In the Letters to the Editor page. Because of the stats, although unsupported, it may be a good one to copy and hand out at some future buyback protest. Or, archive it along with other articles for future use.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20227-2000May27.html
Why Gun Buybacks Backfire
Sunday, May 28, 2000; Page B06
The lesson to draw from the reappearance of the gun buyback program: Never underestimate the power of a bad idea. This response to gun crimes is to hand cash to criminals to buy more or better guns [news story, May 19].
Does anyone really expect a criminal to walk into a D.C. police station, turn in his guns for $50 or $100 a pop and give up his life of crime to become, say, an accountant? It won't happen. Criminals will turn in their guns only if those guns are worth less than what the police are paying for them. Then the criminals can use our tax dollars to trade up to more powerful weapons.
So far, gun buybacks have done little, if anything, to reduce the number of households with guns. In Sacramento, Calif., 43 percent of those who turned in guns for basketball tickets admitted that they kept at least one other gun at home. In St. Louis, 62 percent of those selling their guns said they owned another, while 14 percent said they would buy another within a year, and 13 percent said they might. Thus the lunacy of using buyback programs to reduce the supply of something that is readily replaced.
In announcing the latest buyback program, President Clinton mentioned the shootings at Columbine High School and the National Zoo, implying that buybacks would help prevent such shootings. Does anyone seriously think the two deranged young Columbine murderers or the young thug accused in the zoo shooting would have sold their guns to the police?
The Clinton administration is spending $15 million of the taxpayers' money to buy back guns. I don't pretend to know the best way to spend that money, but surely this is one of the dumbest.
ANDREW R. STEPHENS
Washington
© 2000 The Washington Post Company
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20227-2000May27.html
Why Gun Buybacks Backfire
Sunday, May 28, 2000; Page B06
The lesson to draw from the reappearance of the gun buyback program: Never underestimate the power of a bad idea. This response to gun crimes is to hand cash to criminals to buy more or better guns [news story, May 19].
Does anyone really expect a criminal to walk into a D.C. police station, turn in his guns for $50 or $100 a pop and give up his life of crime to become, say, an accountant? It won't happen. Criminals will turn in their guns only if those guns are worth less than what the police are paying for them. Then the criminals can use our tax dollars to trade up to more powerful weapons.
So far, gun buybacks have done little, if anything, to reduce the number of households with guns. In Sacramento, Calif., 43 percent of those who turned in guns for basketball tickets admitted that they kept at least one other gun at home. In St. Louis, 62 percent of those selling their guns said they owned another, while 14 percent said they would buy another within a year, and 13 percent said they might. Thus the lunacy of using buyback programs to reduce the supply of something that is readily replaced.
In announcing the latest buyback program, President Clinton mentioned the shootings at Columbine High School and the National Zoo, implying that buybacks would help prevent such shootings. Does anyone seriously think the two deranged young Columbine murderers or the young thug accused in the zoo shooting would have sold their guns to the police?
The Clinton administration is spending $15 million of the taxpayers' money to buy back guns. I don't pretend to know the best way to spend that money, but surely this is one of the dumbest.
ANDREW R. STEPHENS
Washington
© 2000 The Washington Post Company
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
