Posted on 06/07/2005 9:21:20 AM PDT by marylandrepub1
The $141,000 the police have doled out in seized drug money over the past week to buy guns off the street is expected to end today. Through the weekend, police had purchased more than 1,600 guns. So what's the problem in getting such killing instruments out of people's hands? The police answer is the sound of more nobility: If they can prevent one child accidentally shooting another child, it's worth the money.
The National Rifle Association, with its deep pockets and its sense of utter amorality, has sold self-protection and the Second Amendment as its part of the debate (and opposes gun buybacks).
"I don't know," police spokesman Matt Jablow said yesterday. "I know that if we can prevent one child from being shot, or crimes from being committed, then it's a tremendous success. Given the amount of guns turned in, we've done just that. There's no way that one of these guns wouldn't have been used in a crime, or gone off and injured a child. But I can't tell you why people are turning in their guns. And I don't care why."
What matters is: They're doing it. The city's 2005 homicide total is now 111 (a year ago at this time, 115). There are 208 more individuals who were shot but lucky enough to survive. (A year ago, 230.)
The police understand this, as they dole out the last of their money. They are not naive. They insist, with reason, that the buyback is a tiny part of their fight against crime. But the buyback also restates a psychological cry that needs to be sounded from time to time. It is harder for them to protect us when we insist on arming ourselves, and this is their small, hopeful gesture to make us understand.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Seems that he can justify anything with a claim like this. Note Olesker's tone of moral superiority and his moral disgust for those that disagree with him. Talk about black and white. The only grey areas to him are the Baltimore criminals who are not at fault (we deny them free drug treatment.)
Guns are evil, forcing people to commit crimes and pulling their own triggers to injure children.
The "it's for the children" mantra is beginning to wear thin.
Hartford CT gave up its Gun Bayback program when the city figured out that Gang Bangers were bringing in murder weapons, getting cash for them, No questions asked and buying new weapons with the money. It was exposed as a Gun Laundering Program. The police had paid for murder weapons and couldn't examine them for ballistics evidence.
You are absolutely correct. Gun buyback programs do nothing more than put fresh cash in the hands of drug abusers.
Lots of police don't like guns in the hands of citizens. They don't think it's healthy for any community. It is harder for them to protect us when we insist on arming ourselves, and this is their small, hopeful gesture to make us understand.
Boy, the author of this article sure is a weenie... I bet he sleeps with the light on. I'll bet he'd crap his panties if he knew the cops don't protect anybody, they're just the cleanup crew.
Haven't they read the latest reporsts about violent crimes being in a downward trend, especially in cities of a million or more? Their statistics of a decline nestle right in with the statistics for cities whether they had gun buybacks or not.
"It is harder for them to protect us when we insist on arming ourselves,"
Is being able to defend myself going to make the police show up later? Lessen the paperwork? If I give up my firearms will that make the police somehow psychic so they will know beforehand that a crime is about to go down? I'll take the NRA's 'sense of utter amorality' any day over the sanctimonious drivel of the gun grabbers.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.olesker31dec31,1,1784513.column?coll=bal-home-columnists
Here's another sample. His outrage over our governor vetoing another tax increase.
Dang, I hate that term. It's a 'gun buy', not a 'gun buyback'. You can't buy back something you never owned to begin with. The use of the term is just a hidden way of saying that all rights come from the government and they can take them away whenever they want. The same thing with 'turning them in'.
"There is no way that these drugs will cause an overdose in a child, or tempt a junkie to commit a crime. If we can save only one life, it will be worth it."
Very good!
"Buyback"???
The government didn't sell them in the first place!
Maybe the dumbest idea the libs ever came up with. And they have had some doozies.
So they gave $88 for each gun? There might be some good deals for someone willing to buy on the street.
So the thugs give up their stolen guns to get their cash back. Then they go steal another gun, and the only thing the cops did was offset some of their monetary loss.
I'm not seeing the downside to criminals and crime.
Gun sales are regulated by the ATF. A law enforcement agency such as a Police Dept., buying guns from the public do not constitute private sales, and the agency is not a licensed dealer. Therefore this City is illegally trafficking in firearms.
http://www.building-tux.com/dsmjd/rkba/traudt.htm
In part:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
SCOTT TRAUDT :
Plaintiff, :
:
vs. : Civil Action #
:
TOWN OF NORTH PROVIDENCE, AGENTS JOHN DOES 1-4 OF THE UNITED STATES
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS, NATIONAL BROADCASTING
EARMS, NATIONAL BROADCASTING
CORPORATION AND ITS AFFILIATE, WJAR-TV CHANNEL 10, EMPLOYEES JERRY AND
> JENNIFER DOES 1-4 OF WJAR-TV CHANNEL 10, REPRESENTATIVE PATRICK KENNEDY,
AND JAMES AND JOANNE DOES 1-4, Defendants,
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Scott Traudt ("Traudt") brings this action for temporary injunctive relief, permanent injunctive relief, nominal damages, compensatory damages, and the costs of suit pursuant to 18 USCS 3, 18 USCS Section 4, 18 USCS 921 ("The Gun Control Act of 1968" and "The National Firearms Act of 1934"), 18 USCS 922 ("The Brady Act of 1994"), 18 USCS 1961 ("The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act"), 42 USCS 1983 ("The Civil Rights Act of 1871"), 47 USCS 303 and 309 ("Telegraphs, Telephones, and Radiotelegraphs") and, via the assertion of pendent Rhode Island State Law claims pursuant to Title 11-47 of the Rhode Island General Laws. Common Law claims are also asserted.
That "just one child" line makes me gag. I have a number of problems with these stupid gun-buy programs, including 1. It encourages criminals to steal guns and get cash from the cops. 2. Criminals dispose of crime guns this way and the cops don't even check the turned-in guns. 3. A lot of valuable collector's items are lost this way (although I have always suspected any decent gun finds it's way into a cop's pocket). 4. Anybody dumb enough to sell an Uzi for $88 or whatever the buy price was, is an idiot. A street-legal, semi-auto Uzi is worth hundreds of bucks.
All this, plus the fach that the cops and their leftie pals like this columnist can't prove that these stupid programs have prevented one single crime of any type.
My mom got fifty bucks from a local buyback program. It was a rusted piece of junk that was worthless even for scrap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.