5,337 Guns Removed From LA County Streets
nraclaptrap
More than $428,100 in gift cards are handed out in exchange during 2009
in the Sheriff's Department program. The city of L.A. conducted a similar
program, collecting nearly 1,700 weapons.
By Richard Winton
December 31, 2009
Los Angeles County's gun exchange program collected 5,337 weapons in
2009, including 144 assault-style rifles.
The Sheriff's Department and supporters of the "gifts for guns" program
handed out more than $428,100 in gift cards throughout the year at
supermarket parking lots around the county in exchange for the weapons.
"I tell the deputies if it is a gun that could harm one of our deputies,
then it is a gun we want off the street," said Lt. Anthony Lucia, who
oversaw the collection of 281 weapons this week at a Ralphs market in
Compton. One man alone there turned in 58 weapons, mostly small-caliber
firearms.
Handguns, rifles and shotguns were exchanged with no questions asked for
$50, $100 and $200 gift cards from Ralphs, Food 4 Less or Target.
Sheriff's officials have collected weapons in the Antelope Valley, San
Gabriel Valley, Santa Clarita and southeast L.A. County.
Gun buyback programs have attracted attention in cities across the
nation, but studies of their effectiveness in St. Louis in 1991 and 1994
found no demonstrable impact on firearm homicide and assault rates.
Nonetheless, the L.A County Sheriff's Department has made it a staple of
the department, and officials believe it is making a difference.
Almost every month, one of the sheriff's substations has gun donors
lining up in their cars and deputies loading weapons into shopping carts
to be eventually destroyed at a scrap metal recycling yard and turned
into reinforcing bar used in construction work.
"We use the rebar to build schools and other places to help the
communities," said Sheriff Lee Baca.
The gifts for guns program started five years ago in Compton. The city of
Los Angeles this year also conducted a similar program that during the
summer took nearly 1,700 weapons off the streets.
In recent months, Baca has begun collecting narcotics, prescriptions and
needles at drop-off mail-type boxes.
As part of the "safe drug drop-off," deputies have gathered about 800
pounds of prescription medications and 6,175 needles at the special
mailboxes.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-guns31-2009dec31,0,7856107.story
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Jim Alder
news:Xns9CF3DC75E47B5p...@216.196.97.131:
> 5,337 guns are taken off the street in L.A. County
No wonder nobody drives in LA. The streets are full of guns! That must be
hell on the tires.
--
My girlfriend asked me "Have you been having
sex behind my back?"
I said "Who in the hell did you think it was?"
nraclaptrap
news:Xns9CF3F263A4D91...@216.196.97.142:
> news:Xns9CF3DC75E47B5p...@216.196.97.131:
>> 5,337 guns are taken off the street in L.A. County
>
> No wonder nobody drives in LA. The streets are full of guns! That
> must be
> hell on the tires.
The guns were taken OFF the streets, Alderloon...
Along with your stinkin drunken carcass.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
slate_leeper
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Handguns, rifles and shotguns were exchanged with no questions asked
And this is the state and city that wants to register everything,
right down to ammunition. Yet they let criminals dispose of crime guns
with "no questions." Lovely logic.
RE: the whole premise.... Studies have shown that such programs have
had no effect on crime rates. What they do is reveal the attitude of
the government, who wants to "buy back" private property that it never
owned. How long until this morphs into "take back?"
-dan z-
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
The true measure of a people's freedom is whether they are armed or not. - Aristotle
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in
>news:Xns9CF3F263A4D91...@216.196.97.142:
>> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>> news:Xns9CF3DC75E47B5p...@216.196.97.131:
>
>
>>> 5,337 guns are taken off the street in L.A. County
>>
>> No wonder nobody drives in LA. The streets are full of guns! That
>> must be
>> hell on the tires.
>
>The guns were taken OFF the streets, Alderloon...
SO there are 5337 crime guns we'll never be able to trace to a crime.
Way to go.
betweentheeyes
news:Xns9CF3DC75E47B5p...@216.196.97.131...
$80 a firearm.
Can you imagine picking up a Kimber, Smith, Browning, Colt for $80.
Politicians and public funds. WTF
nraclaptrap
news:mdiuj5lksh0lh45un...@4ax.com:
>> Handguns, rifles and shotguns were exchanged with no questions asked
>RE: the whole premise.... Studies have shown that such programs have
>had no effect on crime rates.
What effect do they have on gun violence rates? Cite your source so we can
see what you think you're seeing.
I guess you'd say that if the Sheriff's Department dumped 5,337 guns in the
streets, then crime would go down exponentially. Yet the removal of the
guns has no effect at all?
Says who?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:9uiuj5hb9onojl4hc...@4ax.com:
>>>> 5,337 guns are taken off the street in L.A. County
>>>
>>> No wonder nobody drives in LA. The streets are full of guns! That
>>> must be
>>> hell on the tires.
>>
>>The guns were taken OFF the streets, Alderloon...
>
> SO there are 5337 crime guns we'll never be able to trace to a crime.
Who says the guns aren't processed before disposal? Does the word
"eventually" in the phrase "to be eventually destroyed" mean anything to
you, Roboloon?
I thought you never had an argument because you're a troll; now I'm
beginning to accept that you're just a dumbass with a big keyboard.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Klaus Schadenfreude
>slate_leeper <bycy...@spamex.com> wrote in
>news:mdiuj5lksh0lh45un...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>> Handguns, rifles and shotguns were exchanged with no questions asked
>
>>RE: the whole premise.... Studies have shown that such programs have
>>had no effect on crime rates.
>
>What effect do they have on gun violence rates?
Um, I could have sworn he said "none."
"The theory underlying gun buyback programs is badly flawed and the
empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these
programs."
-National Academy of Sciences
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:9uiuj5hb9onojl4hc...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>>>> 5,337 guns are taken off the street in L.A. County
>>>>
>>>> No wonder nobody drives in LA. The streets are full of guns! That
>>>> must be
>>>> hell on the tires.
>>>
>>>The guns were taken OFF the streets, Alderloon...
>>
>> SO there are 5337 crime guns we'll never be able to trace to a crime.
>
>Who says the guns aren't processed before disposal?
"Processed?" You ignorant ape. They don't ask any questions. Can't you
fucking read?
>Does the word
>"eventually" in the phrase "to be eventually destroyed" mean anything to
>you, Roboloon?
Yep. It means they take the ones they like for themselves.
>I thought you never had an argument because you're a troll; now I'm
>beginning to accept that you're just a dumbass with a big keyboard.
Try thinking for a change, fatso. If they don't ask any questions when
the criminal turns them in, and they are not already looking for a
particular serial number, WTF good does it do?
Or do you think that punishing the gun is a step in the right
direction? What do you think they do? Take it out and shoot it without
cleaning it? Soak it in salt-water until it talks? Bright lights? Good
cop/bad cop?
How fucking stupid *ARE* you?
Demon Buddha
> "I tell the deputies if it is a gun that could harm one of our deputies,
> then it is a gun we want off the street," said Lt. Anthony Lucia, who
> oversaw the collection of 281 weapons this week at a Ralphs market in
> Compton. One man alone there turned in 58 weapons, mostly small-caliber
> firearms.
Given that all guns are capable of hurting one of his precious
deputies, it follows that he wants all guns taken from civilians.
Isn't that special.
> Gun buyback programs have attracted attention in cities across the
> nation, but studies of their effectiveness in St. Louis in 1991 and 1994
> found no demonstrable impact on firearm homicide and assault rates.
> Nonetheless, the L.A County Sheriff's Department has made it a staple of
> the department, and officials believe it is making a difference.
Of course they believe. What else could such dishonest men do?
>
> Almost every month, one of the sheriff's substations has gun donors
> lining up in their cars and deputies loading weapons into shopping carts
> to be eventually destroyed at a scrap metal recycling yard and turned
> into reinforcing bar used in construction work.
I wonder: do they check serial numbers to see whether any of those
weapons were stolen so that the rightful owners may claim them? If you
or I bought such a gun under the same circumstances, would we not be
said to be in possession of stolen property?
>
> "We use the rebar to build schools and other places to help the
> communities," said Sheriff Lee Baca.
Oh my... I think a tear may be coming to one of my eyes...
No... false alarm.
RD (The Sandman)
news:j_KdneuhH7rIVqLW...@giganews.com:
> nraclaptrap wrote:
>
>> "I tell the deputies if it is a gun that could harm one of our
>> deputies, then it is a gun we want off the street," said Lt. Anthony
>> Lucia, who oversaw the collection of 281 weapons this week at a
>> Ralphs market in Compton. One man alone there turned in 58 weapons,
>> mostly small-caliber firearms.
>
> Given that all guns are capable of hurting one of his precious
> deputies, it follows that he wants all guns taken from civilians.
>
> Isn't that special.
And at $80 a pop for those 58 weapons, that turns out to be ever $4640
for new artillery in a larger caliber.....or several AR15s or AK clones.
>> Gun buyback programs have attracted attention in cities across the
>> nation, but studies of their effectiveness in St. Louis in 1991 and
>> 1994 found no demonstrable impact on firearm homicide and assault
>> rates. Nonetheless, the L.A County Sheriff's Department has made it a
>> staple of the department, and officials believe it is making a
>> difference.
>
> Of course they believe. What else could such dishonest men do?
Even though NAS and the DOJ both say that gun buybacks don't work.
>> Almost every month, one of the sheriff's substations has gun donors
>> lining up in their cars and deputies loading weapons into shopping
>> carts to be eventually destroyed at a scrap metal recycling yard and
>> turned into reinforcing bar used in construction work.
>
> I wonder: do they check serial numbers to see whether any of
> those
> weapons were stolen so that the rightful owners may claim them? If
> you or I bought such a gun under the same circumstances, would we not
> be said to be in possession of stolen property?
>>
>> "We use the rebar to build schools and other places to help the
>> communities," said Sheriff Lee Baca.
>
> Oh my... I think a tear may be coming to one of my eyes...
>
> No... false alarm.
You know that the cops are taking first pick of what comes in. It won't
be much of value but every once in awhile something will turn. If
nothing else some of them will make nice throw downs.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
nraclaptrap
>> "I tell the deputies if it is a gun that could harm one of our
>> deputies, then it is a gun we want off the street," said Lt. Anthony
>> Lucia, who oversaw the collection of 281 weapons this week at a
>> Ralphs market in Compton. One man alone there turned in 58 weapons,
>> mostly small-caliber firearms.
>
> Given that all guns are capable of hurting one of his precious
> deputies, it follows that he wants all guns taken from civilians.
Unless the guns are nonfunctional, eh Shemale Buddha?
>> Gun buyback programs have attracted attention in cities across the
>> nation, but studies of their effectiveness in St. Louis in 1991 and
>> 1994 found no demonstrable impact on firearm homicide and assault
>> rates. Nonetheless, the L.A County Sheriff's Department has made it a
>> staple of the department, and officials believe it is making a
>> difference.
>
> Of course they believe. What else could such dishonest men do?
You believe everything the lying lawloons at the NRA say, which makes you
only slightly less credulous than a religious nut believing Benny Hinn
can cure his anal cyst if only he donates his house to the goddamn
huckster. Shemale Buddha is exactly as gullible and doomed to
disappointment as is the faith healer's suckers.
And you don't have any scientific evidence to disprove a word the Sheriff
said, do you punk?
Next please.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Jim Alder
news:Xns9CF3EBDBD8D64p...@216.196.97.131:
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9CF3F263A4D91...@216.196.97.142:
>> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>> news:Xns9CF3DC75E47B5p...@216.196.97.131:
>
>
>>> 5,337 guns are taken off the street in L.A. County
>>
>> No wonder nobody drives in LA. The streets are full of guns! That
>> must be
>> hell on the tires.
>
> The guns were taken OFF the streets, Alderloon...
You think they got them all, huh? Does that mean you'll STFU now?
> Along with your stinkin drunken carcass.
And a happy new year to you, too, dickbreath.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF3EBDBD8D64p...@216.196.97.131:
What constitutes proof or even some grain of logic that real criminals would
turn in a gun for $80?
Let's try and keep the childish caterwauling to a minimum. Try a straight,
direct answer.
Where have these "buybacks" (which they aren't becuase that suggests the
persons in possession got them from the police or city to start with and
consequently are a lie even from the start) ever produced an iota of
difference in crime or in some way reduced the firearms accident rate?
Take as many pages as you need, provide cites.
--
Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent Global Warming.
"Hide the Decline"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
31,486 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, don't agree the
science is settled.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
What it appears to be all about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEZszGJHbK4&feature=video_response
nraclaptrap
news:Xns9CF4CB4559871We...@216.196.97.142:
>>>> 5,337 guns are taken off the street in L.A. County
>>>
>>> No wonder nobody drives in LA. The streets are full of guns! That
>>> must be
>>> hell on the tires.
>>
>> The guns were taken OFF the streets, Alderloon...
>>
>> Along with your stinkin drunken carcass.
>
> What constitutes proof or even some grain of logic that real criminals
> would turn in a gun for $80?
"Handguns, rifles and shotguns were exchanged with no questions asked..."
Next time read the article before asking stupid questions, Great Goose.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Jim Alder
news:Xns9CF4CDEB077F0p...@216.196.97.131:
>> What constitutes proof or even some grain of logic that real criminals
>> would turn in a gun for $80?
>
> "Handguns, rifles and shotguns were exchanged with no questions asked..."
>
> Next time read the article before asking stupid questions, Great Goose.
He's not talking about THAT statement, numb nuts. That quote merely proves
his point. He's talking about statements like;
"I tell the deputies if it is a gun that could harm one of our deputies,
then it is a gun we want off the street."
"...officials believe it is making a difference."
If there are 'no questions asked' how do YOU know these guns came 'off the
streets' and not from the homes of people they might protect from criminals,
but who think they need the $200 'bounty' more? How do you know they aren't
using coersion to disarm honest poor people? The answer: You don't know.
Meanwhile; "no demonstrable impact on firearm homicide and assault rates".
nraclaptrap
news:em71k5h6tf5jsjodh...@4ax.com:
>>>he police are saving taxpayers millions of dollars by giving
>>>riminals an opportunity to turn in these guns no questions asked
>>>nd having them disposed of. No long criminal trials, no
>>>nvestigations of cases, just rebar to build schools and churches
>>>nd police cars.
>>
>> You're aware that courts now accept documentary evidence taken from
>> crime guns which are then returned to their owners or destroyed?
>>
>> Eh, Roboloon?
>>
>> Next idiot please.
>
>mmm. You ARE aware that the conversation is about a turn-in program
>here firearms were voluntarily turned over (sold) to police, who did
>ot record any ownership information ("no questions asked"), right?
Burp. So you're saying the guns themselves had immunity from forensic
investigation? As if guns are just as human as you are; they're like you,
they're just like you, so no questions asked of the gun possessors OR OF
THE POOR LIL GUNS THEMSELVES...
Recede, Creeper.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Klaus Schadenfreude
>slate_leeper <bycy...@spamex.com> wrote in
>news:em71k5h6tf5jsjodh...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>>>he police are saving taxpayers millions of dollars by giving
>>>>riminals an opportunity to turn in these guns no questions asked
>>>>nd having them disposed of. No long criminal trials, no
>>>>nvestigations of cases, just rebar to build schools and churches
>>>>nd police cars.
>>>
>>> You're aware that courts now accept documentary evidence taken from
>>> crime guns which are then returned to their owners or destroyed?
>>>
>>> Eh, Roboloon?
>>>
>>> Next idiot please.
>>
>>mmm. You ARE aware that the conversation is about a turn-in program
>>here firearms were voluntarily turned over (sold) to police, who did
>>ot record any ownership information ("no questions asked"), right?
>
>Burp.
Hey, we appreciate that you managed to stop eating long enough to
reply, Jabba.
>So you're saying the guns themselves had immunity from forensic
>investigation?
Oh heck no, they'll confess to the crimes once they're water-boarded,
and then you can execute them.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF4CDEB077F0p...@216.196.97.131:
No you dull melon, that only says what happened. i asked for proof that it
somehow reduces crime.
You can provide that proof, melon head, can't you you or is this just another
Lee lie?
Gray Ghost
Jim Alder
> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9CF4CDEB077F0p...@216.196.97.131:
>
>> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in
>> news:Xns9CF4CB4559871We...@216.196.97.142:
>>
>>
>>>>>> 5,337 guns are taken off the street in L.A. County
>>>>>
>>>>> No wonder nobody drives in LA. The streets are full of guns! That
>>>>> must be
>>>>> hell on the tires.
>>>>
>>>> The guns were taken OFF the streets, Alderloon...
>>>>
>>>> Along with your stinkin drunken carcass.
>>>
>>> What constitutes proof or even some grain of logic that real criminals
>>> would turn in a gun for $80?
>>
>> "Handguns, rifles and shotguns were exchanged with no questions asked..."
>>
>> Next time read the article before asking stupid questions, Great Goose.
>>
>>
>
> No you dull melon, that only says what happened. i asked for proof that it
> somehow reduces crime.
>
> You can provide that proof, melon head, can't you you or is this just
another
> Lee lie?
Let's see how many more posts he dodges before he starts talking about the
Supreme court.
nraclaptrap
> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9CF4CDEB077F0p...@216.196.97.131:
>
>> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in
>> news:Xns9CF4CB4559871We...@216.196.97.142:
>>
>>
>>>>>> 5,337 guns are taken off the street in L.A. County
>>>>>
>>>>> No wonder nobody drives in LA. The streets are full of guns! That
>>>>> must be
>>>>> hell on the tires.
>>>>
>>>> The guns were taken OFF the streets, Alderloon...
>>>>
>>>> Along with your stinkin drunken carcass.
>>>
>>> What constitutes proof or even some grain of logic that real
>>> criminals would turn in a gun for $80?
>>
>> "Handguns, rifles and shotguns were exchanged with no questions
>> asked..."
>>
>> Next time read the article before asking stupid questions, Great
>> Goose.
>
> No you dull melon, that only says what happened. i asked for proof
> that it somehow reduces crime.
The Great Goose said:
"What constitutes proof or even some grain of logic that real criminals
would turn in a gun for $80?"
Answer:
"Handguns, rifles and shotguns were exchanged with no questions asked..."
Why would the LEA make a point to say they'd ask no questions if no
turner-inners were criminals?
Think think think think think.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
tankfixer
nracl...@invalid.invalid says...
So you condone allowing criminals to go free to make some pointless
gesture ?
Typical leftist...
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF5AC3C05043p...@216.196.97.131:
What you have is proof that SOMEBODY turned in firearms.
Do you have any proof that criminals are the people that turned in thier
guns?
>
> Why would the LEA make a point to say they'd ask no questions if no
> turner-inners were criminals?
>
> Think think think think think.
If, in fact, a criminal did turn in a gun with which he committed a crime,
say I don't know murder, and which the police actually have bullets removed
from the victim's corpse to compare to a gun should one be found on a
criminal what purpose are you espousing that lets a killer get away with a
murder that he cannot be prosecuted for, since the first time soneone is
arrested behind one of these bullsit showboats they will be over.
So, Lee, put down the donut, take a deep breath and answer these questions.
And yes, Lee, think think think think first, unless you are no longer capable
of it.
nraclaptrap
There will be proof when forensics find it, Frank. Doesn't usually
happen in response to your idiotic demands.
>> Why would the LEA make a point to say they'd ask no questions if no
>> turner-inners were criminals?
>>
>> Think think think think think.
>
> If, in fact, a criminal did turn in a gun with which he committed a
> crime, say I don't know murder,
Watching lots of Glen Beck are you Gooseygander? He usually puts an
"oh" in there to make his teleprompts seem a little more spontaneous.
Next.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Klaus Schadenfreude
>> thier guns?
>
>There will be proof when forensics find it, Frank. Doesn't usually
>happen in response to your idiotic demands.
Too bad they won't know who turned them in. But letting criminals run
free is a GOOD THING, right Jabba?
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF65B2DBD26Ap...@216.196.97.131:
You are pathetic. How long have they been doing "gun buybacks"? Has it ever
lowered crime ever?
I guess we should all close our eyes and wich real hard, right.
>
>>> Why would the LEA make a point to say they'd ask no questions if no
>>> turner-inners were criminals?
>>>
>>> Think think think think think.
>>
>> If, in fact, a criminal did turn in a gun with which he committed a
>> crime, say I don't know murder,
>
> Watching lots of Glen Beck are you Gooseygander? He usually puts an
> "oh" in there to make his teleprompts seem a little more spontaneous.
Sure sign of a LOSER, change the subject. What's is like to ficsh turds out
of the cesspool and BBQ them?
>
> Next.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF65B2DBD26Ap...@216.196.97.131:
> There will be proof when forensics find it, Frank. Doesn't usually
> happen in response to your idiotic demands.
And what "prrof" will that be, you moron? The guns were turned in "no
questions asked"? Even if they foresnsically examine all the guns and find
actual guns used in crime what will they then do?
nraclaptrap
> You are pathetic. How long have they been doing "gun buybacks"? Has it
> ever lowered crime ever?
Show us the official federal surveys and reports that prove gun buybacks
did not reduce crime, dumbass. That's your claim. Now prove it.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
>> There will be proof when forensics find it, Frank. Doesn't usually
>> happen in response to your idiotic demands.
>
> And what "prrof" will that be, you moron? The guns were turned in "no
> questions asked"?
The guns will not be Mirandized.
> Even if they foresnsically examine all the guns and
> find actual guns used in crime what will they then do?
Collect evidence off the guns suspected of being used in unsolved crimes.
They said no questions asked of the guys selling the guns, not that no
evidence would be collected from the guns. This might solve dozens of
crimes. Some criminals might turn in guns with fingerprints of rival
criminals all over them; or they just might be dumbos who need a few
bucks for drugs.
Why don't you give the Sheriff a little time to analyze the data before
you pronounce the effort futile? Or maybe you sold a few guns illegally
down in LA, eh Frank?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF66F291944p...@216.196.97.131:
You really are pathetically stupid.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF6713C8D519p...@216.196.97.131:
I repeat, you are pathetically stupid.
nraclaptrap
>>> You are pathetic. How long have they been doing "gun buybacks"? Has
>>> it ever lowered crime ever?
>>
>> Show us the official federal surveys and reports that prove gun
>> buybacks did not reduce crime, dumbass. That's your claim. Now
>> prove it.
>
> You really are pathetically stupid.
Enjoy, dopey.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9CF6713C8D519p...@216.196.97.131:
>
>> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in
>> news:Xns9CF668AC08C49We...@216.196.97.142:
>>
>>
>>>> There will be proof when forensics find it, Frank. Doesn't usually
>>>> happen in response to your idiotic demands.
>>>
>>> And what "prrof" will that be, you moron? The guns were turned in
>>> "no questions asked"?
>>
>> The guns will not be Mirandized.
>>
>>> Even if they foresnsically examine all the guns and
>>> find actual guns used in crime what will they then do?
>>
>> Collect evidence off the guns suspected of being used in unsolved
>> crimes. They said no questions asked of the guys selling the guns,
>> not that no evidence would be collected from the guns. This might
>> solve dozens of crimes. Some criminals might turn in guns with
>> fingerprints of rival criminals all over them; or they just might be
>> dumbos who need a few bucks for drugs.
>>
>> Why don't you give the Sheriff a little time to analyze the data
>> before you pronounce the effort futile? Or maybe you sold a few guns
>> illegally down in LA, eh Frank?
>
> I repeat, you are pathetically stupid.
I repeat, did you sell some guns to some criminals in LA and now you're
sweating it because you never inagined the Sheriff would actually gather
evidence from the guns?
Speak, dumbass.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
RD (The Sandman)
> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9CF66F291944p...@216.196.97.131:
>
>> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in
>> news:Xns9CF6686C58E66We...@216.196.97.142:
>>
>>
>>> You are pathetic. How long have they been doing "gun buybacks"? Has
>>> it ever lowered crime ever?
>>
>> Show us the official federal surveys and reports that prove gun
>> buybacks did not reduce crime, dumbass. That's your claim. Now
>> prove it.
>>
>>
>
> You really are pathetically stupid.
>
Just that idiot to read Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't,
What's Promising. National Institute of Justice, USDOJ, July, 1998. It
has been presented to him before. Have him look in the middle of the
center column on page 8. Or the first listed item on page 7.
nraclaptrap
news:Xns9CF6A56C1...@216.196.97.130:
> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in
> news:Xns9CF6A7AC7984CWe...@216.196.97.142:
>> nraclaptrap <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>> news:Xns9CF66F291944p...@216.196.97.131:
>>> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in
>>> news:Xns9CF6686C58E66We...@216.196.97.142:
>>>> You are pathetic. How long have they been doing "gun buybacks"? Has
>>>> it ever lowered crime ever?
>>> Show us the official federal surveys and reports that prove gun
>>> buybacks did not reduce crime, dumbass. That's your claim. Now
>>> prove it.
>> You really are pathetically stupid.
> Just that idiot to read Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't,
> What's Promising. National Institute of Justice, USDOJ, July, 1998. It
> has been presented to him before.
Here's a more recent study with a similar title that I recall discussing in
this newsgroup back in 2004:
Reducing Gun Violence: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising
Presentation by Lawrence W. Sherman
Professor of Human Relations
Fels Center of Government
University of Pennsylvania
April 5, 2000 Washington, D.C.
[begin excerpt]
Reducing Gun Violence
The 1997 University of Maryland report used a moderately high
standard of evidence for deciding what works to prevent crime: at
least two separate studies with a minimally adequate control or
comparison group reporting crime prevention effects.[13] In
addition, there could be no conflicting evidence at the same
level of rigor. Where only one such study was available, we
classified the program as promising. Similarly, two or more
negative findings were needed to put a program on the list of
what doesn't work, again without conflicting evidence.
This standard yields a very short list: two policies that work,
one that doesn't, and several that are promising (see sidebar).
What Works: Gun Patrols and Background Checks
The two programs known to work are epidemiologically focused on
the high risks of gun violence. One focused on high-risk times
and places and the other on high-risk people. The first program
required uniformed police patrol of gun crime hot spots in areas
with homicide rates many times above the national average. The
second program required background checks before selling guns to
ensure that buyers were "safe" (by some definition). Although the
patrol strategy apparently can address a far larger portion of
all gun violence than the background check strategy, the effects
of background checks could be greatly magnified by matching the
definition of unsafe people to the epidemiological data.
Uniformed Gun Patrols. The first formal test of uniformed police
patrols against guns was the Kansas City Gun Experiment in 1992.
Police in a high-crime area worked overtime to increase gun
seizures by 65 percent and found a 49-percent reduction in crimes
committed with guns.[14] This NIJ study found no change in either
gun seizures or gun crimes in a similar area several miles away.
A modified replication of the Kansas City study was funded by NIJ
in 1996 and carried out in Indianapolis. Two target areas either
maintained or increased the level of gun seizures, while gun
seizures dropped in a comparison area by 40 percent. According to
the Hudson Institute's evaluation by Ed McGarrell and his
colleagues, gun assaults, armed robberies, and homicides dropped
by 50 percent in one area and 25 percent in the other, even as
those crimes rose 22 percent in the comparison area and remained
constant citywide.[15] (Note that the result for the second
target area is a new finding, one that modifies an earlier
reported conclusion that the strategy had only worked in one of
the two target areas.)
An evaluation of the strategy of uniformed police patrolling high
gun crime areas looking for illegally carried guns was reported
recently in the Journal of the American Medical Association. In
this study, gun homicides in two Colombian cities, Bogota and
Cali, declined by about 14 percent whenever gun carrying was
banned, and police mounted special patrols using methods similar
to those employed in Kansas City and Indianapolis.[16] Gun crime
was not reduced as much as in the U.S. experiments, a fact that
may be related to the extraordinarily high rate of guns seized
per capita in the United States during the experimental periods.
For example, the rate of seizure in Kansas City was 42 times
higher than in Cali; no gun seizure data were available for
Bogota.[17]
The Boston Police Department's well-known reduction in homicides
in the early 1990s was statistically related to a major increase
in weapons arrests, in a pattern that mirrors the national trend
of increased weapons arrests and decreased homicides.[18] The
same pattern is found in New York City. The change in the ratio
of weapons arrests to homicides is the key change around the time
that homicide rates fell. As people carry fewer guns, fewer gun
arrests are expected as well as fewer homicides.
Plain-clothes patrols and drug enforcement recently have been
associated with controversial cases of police-citizen encounters.
The actions of these plain-clothes officers should not be
confused with the results of uniformed patrol experiments. The
Kansas City, Indianapolis, Colombia, and other data show the
effects of what officers do in uniform, with full public
awareness that they are police. In 1997 the Prince Georges
County, Maryland, Police Department mounted such a program with a
major increase in traffic arrests--all the more impressive, given
its reduction in complaints of excessive force at the same time.
There is no logical conflict between police (1) enforcing gun
laws more frequently (sometimes misnamed "aggressive patrol") and
(2) being polite to citizens and explaining what they are doing
as they go along.
Criminal History Checks. Background checks for gun buyers also
are effective at reducing gun violence. The Brady law is often
acclaimed as a success because it has stopped more than 300,000
people from buying guns illegally in a 5-year period
nationwide.19 The true test of its success, however, is not the
number of gun sales blocked but the number of gun crimes
prevented. While the gun homicide rate has been dropping steadily
nationwide since the Brady law became effective, the total number
of guns sold, the number of federally licensed firearms dealers,
and the reported level of crack dealing in some major cities have
also dropped. Because we cannot separate the possible causal
connections between gun homicides and the simultaneous changes of
these and other factors, we must look at microlevel data for a
more valid assessment of the effect of presale clearance
strategies.
Two impact evaluations meet the threshold of valid research
designs using the University of Maryland Scientific Methods
Scale. One study compared the subsequent crime rates of convicted
felons who were blocked from buying a gun with the subsequent
crime rates of people charged with (but not convicted of)
felonies who were allowed to buy guns. If convicted felons are
more dangerous people, we might expect them to have higher rates
of crime even if they were barred from buying a gun. But
according to the sample of 2,640 California background checks
examined by Mona Wright and her colleagues, the 170 convicted
felons who were prevented from buying new guns were 18 percent
less likely to be charged with a gun offense over the next 3
years than the gun buyers who had felony arrests but no
convictions. In other words, using arrested felons as a control
group, gun crime by convicted felons appears to have been reduced
by the background check policy.[20]
A second impact evaluation using a different research design
reached the same conclusion about the effectiveness of background
checks. David McDowall and his colleagues found that when Florida
adopted a mandatory waiting period and background check for
handgun purchases, homicide rates dropped relative to
controls.[21] Taken together, these two studies give background
checks a secure status as a means of reducing gun violence.
Although they do not necessarily reduce gun availability in the
places where gun crime rates are highest, it is at least possible
that background checks do so indirectly. Gun smugglers and straw
purchasers, for example, may have found background checks too
difficult to deal with and dropped out of the business.
There is an immediate implication of placing background checks on
the list of what works. That implication is closing the loopholes
related to gun sales. If background checks reduce crime committed
with guns sold in licensed gun dealerships, it is a reasonable
hypothesis that they would do the same for gun shows and third-
party gun transfers. About 4 percent of gun owners surveyed in
1994 had purchased their guns at gun shows, and 65 percent had
purchased their guns in stores subject to the Brady law. Thus
one-third of all gun sales are currently excluded from Federal
law on background checks, either at gun shows, through classified
ads, or in sales among friends and family.[22] Closing the gun
show loophole alone may not do very much, but requiring all
nonstore sales to be recorded and subjected to background checks
could broaden the impact of the Brady law.
What Doesn't Work: Gun Buyback Programs
The program that is best known to be ineffective is gun buybacks,
at least in the United States. In three separate, moderately
strong scientific evaluations, there was no reduction in gun
violence following the purchase by police of large quantities of
guns. Richard Rosenfeld's evaluations of two separate gun
buybacks in St. Louis examined a 1991 program that bought 7,500
guns and a 1994 program that bought 1,200 guns. Neither showed
any reduction in gun homicides or assaults relative to the same
offense types committed without guns.[23] A similar evaluation of
a gun buyback in Seattle found no reduction in homicide and some
evidence of an increase.[24]
From an epidemiological perspective, buyback programs receive low
marks for relating resources to risk factors. Nothing in the
structure of gun buyback programs focuses the intervention on the
risk. Guns are bought from anyone, regardless of where they live
or whether the gun was readily accessible to people at high risk
for crime. These programs are often justified rhetorically by
saying that "every gun bought back is a potential life saved."
Yet not all guns are at equal risk of being used in crime, a risk
that varies widely by geographic area, type of gun, recency of
manufacture, and criminal record of the gun owner.
The ineffectiveness of the gun buyback programs is all the more
important because this research has been ignored. These findings
have been in the public record for some time. They were included
in the 1997 Maryland Report to Congress and in the 1998 summary
of that report. There is, to my knowledge, no contradictory
evidence purporting to show that gun buybacks can be an effective
policy for reducing gun violence. In addition, these programs are
extremely expensive, usually costing hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Yet as recently as the fall of 1999, another Federal
program was launched to encourage local agencies to spend many
millions of dollars on buybacks in public housing authorities.
Such a program might conceivably have some effect on gun violence
if it was limited to residents of the small percentage of all
public housing projects nationwide that suffer gun violence
problems. But based on the citywide program results, that seems
unlikely.
What's Promising: Gun Bans
The available evidence suggests that several kinds of gun bans
have been effective, although none of the findings has yet been
replicated with rigorous field studies. One is a blanket or near-
blanket ban on possession of handguns. New York City first
enacted a near-ban on the purchase of handguns in 1911 with the
Sullivan Law. While this law has not been formally evaluated, New
York did have a lower homicide rate than many other big cities
for most of this century. The law clearly alters the dynamics of
the gun market, with strong evidence of the Sanibel Island
effect: 85 percent of New York City crime guns traced by the ATF
were imported illegally from outside the State.[25]
Handgun Ban in Washington, D.C. When the District of Columbia
passed an even more restrictive handgun ban than New York's in
1976, it created an opportunity for a detailed evaluation of its
impact on gun crime. Colin Loftin and his colleagues examined the
trends in gun homicides in Washington, D.C., and its surrounding
communities before and after the change in the law. The 25-
percent drop in firearms homicide that followed was not matched
by a drop in other types of homicide, nor in an increase in
homicide by other means. Nearby areas of Maryland and Virginia
had no change in either firearms or nonfirearms homicides. The
reduction in Washington, D.C., was sustained until the crack
cocaine epidemic in 1987.[26] Yet it is possible that the ensuing
increase in homicide that pushed Washington, D.C., to claim the
highest murder rate in the country might have been even worse
without the handgun ban having been in effect all those years.
National Assault Weapons Ban. The 1994 national ban on the sale
of newly manufactured assault weapons of specific manufacture and
design was the subject of a national evaluation mandated by the
Congress when it enacted the legislation. The NIJ evaluation by
Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper found that requests for ATF
traces of the banned weapons after use in crime dropped by 20
percent in the first year, steeper than the 10-percent drop in
all homicides and in trace requests for all other gun types.
Moreover, gun murders dropped 11 percent below projected levels
in the 38 States that had not previously passed a similar ban but
did not drop in States where such weapons were already
banned.[27] There was also a reduction in the rate at which
police were murdered with guns.
Finally, it is worth noting that since 1934, U.S. restrictions on
the ownership of fully automatic machine guns have been
associated with the extremely rare use of such guns in crime.
...
Reducing Gun Violence: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising
What Works?
--Uniformed police patrols in gun crime hot spots.
--Background checks for criminal history to restrict gun sales in
stores.
What Doesn't Work?
--Gun buyback programs in American cities.
What's Promising?
--Virtual bans on private handgun possession.
--Bans on the sale and manufacture of new assault weapons.
What's Worth Testing?
--Any program addressing a known risk factor and tied to a
careful evaluation, including:
----Bans on handgun sales and possession for all convicted
misdemeanants.
----Bans on high-caliber handguns.
----The elements of the Smith and Wesson agreement.
----Ammunition control for all or some bullet sizes.
----Waiting periods for ammunition.
----National one-gun-a-month laws.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/184245.txt
[end excerpts]
So you might be right about gun buybacks, and it's interesting that you're
DEAD WRONG about "bans on private handgun possession ... bans on the sale
and manufacture of new assault weapons..." and other interesting gun
control measures actually endorsed by Tony Baloney Scalia...
POINTS PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF6A9C037CDCp...@216.196.97.131:
Was there a specific statistic that I'm looking for or is this just another
pathetic way of not providing a direct answer?
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF6AA386187Cp...@216.196.97.131:
Oh, quite clever. Has it ever occured to you that reasonable people might see
your inability to answer my questions as proof you are a lieing puddle of
dogshit.
That in continuing to refuse to answer questions in any sort of reasonable
and rational manner you are clearly illustrating the vapidity of yoor cause?
That in so doing you are most likely driving people away from your position
becuase people don't like to be seen as being dishonest and stupid?
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF6C4A781306p...@216.196.97.131:
So, you admit that gun buybacks are useless? And then try and segue into some
other line of bullshit?
And how am I dead wrong about "DEAD WRONG about "bans on private handgun
possession ... bans on the sale and manufacture of new assault weapons..."
and other interesting gun control measures" since we are not even discussing
these in the first place?
You started your little rant suggesting that a gun buy back reduced crime,
after avoiding the the question of proof as long as you could you provide a
cite that says it doesn't work and now you want to produce more piffle to
somehiow save face.
Disembowel yourself. It's the honorable thing to do.
nraclaptrap
news:77a5k5plrso1pla0f...@4ax.com:
> Research: There is no evidence that gun buy-back programs reach the
> owners most likely to use their weapons.
> By Mike Dorning
>
> Mike Dorning wrote this article for the Chicago Tribune.
Dorning is a propagandist for the NRA. Google "mike dorning" + NRA.
Next.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:mda5k5hukmre7mniq...@4ax.com:
>>Show us the official federal surveys and reports that prove gun buybacks
>>did not reduce crime, dumbass. That's your claim. Now prove it.
>>
> Gun buyback programs have become widespread in the United States.
You haven't proved anything, but I found a source that cited 3 separate
moderately well-documented more-or-less scientific papers that said gun
buyback doesn't work, so I concede the point.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
I admitted that way back up the thread.
Do you admit that handgun bans and bans on manufacturing assault weapons
are promising ideas? If you reject the buybacks you must also accept the
handgun and assault weapon bans, just to be consistent, eh Zombywussy?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Gray Ghost
news:doa5k5hlarjlgkci2...@4ax.com:
> The DC law (which is actually the model for most gun-buy-backs)
> (Firearms Control, 6-2375) which says that if a person voluntarily and
> peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief any firearm "such
> delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such a
> person.... [and] no person who delivers and abandons a firearm...
> shall be required to furnish identification, photographs, or
> fingerprints."
>>
> Just in case you didn't understand; the person turning in the firearm
> is grant instant & full immunity (shall preclude the arrest and
> prosecution of such a person). So if you need to dispose of a Murder
> weapon, the best, easiest, and most economically feasible is to give
> it to the Chief who'll give you some coin to go buy another.
So to summarize, gun buybacks do not have the ends the perpetrators suggest
it will, ie lowering crime, are a waste of public monies and are a convenient
way to dispose of a weapon you committed a crime with.
And Lee thinks that it is a good idea.
If one is still pondering the whole gun control argument, one should consider
this particular set of facts and use them as a comparison of any other
"idea" that Lee may espouse regarding firearms and firearms law. They are
probably equally equally as senisble, logical and valid.
For example in the area of microstamping, Lee accepts as Gospel the
"findings" of the company that stands to make millions on the related
technology and dismisses out of hand numerous actual forensic experts who
have clearly demonstrated the uselessness of microstamping and the fact that
the resources spent on it could be better directed to other, more effective
methods, going so far as to slander and insult reputable men in the forensic
field.
Thanks again Lee for providng unimpeachable evidence of the vapidity of gun
control arguments.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF6DDAA4E99Ep...@216.196.97.131:
No, you did not. You have claimed that they were useful until caught so deep
that continue to Lee has become embarassing.
> Do you admit that handgun bans and bans on manufacturing assault weapons
> are promising ideas? If you reject the buybacks you must also accept the
> handgun and assault weapon bans, just to be consistent, eh Zombywussy?
So aside from the fact that these are not the topic and an a lame attempt on
your part to steer the conversation away from embarassing to you facts, no I
do not agree.
>
>
> --
>
>
> NRACLAPTRAP
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF6DC9BEC99p...@216.196.97.131:
And Lee is a propagandist for the Brady boobs. Go to thier website and
compare Lee's arguments to the putrid lies told there.
nraclaptrap
>>>>> You are pathetic. How long have they been doing "gun buybacks"?
>>>>> Has it ever lowered crime ever?
>>>>
>>>> Show us the official federal surveys and reports that prove gun
>>>> buybacks did not reduce crime, dumbass. That's your claim. Now
>>>> prove it.
>>>>
>>> Research: There is no evidence that gun buy-back programs reach the
>>> owners most likely to use their weapons.
>>> By Mike Dorning
>>>
>>> Mike Dorning wrote this article for the Chicago Tribune.
>>
>> Dorning is a propagandist for the NRA. Google "mike dorning" + NRA.
>>
>> Next.
>
> And Lee is a propagandist for the Brady boobs. Go to thier website and
> compare Lee's arguments to the putrid lies told there.
Google "lee harrison" + brady and the only cites you'll get is your own
stupid posts.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
>>>Why don't you give the Sheriff a little time to analyze the data
>>>before you pronounce the effort futile? Or maybe you sold a few guns
>>>illegally down in LA, eh Frank?
>>>
>> The DC law (which is actually the model for most gun-buy-backs)
>> (Firearms Control, 6-2375) which says that if a person voluntarily
>> and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief any firearm "such
>> delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such a
>> person.... [and] no person who delivers and abandons a firearm...
>> shall be required to furnish identification, photographs, or
>> fingerprints."
>>>
>>Just in case you didn't understand; the person turning in the firearm
>>is grant instant & full immunity
Says who? CITE!
> So to summarize, gun buybacks do not have the ends the perpetrators
> suggest it will, ie lowering crime, are a waste of public monies
I never said that. The turned-in guns can still be useful in solving
crimes. That doesn't mean the foresnsic investigations will prevent
crime; but they may well solve many open investigations.
> And Lee thinks that it is a good idea.
I sure do.
> If one is still pondering the whole gun control argument
Gun forensics form a very small part of my gun control and especially my
unassailable Second Amendment argument.
The Second Amendment being basically what this stupid newsgroup is about,
the inability of Frank Tauss to tell the difference between recorded
history and NRA disinformation, shall not be put up with.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF6E735B5E0Dp...@216.196.97.131:
> grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in
> news:Xns9CF6E8019B76DWe...@216.196.97.142:
>
>
>>>>Why don't you give the Sheriff a little time to analyze the data
>>>>before you pronounce the effort futile? Or maybe you sold a few guns
>>>>illegally down in LA, eh Frank?
>>>>
>>> The DC law (which is actually the model for most gun-buy-backs)
>>> (Firearms Control, 6-2375) which says that if a person voluntarily
>>> and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief any firearm "such
>>> delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such a
>>> person.... [and] no person who delivers and abandons a firearm...
>>> shall be required to furnish identification, photographs, or
>>> fingerprints."
>>>>
>>>Just in case you didn't understand; the person turning in the firearm
>>>is grant instant & full immunity
>
> Says who? CITE!
What do you think "no questions asked" menas?
>
>> So to summarize, gun buybacks do not have the ends the perpetrators
>> suggest it will, ie lowering crime, are a waste of public monies
>
> I never said that. The turned-in guns can still be useful in solving
> crimes. That doesn't mean the foresnsic investigations will prevent
> crime; but they may well solve many open investigations.
If the person that turns it in isn't identifired with the gun exactly how
will you prosecute them? I'm sure relatives of murder victims will be glad to
know that the cops found the gun that was used but can't prosecute the person
who turned it in.
>
>> And Lee thinks that it is a good idea.
>
> I sure do.
So even though you acknowledge it's worthless you still think it's a goof d
idea?
>
>> If one is still pondering the whole gun control argument
>
> Gun forensics form a very small part of my gun control and especially my
> unassailable Second Amendment argument.
The only thing unassailable on you is your ass with toilet paper.
>
> The Second Amendment being basically what this stupid newsgroup is about,
> the inability of Frank Tauss to tell the difference between recorded
> history and NRA disinformation, shall not be put up with.
Your lack of understanding notwithstanding.
nraclaptrap
There's fingerprints and DNA.
> I'm sure relatives of murder victims will
> be glad to know that the cops found the gun that was used but can't
> prosecute the person who turned it in.
If they get fingerprints or DNA they can catch a criminal or even a
murderer.
>>> And Lee thinks that it is a good idea.
>>
>> I sure do.
>>
>>> If one is still pondering the whole gun control argument
>>
>> Gun forensics form a very small part of my gun control and especially
>> my unassailable Second Amendment argument.
>>
>> The Second Amendment being basically what this stupid newsgroup is
>> about, the inability of Frank Tauss to tell the difference between
>> recorded history and NRA disinformation, shall not be put up with.
>
> Your lack of understanding notwithstanding.
Your ignorance about founding documents and the debates in convention and
in Congress that framed them, is your fault.
Next.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:doa5k5hlarjlgkci2...@4ax.com...
>>
> The DC law (which is actually the model for most gun-buy-backs)
> (Firearms Control, 6-2375)
Been superseded for quite some time now - you haven't bothered to read it
have you.
> which says that if a person voluntarily and
> peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief any firearm "such
> delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such a
> person.... [and] no person who delivers and abandons a firearm...
> shall be required to furnish identification, photographs, or
> fingerprints."
>>
> Just in case you didn't understand; the person turning in the firearm
> is grant instant & full immunity (shall preclude the arrest and
> prosecution of such a person).
Absolute rubbish - another lie/distortion that I have come to expect from
you.
The law actually says "shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such
person on a charge of violating any provision of this unit with respect to
the firearm...".
If you actually look at the URL I provided you will see that "this unit" of
law is "Unit A. Firearms Control Regulations.". So the person is only
granted immunity from prosecution for breaching firearm control laws, not
any other.
"Full immunity" - you are a total idiot.
> So if you need to dispose of a Murder
> weapon, the best, easiest, and most economically feasible is to give
> it to the Chief who'll give you some coin to go buy another.
Yet another lie - you haven't read the law have you - " No amount of money
shall be paid for any firearm, destructive device, or ammunition delivered
and abandoned under this section."
Scout
Heck I can verify that by personal experience. I sold 3 guns through a gun
"buyback" for $100 each. A utterly useless (and dangerous) .22 short
revolver that had been "repaired" by having the cylinder locked in place
with a set screw, but still slightly offset to the barrel such that it would
spew lead shavings out through the cylinder gap when fired. A early 20th
century double barreled shotgun missing all the wood and of questionable
nature and condition with a shear so screwed up that a simple shake would
cause the hammer to fall, and a ruger 10-22 that had been through a major
fire that burned off all the wood, and was then subjected to differential
cooling from being hit with water from the fire hoses, then having one end
being exposed to the air, and the other end still in roaring fire. Ended up
with a visibly warped barrel in sort of a bent corkscrew. None of these guns
were worth anything more than scrap metal price, none of them were in the
least likely to be used in crime past, present or future. But $300 got those
three guns "off the street".
Now don't you all feel safer from gun crime knowing that these 3 guns were
disposed of by this gun buyback?
Scout
> firing pin, I have to assume the proponents of such a program are not
> since they think it is some kind of panacea to the core problem of
> people acting badly not the tool itself.
>
> While not as simple as your average field strip, not that much harder
> then any detailed strip either. So let's say a $15.00 dollar part
> plus 5-minutes of your time tops and you'll have a non-micro-stamped
> firearm.
>
> On top of that if the firearm is used regularly (and shouldn't they
> all?) the micro-stamping on the firing pin will eventually produce
> numbers that aren't legible any longer.
Or you could spend 10 minutes of your time, polish the end of the firing pin
with some readily avaliable 400 grit and save yourself $15.
nraclaptrap
news:oeg7k5l20mjhk4vma...@4ax.com:
>>>>>Why don't you give the Sheriff a little time to analyze the data
>>>>>before you pronounce the effort futile? Or maybe you sold a few
>>>>>guns illegally down in LA, eh Frank?
>>>>>
>>>> The DC law (which is actually the model for most gun-buy-backs)
>>>> (Firearms Control, 6-2375) which says that if a person voluntarily
>>>> and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief any firearm "such
>>>> delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such a
>>>> person.... [and] no person who delivers and abandons a firearm...
>>>> shall be required to furnish identification, photographs, or
>>>> fingerprints."
>>>>>
>>>>Just in case you didn't understand; the person turning in the
>>>>firearm is grant instant & full immunity
>>
>>Says who? CITE!
>>
> Jesus H. Christ man I just cited you the law, what else do you need?
Post the text of the law, to prove it asys what you say it says.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:dah7k517tie832ojg...@4ax.com...
> Not if the fingerprints or DNA are on the firearm. They are both
> identifying characteristics and no identification can be captured by
> law.
Why not? Which law prohibits that? - the one cited above only states that
the person surrendering the firearm etc is not REQUIRED to furnish such
identification. It certainly doesn't say that law enforcement cannot use
whatever identification he does provide.
nraclaptrap
news:oeg7k5l20mjhk4vma...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:43:46 -0600, nraclaptrap
> <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote in
>>news:Xns9CF6E8019B76DWe...@216.196.97.142:
>>
>>
>>>>>Why don't you give the Sheriff a little time to analyze the data
>>>>>before you pronounce the effort futile? Or maybe you sold a few
>>>>>guns illegally down in LA, eh Frank?
>>>>>
>>>> The DC law (which is actually the model for most gun-buy-backs)
>>>> (Firearms Control, 6-2375) which says that if a person voluntarily
>>>> and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief any firearm "such
>>>> delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such a
>>>> person.... [and] no person who delivers and abandons a firearm...
>>>> shall be required to furnish identification, photographs, or
>>>> fingerprints."
>>>>>
>>>>Just in case you didn't understand; the person turning in the
>>>>firearm is grant instant & full immunity
>>
>>Says who? CITE!
>>
> Jesus H. Christ man I just cited you the law, what else do you need?
Come on, Zombywussy! I can't wait all fucking day for the supposed text
of the supposed section:
District of Columbia Law
DC Code Ann.
Title 6, Chapter 23: Firearms Control
Subchapter VII. Miscellaneous Provisions
6-2375
Post it or admit you lied.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:clh7k5t1rh3ohr0vm...@4ax.com:
>>>o, you admit that gun buybacks are useless?
>>
>> I admitted that way back up the thread.
>>
>> Do you admit that handgun bans and bans on manufacturing assault
>> weapons are promising ideas? If you reject the buybacks you must also
>> accept the handgun and assault weapon bans, just to be consistent, eh
>> Zombywussy?
>>
> posted the full article. I didn't say they were promising the
> uthor did. In case you aren't aware a ban isn't a form of control
> nyway.
Of course it is, moronic Zombywussie. You just got tangled up in your
own lies again.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:dah7k517tie832ojg...@4ax.com:
>> If they get fingerprints or DNA they can catch a criminal or even a
>> murderer.
>>
> Not if the fingerprints or DNA are on the firearm.
God you're stupid.
Next.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:ueh7k5dr9fhq782d3...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:14:01 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
>>news:doa5k5hlarjlgkci2...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>
>>> The DC law (which is actually the model for most gun-buy-backs)
>>> (Firearms Control, 6-2375)
>>
>>Been superseded for quite some time now - you haven't bothered to read
>>it have you.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/ykkhngp
http://www.vpc.org/graphics/dc.pdf
> Following the above link I get an invalid URL. Therefore I must
> accept your analysis as being invalid as well.
It's a pdf file. You can't handle a pdf? Go there and show us section
6-2375...
Hurry! Your bullshit's on fire!
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:ueh7k5dr9fhq782d3...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:14:01 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
>>news:doa5k5hlarjlgkci2...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>
>>> The DC law (which is actually the model for most gun-buy-backs)
>>> (Firearms Control, 6-2375)
>>
>>Been superseded for quite some time now - you haven't bothered to read it
>>have you.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/ykkhngp
>>
> Following the above link I get an invalid URL.
And obviously you made no effort to find the information yourself LMAO
> Therefore I must
> accept your analysis as being invalid as well.
Of course you must - you cannot let the truth intrude on your version of
reality. If you were too stupid to work out how to find it yourself go to
http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/search/default.asp?RS=GVT1.0&VR=2.0&SP=DCC-1000
and search for 7-2507.05 and click on the relevant entry.
Morton Davis
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:SaP0n.884$Mv3...@newsfe05.iad...
nraclaptrap
news:1tf7k5dog6i1bo6qb...@4ax.com:
> While I suspect that you are aware of how easy it is to change a
> firing pin, I have to assume the proponents of such a program are not
> since they think it is some kind of panacea to the core problem of
> people acting badly not the tool itself.
>
> While not as simple as your average field strip, not that much harder
> then any detailed strip either. So let's say a $15.00 dollar part
> plus 5-minutes of your time tops and you'll have a non-micro-stamped
> firearm.
Let's say all firing pins not micro-stamp engraved are destroyed and
possession of a gun with a contraband firing pin gets you 15 years in
federal prison.
You were saying, Zombywussy?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Scout
Well, actually with the $300 I got I bought 2 guns. A nice Marlin in 22WMC
for $70 and another Ruger 10-22 to replace the one that had been
destroyed....and still had money left over for ammo.
Sweet.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CF7B6596C12Bp...@216.196.97.131:
So... you are goinmg to mandate rthat someone goes into business to make new
firing pins for every firearm in existence? And you're going to require that
every single gun have this conversion done?
Buddy boy you clearly can't wait for the bloodshed to start. Neither can I,
for I will come to visit you on that day.
Gray Ghost
news:te78k59fmdds9gbil...@4ax.com:
> It is what a Defense Attorney will make of it. See here in the good
> old USofA we also have other things in our Constitution such as
> privacy laws, right to non-self incrimination, and unwarranted Search
> & Seizures. When they present the program as No Questions asked, no
> identification, and that little line that says "shall preclude the
> arrest and prosecution of such a person" in the legislation they
> passed to get these programs started there is what is know as the
> creation of an expectation. The Defense Attorney could make a real
> good case for entrapment, in the case of fingerprints it would be
> "Well of course his fingerprints are on it, he brought into the cops
> with his hands. Same explanation could be used for DNA.
>
> For all the reasons above, and two more. Firstly 99% of most
> departments Forensics Units can't possible process all the weapons
> turned it and secondly they don't have the secure storage space. The
> Cops simply catalog them on an Inventory Control sheet & then drive
> them to the smelters.
>
> I make the same challenge to you I did Clappie. Come up with one case
> where a gun purchased during a Buy-Back was used to clear an open case
> and led to the prosecution & conviction of person or persons (we know
> the gun is already getting the death sentence) and you'll have
> possibly proved what I already know doesn't happen.
>
> BTW -- If it is a Gun-Buy-Back Program does that mean the Police sold
> them to the current owner in the first place?
Apparently the fact that they would have to fire 5,337 firearms, assuming
they were safe to discharge, recover the bullet and then submit it to whoever
or wahtever compares the bullets for them at some cost per gun.
All to test 5,337 guns that may or may not have been used in a crime. Gee if
it cost only $10 a piece to test any one gun and submit it for testing that's
only $53,370 USD on a maybe. Plus the many hours of time it would take to
process all 5,337 guns.
Blinky is so stupid as to make Lee appear brilliant in comparison. He's a
hate filled little twat who is inconsequntial in the great scheme of things.
Spare yourself debating him, it is actuall more futile than debating Lee. The
only good thing about Blinky is he lives in Australia which means his stench
won't pollute pure American air.
Gray Ghost
news:4n88k5p3l0jv4r6gp...@4ax.com:
> First I need to know your definition of "Decent" and secondly which
> Pawn Shops and where. In my area most Pawn Shops ask damn near new
> retail pricing on everything in the store to include firearms. Which
> of course means the inventory sits there & sits there & sits there.
>
> There are quite a few Pawn Shops that sell firearms on
> www.gunbroker.com and I don't think I've ever seen a functional
> firearm go for $100 bucks from a Pawn Shop seller.
I was gonna say, i can't imagine any gun that I would want that would cost
less then a $100. The only excepetion would be any kinda interesting old .22
rifle. There were so many made and sold under so many different brand names
that good functional ones that aren't "collectable" just old can be had
cheap. I have a bolt and semi atuo that I got for under $100 each, but they
both work and are nice little addtions to my collection of .22 shooters.
Other than that, I can't imagine anything that I'd want that would run under
$100.
nraclaptrap
news:oc78k59p55nrpsv6i...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>> Why don't you give the Sheriff a little time to analyze the data
>>>>>>> before you pronounce the effort futile? Or maybe you sold a few
>>>>>>> guns illegally down in LA, eh Frank?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DC law (which is actually the model for most gun-buy-backs)
>>>>>> (Firearms Control, 6-2375) which says that if a person voluntarily
>>>>>> and peaceably delivers and abandons to the Chief any firearm "such
>>>>>> delivery shall preclude the arrest and prosecution of such a
>>>>>> person.... [and] no person who delivers and abandons a firearm...
>>>>>> shall be required to furnish identification, photographs, or
>>>>>> fingerprints."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just in case you didn't understand; the person turning in the
>>>>>> firearm is grant instant & full immunity
>>>>
>>>> Says who? CITE!
>>>>
>>> Jesus H. Christ man I just cited you the law, what else do you need?
>>
>> Come on, Zombywussy! I can't wait all fucking day for the supposed
>> text of the supposed section:
>>
>> District of Columbia Law DC Code Ann. Title 6, Chapter 23: Firearms
>> Control Subchapter VII. Miscellaneous Provisions 6-2375
>>
>> Post it or admit you lied.
>
> Blow me or admit you like to screw little boys in the ass.
You claimed to have cited a statute, I checked your claim and found that it
didn't exist.
Then another poster found the revised statute and found that it bore little
resemblance to your wild-eyed claims.
You're just wasting everybody's time junior.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:te78k59fmdds9gbil...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:15:25 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> It is what a Defense Attorney will make of it.
So can you cite an example of where that has happened?
? See here in the good
> old USofA we also have other things in our Constitution such as
> privacy laws, right to non-self incrimination, and unwarranted Search
> & Seizures.
How that applies to a voluntary surrender of an item relate to privacy laws?
Surrendering a firearm with DNA or prints on it is no more
self-incriminating than leaving DNA or prints at a crime scene. In the real
world self-incrimination is restricted to testimony, not physical evidence.
How does a voluntary surrender of a firearm relate to unwarranted search and
seizure? You seem to think you can wave your hands and reality will change
to conform to your fantasy.
> When they present the program as No Questions asked, no
> identification, and that little line that says "shall preclude the
> arrest and prosecution of such a person"
The little line is a bit bigger than you claim - it really says "shall
preclude the arrest and prosecution of such person on a charge of violating
any provision of this unit with respect to the firearm". And that means what
it says, not what want it to mean.
>in the legislation they
> passed to get these programs started there is what is know as the
> creation of an expectation.
Only for the terminally stupid and illiterate like yourself - the rest of us
have read the legislation and know what it actually says.
Blinky Bill
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF89936711AWe...@216.196.97.142...
> Apparently the fact that they would have to fire 5,337 firearms, assuming
> they were safe to discharge, recover the bullet and then submit it to
> whoever
> or wahtever compares the bullets for them at some cost per gun.
>
> All to test 5,337 guns that may or may not have been used in a crime. Gee
> if
> it cost only $10 a piece to test any one gun and submit it for testing
> that's
> only $53,370 USD on a maybe. Plus the many hours of time it would take to
> process all 5,337 guns.
>
> Blinky is so stupid as to make Lee appear brilliant in comparison
GreatGoat is so stupid that it has to construct a strawman - I haven't made
any claim about test-firing every gun.
<snip> rest of stupidity
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:u888k550nqbrrs52r...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:32:56 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
>>news:ueh7k5dr9fhq782d3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:14:01 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:doa5k5hlarjlgkci2...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The DC law (which is actually the model for most gun-buy-backs)
>>>>> (Firearms Control, 6-2375)
>>>>
>>>>Been superseded for quite some time now - you haven't bothered to read
>>>>it
>>>>have you.
>>>>
>>>>http://tinyurl.com/ykkhngp
>>>>
>>> Following the above link I get an invalid URL.
>>
>>And obviously you made no effort to find the information yourself LMAO
>>
> I have it form a different source and already posted what I have.
You will find that the original source is more accurate than what is
distorted and creatively snipped on a gunloon site.
> Unfortunately you and Clappie must suffer from similar mental
> disorders.
And those "disorders" compel is to seek truth and accuracy and to highlight
your dishonesty. Perhaps you should try to acquire the same disorder. LMAO
Klaus Schadenfreude
Let's say everyone keeps their ammo in a safe until they need it,
including cops.
Laugh laugh laugh.
___________
"If we had effective gun control in this country, there's no
reason why police would need to carry bullets in their
weapons. They could collect bullets from a locked safe in
the patrol car when needed."
Lee Harrison
nraclaptrap
news:Xns9CF8587AC8F1j...@216.168.3.44:
> Zombywoof <fish...@live.com> wrote in
> news:3h88k5thjjoc5j2r6...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:39:07 -0600, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Zombywoof <fish...@live.com> wrote in
>>>news:clh7k5t1rh3ohr0vm...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:47:28 -0600, nraclaptrap
>>>><nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you admit that gun buybacks are useless?
>>>>>
>>>>>I admitted that way back up the thread.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you admit that handgun bans and bans on manufacturing assault
>>>>>weapons are promising ideas?
>>>
>>>Only for dictatorships,kleptocracies and thugocracies.
>>>"assault weapons" are the modern "militia weapon",thus most protected
>>>under the 2nd Amendment.
>>>Handgun bans are only promising for criminals,who prefer unarmed
>>>victims.
>>>
>> While I agree with you on real Assault Weapons,
>
> IMO,a real "assault weapon" is an assault rifle;a real select-fire
> weapon. NONE of the 1994 AWB weapons were select-fire,they all were
> semi-auto variants.
> The TEC-9 was never sold as a full-auto weapon,and had the SAME
> abilities as any police officer's Glock 9mm pistol.
Then you should have no problem with banning them, eh Mr. Yankit?
> to the anti-gun folks,ANY firearm is an "assault weapon".
I like guns, Mr. Yankit. I just don't like idiots like you working
overtime to fuck with our sovereign state gun rights while chasing after
special neocon gun permissions, simply because the rightwing hates
liberals.
You guys are so fucking lost.
>> the author was
>> speaking more to the made up Clinton Assault Weapon which basically
>> translates to "Oww that looks scary" let's Ban it.
>>>
>>>Besides,bans DONT WORK,anyways. Not in any nation of Earth.They never
>>>have.
>>>
>>>>>If you reject the buybacks you must also
>>>>>accept the handgun and assault weapon bans, just to be consistent,
>>>>>eh Zombywussy?
>>>>>
>>>> I posted the full article. I didn't say they were promising the
>>>> author did. In case you aren't aware a ban isn't a form of control
>>>> anyway.
--
NRACLAPTRAP