I have a problem with the term gun “buy back” because buying something back implies it was originally owned by the future purchaser. The police can’t buy back a firearm unless they previously possessed it thus the name of these programs is a complete lie. I propose we rename these events to crime coverup programs. It would be far more accurate as Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry pointed out to his local police department:
Curry said his office didn’t like that the police could be collecting — and destroying — guns that might have been used in crimes.
“On the one hand, we’re completely supportive of any effort to reduce illegal guns on the street,” Curry said Monday. “But nevertheless, we have the responsibility of investigating existing crimes and coordinating with federal agencies to trace how these weapons are ending up on the streets in the first place.”
That’s what these programs accomplish, the destruction of potential crime scene evidence. There has been no evidence brought forth that these programs reduce violent crime yet there is no denying that the possibility of destroying a gun used in a crime is there. Hell that’s something the police even realize by stating no questions will be asked about the firearms.
So why are the police using taxpayer money to purchase firearms only to potentially cover up a crime?
This statement irritates me:
“On the one hand, we’re completely supportive of any effort to reduce illegal guns on the street,” Curry said Monday.
Really? Illegal guns? The guns they would be buying back are most likely from law-abiding citizens – who own the guns LEGALLY. I highly doubt any criminals would turn in guns they illegally possess, let alone for the measly amount of money the police offer.