Any time a major newspaper reports on gun buyback gimmicks, the reporter penning the story would do well to explore practical as well as ideological criticisms of such a program.
After all, gun buybacks do virtually nothing to prevent criminals from gaining access to weapons, and absolutely nothing to cause criminals to part company with their weapons. As such, the money spent on these programs is a waste of money and police resources, something that's especially true when the guns being discarded are owned by people who reside outside the jurisdiction running the program.
Yet that was of no concern to reporter Delphine Schrank in her December 16 piece in the Washington Post, "Police Net 279 Firearms with Buybac." Schrank's 16-paragraph article sounded like a press release for the city's Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), painting a win-win scenario with the gun buyback. An eeeeevil handgun is turned over to be destroyed, and the owner gets a fistful of spending cash:
For $100 and the prospect of some cash in hand for Christmas shopping, Levaun Dicks marched into the basement of Union Temple Baptist Church in Southeast Washington yesterday and handed a police officer a plastic bag containing a loaded 9mm Makarov semiautomatic pistol.
"It was lying in my dad's shed," said Dicks, 31, of Fort Washington, who was recently laid off from a real estate company. "It wasn't needed, and I need the money."
Dicks was among scores of Washington area residents to participate yesterday in the D.C. police department's gun amnesty program. Held at three churches -- officers had hoped the non-threatening setting would lure people who might be intimidated by having to head into a police station -- residents were offered $100 for assault-type rifles or semiautomatic pistols, $50 for revolvers, derringers, shotguns and rifles, and $10 for air, BB and pellet guns.
The buyback netted 279 firearms yesterday in return for $14,450.
Fort Washington is a suburb southeast of the District in Maryland.
Later in the article, Schrank dutifully passed along MPD's politically correct pablum about getting guns off the street (emphasis mine):
As in the past, police took the guns with no questions asked. They planned to test-fire them and gather ballistics evidence. Investigators will determine whether the guns can be linked to any crimes. Guns that have been cleared will be destroyed.
"We don't really expect people involved in criminal activity" to hand in their weapons, said [police Commander Joel] Maupin, who heads the 7th Police District in Southeast. "But every weapon we get is one less that could be used against an owner or anyone in the street. It's important to get any weapon off the street."
Maupin said the majority of buybacks were from citizens who had little use for their firearms.
Yet most of the citizens Schrank talked to lived outside the District itself. The Post reporter noted four individuals who turned in guns, three of whom came from District suburbs in Maryland. The residence of the fourth was not made clear by Schrank's reporting.
Of course, that's of little concern when your aim is presenting the grinchy, anti-2nd Amendment District government as a Sarah Brady-friendly Santa Claus (emphasis mine):
Handing over a 12-gauge shotgun and a shopping bag bulging with ammunition, Wanda Brooks, 56, of Oxon Hill also said she felt uncomfortable having a weapon hidden in a closet within reach of seven roaming grandchildren. The gun had belonged to her partner, who used it to hunt before he died last year.
A police officer handed her a $50 bill. She looked at it a moment and, with a smile, said, "I'm going to buy a Christmas tree."
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Take My Gun.....Please!!
December 17, 2007 - 13:44 ET by saw the lightTalk about the idiocy of government policy! The same thing just occurred in St. Louis. This article is nowhere near the liberal puff piece that was in the WaPo:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/7D4F343387686D85862573B4001803D9?OpenDocument
The statement that must make liberals go crazy is the last one in Ken's post:
A police officer handed her a $50 bill. She looked at it a moment and, with a smile, said, "I'm going to buy a Christmas tree."
Uh oh, harm the environment by cutting down a real tree or subject the family to possible poisoning by buying an artificial one. Such a dilemma! I guess you could just keep the gun and avoid the sticky environmental predicament.
And don't forget the
December 17, 2007 - 14:27 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAnd don't forget the idiocy of a "buy back" when the government never owned the firearms in the first place. Just wasting tax dollars on a liberal feel-good fantasy.
The woman with the shotgun and ammunition could've sold it all for much more in the private market place...heck, the ammunition alone was probably worth at least $100.00.
And what about the "no questions asked" crap? The Law Enforcemnet agencies are going to "test-fire them and gather ballistics evidence" so if they aren't keeping a record of who is turning in what ("no questions asked"), then how are they going to pin any evidence of any crimes on anyone? And how many crimes have been solved in the U.S.with ballistic evidence? Not many if any at all.
And no objections to the collection points being held in churches? Just about any other government program hosted in a church would've seen a liberal outcry for separation of church and state. So it's O.K. with the liberals for the government to collect firearms at a church, but it isn't O.K. with them to have any mention of God in our public schools?
Lets use our taxpayer's money to buy guns (many of which aren't functional anyway) from law abiding citizens (who are too stupid to sell them privately for what they are really worth) and waste more taxpayer money to ballistically testing them to gain "evidence" that won't help Law Enforcement solve any existing crimes, then use even more taxpayer's money to destroy the firearms that aren't taken home by people anywhere along the buyback-destruction line. Taxpayer monies could be more effectively used by putting more law enforcement feet on the pavement than to invest in a "feel-good" opportunity.
Idiots.
Next time I hear of a local buy-back program I should set up a booth across the street and offer more money than the buy-back program is offering. I can then increase my gun collection for much less than buying them at retail prices...maybe even get some great collector's pieces for dirt cheap!
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, good will to men." -H.W. Longfellow
Excellent plan, Dr. Love
December 17, 2007 - 19:11 ET by BlondeVery clever. I like it.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
The cheering that must be
December 17, 2007 - 17:35 ET by jdhawkThe cheering that must be going on in Maryland and D.C. by the criminals!
This is a dubious program at best that strips citizens of their last defense against thuggery.
A better course of action on the part of police departments is to teach citizens how to store, clean, handle and fire their personally owned firearms.
One of this biggest issues that law enforcement has is attenpting to get people to come forward when they have witnessed a crime. The primary reason that they will not is that they are scared that the soon to be fingered criminal may come back and injury or kill them.
The police should encourage firearm purchase and then, train citizens in how to handle their firearms properly. Then, when a criminal does attempt some thuggery, he or she can be dealt with appropriately.
I agree. Training citizens
December 17, 2007 - 19:01 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI agree. Training citizens in the proper handling, use and storage of firearms will go much farther in preventing crime (and accidents) than a buy-back program.
The only good that I see about a buy-back program is that it gets guns out of the hands of some incompetents or a few people that are otherwise not suited to keeping a firearm (ie. the woman that brought in the loaded handgun...I am assuming she had no idea that it was loaded or if she did know, she had no idea how to unload it). Handling any firearm without training is dangerous not only to the person handling the gun, but they put innocent bystanders at risk as well.
I think you are right though. Our tax dollars could be better spent training people and forming L.E. cooperatives with neighborhood watch programs/organizations.
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, good will to men." -H.W. Longfellow
Loaded question
December 18, 2007 - 07:15 ET by FranksamHow long before someone gets shot at a buyback program?
Liberals don't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory. -Franksam
Purposely or
December 18, 2007 - 09:46 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LovePurposely or accidentally?
Either way the MSM would spin it to demonstrate how we aren't having enough buy-backs.
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, good will to men." -H.W. Longfellow