Who Wants to Put Up Some Money for a Seattle Gun Buyback Program?


You're right! The Stranger should go ahead and organize and sponsor a buy back program. I'm sure the "writers" would be happy to donate a month of their salary to fund it. Wouldn’t they? Or is a plan like that only appealing if it's funded by someone else’s money?
Wow, way to bury the story. The buy back program wasn't a success. The over paid for a bunch of guns, the people kept other guns and a few historical items are going to be melted. I bet LA is real safe now that grandma got rid of grandpa's m1 from the 1940's. or that broken shotgun some guy used as a club. Or the few "assault weapons" that we're probably stolen but never actually used in a crime.
Some of those civilian machine gun bushmaster things are going for 3000.00 now because of all the ban talk. They were 1000.00 two weeks ago. You gonna cut them a check? Yeah, a 100 dollar gift card for qfc will do it. I've seen pictures of the lines at these buy backs. The no questions asked policy brings out the darkies with guns stolen from law abiding citizens homes. The government becomes a completely safe fence. Buy backs are bullshit.
If the Stranger starts a campaign, or finds a big matching donor, I'm in.
I wonder if the folks doing the buybacks had the proper licensing and background checks.
The pro-charter billionaires don't care about kids. That's why they donated so much money. They only care about their own children, whom they'd never send to a charter school. Donors from the community will be much more likely to step up.
I paid for college with a combination of scholarships and a buy back program. I inherited about 200 firearms from my grandpa. Of course in early 2000s college was pretty cheap.
@5, they were LAPD.
Here's how they did it here in San Francisco...

Ralph's is not local to California. It was part of the local (to WA & OR) chain Fred Meyer. When Fred Meyer merged with Kroger, Ralph's became part of the Kroger empire. I believe it (Kroger) is the largest grocery retailer in the US.
TJ is right on. Ralph's is Kroger, as is QFC and Fred Meyer. If Kroger would do that there, they'd do it here.
@2 That last one would actually be an interesting effect to study. Have two lines, the one with "no questions asked" earning only half the gift card value as the "registered owners with ID" line. If nobody stands in the ID line, we can be pretty sure you're right.

Of course, until you do that study it's just a theory.
What #10 said: Ralph's is one of many supermarket brandnames in the sprawling Kroger empire, which also owns QFC and Fred Meyer.
So $150,000 to get 75 assault weapons.
Anyway, how about instead of once a year you push for every month or every other week or something?
The first post Goldy has made on guns that has any realistic chance of happening. Sorry Goldy. But really, it is a fantastic idea.
What happens if a stolen gun is turned in to the buyback program? Does it go back to the rightful owner?
Speaking of gun buybacks:


I'm glad that the police officers were ethical enough to tell her what was up. That thing belongs in a museum.
@16 offer the registered rightful owner of a buy-back gun a gift card as well - they're better off than if the buy-back program had never happened (unless they made a claim on their insurance, of course...)

@12, as an engineer you should recognize that until the study is run you only have a hypothesis, not a theory...

People sure like to piss on Goldy, but he's offering some creative ideas - though I still like his early offering the best: $75/yr licensing fee to pay for the NRA's armed guards in every school program - that was inspired!
@18: Apply this to any property besides firearms and you'll see how ridiculous it is. "Hey, we know your TV was stolen and we willingly acted as a no-questions fence for the thief, but go have dinner at Applebee's, on us, while we melt it down. You should be thanking us!"

Short of that, and the potential for destroying historically significant firearms, I don't really take issue with buyback programs. They mostly accomplish what they're setting out to do.
Goldy - Since private face-to-face sales in OR and WA don't require background checks, what will happen at your event will be that the 2nd Amendment crowd will show up outside the venue and offer to buy the guns for cash on the spot. Totally legal, and totally annoying.

This currently happens down in the Portland area whenever one of these events is held. Expect it here...
@19 - most people never get their stolen property back, and in this case the gun could be said to have been used in a crime (the theft itself), so ridiculous? I guess I don't care.
@21: If that's the logic, then wouldn't the police be unobliged to return ANY stolen property that they find?

"Sorry, your car was stolen, and it was involved in a crime: the theft of your car. We're melting it down now."

You don't see how silly that is?
Gun buybacks fail* because they typically collect lots of stolen** and broken guns.

If people were so burdened by guns they really needed to sell, they would go to the mythical gun shows where people sell to terrorists and mentally unstable people and get market rates.

*If they are too successful they often end up selling the guns wholesale to make back the money.

**they also collect guns that have been used in crimes, since the police don't ask questions, since its impossible to check every one, its a great way to launder weapons.
One thing worth noting: here in Southern California, Kroger operates at least two brands of supermarket: Ralph's, and Food 4 Less. Ralph's is aimed more upscale, Food 4 Less more downscale. You'll find fancier items at Ralph's, especially at the deli counter, and cheaper items at Food 4 Less. Some identical items are more expensive at Ralph's.

The reason I bring this up is that the target market for a gun buyback is more likely to do their shopping at Food 4 Less - but the target market to think positive thoughts about a brand name because they've heard of a gun buyback is more likely to shop at Ralph's. And it's the latter brandname that funded the buyback.
If you guys found a decent donor to match, i'd probably put about $1000 towards it. The less guns that are just "laying around" the less that will be stolen out of homes and never reported stolen only to go on and be used in crimes.
How about a 1000% tax on bullets to fund gun buy-back programs? Problem solved.
@23 Please cite some statistics to back up your assertions. Because according to a study of Seattle's 1992 buyback program, only 1.8 percent of the guns collected had been reported as stolen, and 83 percent were known to be operational.

Assumptions don't cut it. If you're going to make claims like that, back them up with facts.
BRB heading to Home Depot for pipes and rubberbands, gonna build 100 zipguns.

Imma be rich!
@22 Is your assertion that refusing to return a stolen gun bought in a buy-back program to its rightful owner is silly? or that treating different kinds of stolen property differently is silly? (ever had a bike stolen? I assure you it's treated much differently than having a car stolen) or that I'm silly?

I don't see anything in your posts which suggests you think removing these guns from circulation is abhorrent, so I repeat: gun theft victim doesn't get his gun back - I don't care. State action always pisses someone off, but we reserve the label "social engineering" only for that legislation which pisses us off...

Don't want your gun stolen? keep it in a gun safe! You could even make the case that a stolen gun is exactly the kind of gun we should be targeting for destruction.

As for historically significant guns - I'm guessing the cops running the buy-back program are better qualified to identify them than most of us are, and after all, a Chevy Corvair is historically significant, but it's still unsafe at any speed.
@29: "Is your assertion that refusing to return a stolen gun bought in a buy-back program to its rightful owner is silly? or that treating different kinds of stolen property differently is silly? (ever had a bike stolen? I assure you it's treated much differently than having a car stolen) or that I'm silly?"

My assertion is that the police recovering stolen property that was legally owned by someone and smelting it instead of returning it to the legal owner is ridiculous. Gun, car, or bicycle.

"so I repeat: gun theft victim doesn't get his gun back - I don't care."

Would you care if they smelted stolen cars? What's the difference? Legally owned property is legally owned property. I suspect you're so caught up with the idea that it's a gun that it's clouding your ability to compare it to any other property.

"Don't want your gun stolen? keep it in a gun safe!"
I do.


"In Seattle, researchers also checked coroner's records and hospital admissions data for the six months following a buyback in 1992. They found no evidence of an effect on firearms-related deaths or injuries.

"The continuation of buyback programs is a triumph of wishful thinking over all the available evidence," said Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis."

I can dig up some partisan slanted bullshit just as easy as you can, the problem is finding objective info.


"...Comparing firearm-related events per month before and after the program, crimes and deaths increased, and injuries decreased, but the changes were not statistically significant. "

and here's a times article questioning their worth two years later.


""To the extent that the street guns become more valuable . . . it probably means an increased incentive to steal them or run them from other jurisdictions," he said."
Maybe coupled w/ easy simple way to report stolen gun and something like how we deal w/ real sudafed to watch for people buying in excess. ... Of course which brings to mind the White Rose Resistance under Nazi Regiem, the gestapo had the clamp down on everything, all goods were rationed. They had to work for long time to accumulate enough paper to print leaflets on, and the same w/ stamps.
[any sort of rationing brings this to mind, some sort of permanent association in my head]
@31 See, this is what I meant in another thread when I said that the facts and the truth are not necessarily the same thing. From the Seattle buyback study:

"... the 1,700 handguns collected by the SGBBP represent less than 1 percent of handguns in Seattle homes. Even under the unlikely assumption that guns turned in during buy- back programs are as likely to be used in a crime as the guns not exchanged, the effect of removing 1 percent of guns from the community on rates of firearm crimes is negligible. In 1979, Cook found that a 10-percent reduction in the prevalence of firearm ownership was associated with a 4-percent reduction in the robbery murder rate (23).

The Seattle buy-back program failed to reduce significantly the frequency of firearm injuries, deaths, or crimes. The evaluation was incapable of detecting small changes in these rates, given the year-to-year and month-to-month variation. A much larger number of guns would need to be collected to impact on firearm morbidity and mortality."

The study did not conclude that the Seattle buyback program was ineffective. It concluded that the reduction in the number of guns was too small to provide a statistically meaningful measure of its effectiveness. Big difference.
So if "the number of guns was too small to provide a statistically meaningful measure of its effectiveness" how did you determine that "Seattle ran a successful gun buyback program 20 years ago"? How did you define and measure the success of that program? (Please provide your reference materials).
@34 It was successful in that a lot of gun owners took advantage of it. People traded their guns for cash. Success.

That said, @23 made assertions of fact whereas I used a subjective word to describe to describe the program. Not the same thing. So you're not as clever as you think in demanding that I back up my facts.
Oh... In the future please try to be clearer when you're being "truthful" rather than "factual". Maybe you could use Comic Sans script to identify "truthy" statements that are not actually "factual".

I guess that “it was 'successful' because 'a lot' of gun owners took advantage of it" probably meets The Stanger’s high journalistic bar.
@34/35: Take note that it was as successful as it could have been - the buyback program ran out of money, so they couldn't take any more guns. It's hard to measure success or failure when your funds don't allow you to make a statistically significant dent.
Sell your $50 broken/stolen gun to Goldfucker so he can feel better. If you have a functioning/legal firearm, sell it on gunbroker.com. Prices are hot right now!

No wonder the Stranger hired this turd and made him an honorary bum boy. He's as smart as they are.
Wait. Now the gun nuts can't even tolerate a gun buyback program?

This pretty much settles it, doesn't it? Gun nuts don't care about the 2nd Amendment. They don't care about crime. They don't care about shootings: accidental, suicides, rampages, whatever. Don't care. They don't care about any of the stuff they're always going on about.

They care about one thing: having as many guns on the street as possible. The guns themselves are their goal. They want the world flooded with guns.

They love guns like they were their children. Like they want guns to be fruitful, and multiply. It's all about the guns for them.

Which is really, really, um, sad to say it again, nuts.
@33 HA HA HA

Not only was there not enough of a difference to be statistically significant, the point estimate of the number of firearm-related events INCREASED following the buy back. In the world of science and statistics we learned nothing for certain but the trend doesn't look good. As long as we want to make up stories I'll put my money on criminals turning in their crummy old weapons for down payments on better pieces.
@39 Exactly. They're even pushing back against the notion of a voluntary, privately funded, gun buyback program. That tells you everything you need to know about the gun lobby.
I know plenty of "gun nuts" that are hanging on to a few useless firearms with no value and minimal function waiting for the right buyback. Nothing like getting $200 for uncle's beat to hell truck gun that nobody else wants to buy.

My friends might also stand outside with cash to make sure that no valuable artifacts get turned into scrap. These buybacks are usually happy to melt down collectible guns with value that the current owners can't recognize.
@25 -dead on. Gun buy backs are not aimed at getting bushmasters and ak-47s, they are aimed at cleaning out the junk drawer, low level and some possibly stolen guns. I would actually guess, if you did buybacks consistently and nationwide, the biggest impact would be on accidental deaths.
1-just because a gun is broken does not mean it can't discharge, perhaps unexpectedly. Much safer to get it out of the house. I can tell you this from experience.
2- the 'old gun you got from your cousin' probably isn't being stored safely, and can easily be stolen or mishandled by a young or inexperienced person
3-if a gun has been stolen it will never find its way back to the right side of the law. may as well melt it down.
4- if gun collectors wanna stand out front and try to buy the few high quality/collectable firearms that come in, that actually seems pretty clever on their part. good for them.
etc. etc. The idea that it was a grocery store gift card is even better. Maybe we could get a local chain to sell cards to the program at a 5% discount, or have 2-3 options so folks could shop near to their homes.
@42- also exactly right, I know so many people with piles of junk guns/parts that are just waiting for a buyback in their area so they can cash in. Nothing wrong with that at all. Again-many of those guns still fire, or could be used to threaten since its hard to tell the difference during a robbery (ask me how I know) and are rarely kept in the safe like the good/working guns. safer for everyone if they are melted.
The study did not conclude that the Seattle buyback program was ineffective. It concluded that the reduction in the number of guns was too small to provide a statistically meaningful measure of its effectiveness. Big difference.

No, you pathetic twit, I believe the operate phrase is "a distinction without a difference." Good God, it's a wonder you're smart enough to breathe.

Having participated in 'The Great Stranger Gun Debate' of the last month or so, I've been clearly labeled as a 'gun nut' by my fellow (and beloved) liberals.

Having said that, and as a lifetime NRA member, I fully support your notion of a privately-funded gun buyback program.

Even though, to me, it's just more feel-good bullshit that won't affect gun violence in the slightest, I support you in this endeavor. The difference here is that it doesn't impinge on my right of self-defense and, thus, I have no problem.

Knock yourself out... and I sincerely hope it saves lives. Hell, if you get it going, I'll even volunteer to help on buyback day.

Happy now? Will you accept goodwill and labor from a gun nut? I'm genuine and serious in my offer.


The problem with making sockpuppet accounts to fake up astroturf support for the NRA is that anybody can click on your name and read your comment history. Doh!
Show me empirical evidence that buyback programs are successful in curbing gun violence (or even accidental deaths) and I’ll be the first to cut a check. But first I need a definition of success and metrics with which to measure it. Considering all the unintended consequences it seems like they may be successful marketing ploys for grocery stores, and successful methods for making people ‘feel’ like they are making a difference, but I’m not convinced they are much more than that. I try to focus my giving dollars on programs that demonstrate measurable success.

Then look up my comment history and see for yourself, fool.

I did. Like "liberals" everywhere, you care about only two things: opposing gun laws, and, uh, noodle restaurants.

Sock puppet.

But we don't need you for a gun buyback. Why must we show you anything? Why are you even concerned? If a group of people wishes to pool their money and buy guns with it, what does that have to do with you?

You don’t, and I never said you did. Did I?

The title of the post is “Who Wants to Put Up Some Money for a Seattle Gun Buyback Program?”

My answer is: Me!!! If you can show me that those programs are successful by defining success and how it will be measured.

Now... Who's organizing this thing (and can answer my simple question regarding its success)? How much is the Stranger putting in? And, how much are YOU putting in? (I’m sure that I'll want to at least match your generous contribution.)

OK then. You don't think they've been successful and so won't be donating. There. Nothing more to see here.

Yet for some reason you keep hanging around worrying that somebody else might donate. Why? What's in it for you? What do you have to fear from an ineffective program?
@49 Ouch! Served! Brilliant!

it was a long way to go, but internet smile of the day!

You just can't take "yes" for an answer. Can you?

I never said they are not successful.
I never told anyone not to contribute to them.
I only asked for additional information about their outcomes and how they are measured.

Let me repeat myself AGAIN…

If gun buyback programs are successful in reducing gun deaths I will support them in principal and with cash.

I only ask to know (as I do with any program I contribute to) how is the success of the proposed program defined and measured?

Jesus you're insufferable.

Jesus, you're disingenuous. Who do you think you're fooling, anyway?
A no-questions-asked, privately-funded gun buyback program sounds fine to me. Though I wouldn't be surprised when anything worth buying gets a private offer over the buyback price.
Why not just eliminate the middleman and have the city cut Colt, Kel-Tec, Ruger, et al. a check every year? Is taking a few guns out of the community going to make a dent in the homicide rate? Money spent on buybacks would be put to better use lobbying to close the gun show loophole (the "loophole" by which 40% of all guns are purchased, the loophole that allows guns to be bought and sold without background checks).
"outrage remains high"

That we ended psych ward funding, treatment centers, meds, and prison space...yeah. If you feel outrage toward an inanimate metal, wood and plastic object, you are by definition insane.