me. Tax money shouldn't wasted that way and I'm against that.

I like the idea of a dealer offering "smart guns". That would be a worthy program for a state or federal grant. Mandates that outlaw firearms other than smart guns need to go along with the legislators that voted for, drafted, signed or approved them.

I'm okay with expanded BG checks. Ammunition capacity should follow the manufacturer's designs and limits.

"Buyback" programs (a misnomer because you can only "buy back" something that was yours in the first place) are unpopular among gun activists for several reasons.

One is that they encourage people to turn in for destruction guns that may be unique and collectible. Paying $50 for an antique Colt Single Action Army and then destroying it is not only a disservice to the person bringing in the gun -- someone ostensibly not exactly wealthy -- but it also takes a valuable and historical piece out of circulation permanently.

Secondly, despite being touted as a measure to reduce gun violence, they actually provide a convenient way for criminals to dispose of crime guns. The "no questions asked" policy means that the guns being turned in cannot be tied to any individual, and a potentially valuable piece of evidence disappears forever.

As for "smart guns," the only pushback there came because the state in question -- New Jersey -- had recently passed legislation mandating that once any "smart gun" was available for purchase, only "smart guns" would be allowed to be sold in the state. That's a pretty dire situation for anyone shopping for a firearm as it would reduce the consumer's options to one unproven and expensive gun which may or may not be suitable for that consumer.

card for a $50 firearm thats their business. A lot of people find these buybacks to be a joke because they purchase firearms that do not function, or pay $25 for magazines that people turn around and buy 3 of them for the same price.

As far as "smart guns" there would not be so much push back if the State of New Jersey got rid of its ridiculous law. In that State they have a law that states that once a "smart gun" is available to the public then all handguns must have that technology within 3 years. So it effects everybody's business if they are in the market for a handgun and don't want the "smart gun" technology.

I could be wrong but I think that's the case.

impeding the development of the technology, sought a negotiation with the NRA and Congress about a modification but neither of them could come to an agreement with her new proposals. So the original law is still in effect.

Private companies put up the money, no problem.

I'm waiting for the next one so I can dump a defective .22. Since some bureauists insist on using my tax dollars, I will try to get some of it back in the form of $50 worth of groceries.

Incidentally, the "back" in "buy back" refers to whom? That always perplexed me as most guns are melted under some government agency. Did that agency own those guns, or is it just hat & cane use of the English, like "assault weapons" bans?

People tend to me give me old guns they want to get rid of. Some were beyond any use. In the past I took an Acetylene torch to them and threw them away, now I save them for a gun buyback. I got 200 bucks for some rusted out pistols that hadnt fired in 10 years, and used that money for an 870 shotgun.

So you don't like the term "cheap hookers" but you used it anyway?

I don't like killing either but... here we are in the rkba group.

but you like using the term.

cut the crap.

...you're pickin' on me.

if you don't like seeing your own words, I recommend you delete them.

...and, while the words in question aren't mine, I'm okay enough to use them to make my point.

Your words, OTOH, are another matter. Have nice night.

YOUR WORDS.

don't give us any bullshit, they are YOUR WORDS. YOU CHOSE THEM.

don't bullshit me.

"affordable courtesan" or "economy escort"

I'm not seeing the real point to the above exchange but I appreciate your help.

Billy Goat Gruff's nemesis and unscheduled aircraft diversions.

In http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172199830#post5 you asked if I like that term "cheap hookers".
I answered in http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172199830#post7 "not really" and asked, "you?"

Then in http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172199830#post8 you remarked that it was me that used the term and not you.
And again questioned, "So you don't like the term "cheap hookers" but you used it anyway?"
I replied again to the question which was asked and made a point of mentioned that situations which appear contrary still occur.

You repeated this same line of inquiry in post#10 http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172199830#post10 to which I made a joke.

This same asked and answered question is your focus and you apparently have a line thinking which you're pursuing but it's escaping me. Sorry I can't help you but thanks for the thread-jack.

As a side note, I'm not responding to your DUmail on the same topic since having the same exchange there looks to be as unproductive as it is here. Sorry to disappoint but I kind of don't care to continue as this is a waste of time.

Have a nice day.

"affordable courtesan" or "economy escort"?

Based on the poster and the placement in this forum, I can't even muster up surprise.

teenage delinquency...

...as my memory is not exact the question in the OP is based on my poor recall of: "Are gun buy-back programs like offering cut rate prostitutes in the hope of reducing rape?" from: http://www.tasigh.org/kevin/firearmq.html

Perhaps to gejohnston's suggestion I should say "low-priced lady of the evening". I will make the change to the OP based on the questions and suggestions of a few folks here.

Thanks

congratulations.

care to reveal anything else?

...2nd Amendment Rites on Lenora Ivie Frago for refusing to have sex with him.

I accept that someone died here and mourn the event.


You've provided no details nor list of facts with logical reasoning as to your assertion.
Your link points to a picture.

I'm not seeing that a reasonable person would engage in the behavior your highlight. I further suggest that any defect you see in Texas law is not immediately relevant to a buy-back program.

Since this bit of thread-jacking includes neither a buy-back program nor, apparently, a prostitute, I don't see any relation to thread topic.





BTW, hasn't word of the apparent pro-control boycott of this group reached you?

Without a gun to shoot the woman who he at least perceived to be a prostitute for refusing to have sex with him, the trial would have never happened, and he never would have had to go thru the agony and embaressment of enduring the trial and being acquitted of any wrongdoing in the exercise of his 2nd Amendment Rite to sex.

The connection with the OP is quite obvious.

Correction: A buy-back of his guns wouild have given him an opportunity to sell his guns. I am unaware of a Texas restriction on a private individual selling their guns therefore that option exists with or without a buy-back program. Further selling them outside of most buy-back programs generally nets the seller more for a functional weapon. Since the gun in question operated at least once, it's reasonable to assume that it was functional. It's also logical to assume that economics applies in that a higher price for the same goods is more motivating to a seller than a lower one. I submit that a buy-back program would be irrelevant in this circumstance as the shooter was evidently more interested in keeping his gun than selling it.

However, accepting for sake of argument that a buy-back program had existed and that the gun owner, for whatever reason, was motivated to sell the gun, the only change to the events would be the shooter would be presented with the idea of choosing an alternative weapon to "use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft."



I haven't read the details of the trial nor even a police account of the incident. The killer's actions seem over the line to me and not something I would do. The relevance of this story to the OP appears to me as tangential at best.

Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Conclusion: a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.

I hope this clears it up for you.

I don't know what else to call it.

...ended with post #41 with no reply or attempt at rebuttal from you, I gave it a bit and assumed you turned tail and gave up.

I'm not up on the exact rules of baseball but I believe that if you don't take the field when your opponent comes to bat, you lose.

...but you can't truthfully claim concessions on behalf of others. No one can.

The only concessions a person can truthfully claim are their own.