From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Results of I 590
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:10:01 GMT
Distribution: seattle
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <3089@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> waymire@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Richard Waymire) writes:
>
>OK, interesting reading (a rehash of T.P.G, but oh well).  But I have a Seattle
>question... What do you guys think about the upcoming Seattle policy of paying
>$50 for any gun turned into the police?

For a $30 gun, its a pretty good deal! :)  If I were a Blood/Crip, it would
be a pretty good opportunity to upgrade the weapons collection and get some
good out of all those dog guns that have accumulated.  Maybe they will start
a price war, i. e. cops offer $50, B/C's offer $60!

>                                         I have changed radio stations because
>they were donating to this cause (KUBE) (I'm getting too old for it anyway),

You mean KUBE turned in all their guns?  Gosh, that's just what we've been
waiting for!  Come on, comrades!  Now we can start the Voice of the People!

>and I understand Puget Power is donating to this as well.  I called the radio
>station when they announced their support, and brought up the following points,
>but Mr. Charles Brown just talked louder and didn't address any of the points.
>
>1.  Paying people to turn in guns will get you only guns that won't sell for
>    more on the street.

This is bad?  I thot a major problem was the proliferation of cheap guns.

>2.  This action promotes burglary, as there is now a *government* sponsored
>    fencing operation... No more back alley stuff here, the government of
>    the city pays for your criminal activity.

Fencing operation?  Does that mean they are turning around and selling the
guns again at a profit?  I thot that they were supposed to destroy them.
I presume you must think that people will burglarize guns, then sell them
to the cops for $50.  If that happens, it will make a lot of ex-gun owners
look pretty foolish...

>3.  The people with stolen guns are being given IMMUNITY from prosecution for
>    illegal posession of a weapon.  The program is targeted at "children",
>    for whom having a gun is illegal anyway.

Hmmm...if you prosecuted them, that might be regarded as a sting operation.
If the word got out that kids were getting sucked in by offers for $50 for
their weapons, and then getting clapped in jail, it might make more sense
for the kids to keep the weapons for future use.  This is more or less what
the kids are doing now, and one must presume that it is more acceptable to
you than the buyback plan.

An analogous situation arises when the topic of condom distribution in the
schools is brought up.  One would presume that the situation where kids
do not have access to condoms and safe sex instruction and are exhorted that
abstinence is the best disease prevention method, is more acceptable than
the kids learning about more practical ways of AIDS prevention.

The situation arises again and again in human endeavors, where an abstract
principle takes on a life and priority all its own despite the real-world
demands of a particular situation.

>4.  It asked children (see #3) to commit crimes (i.e. carry concealed weapon,
>    acquire concealed weapon) with the understanding that it is OK.

Admittedly that might be a crime.  Perhaps it might make more sense to
have the kids carry the weapons openly, if one wished to avoid the
commission of more crime.  Perhaps the kids could get an adult to carry
the guns for them.

>5.  It doesn't address a single social issue as to why people are killing 
>    each other, regardless of the weapon of choice.

Don't hold your breath on this one.  Solving it would step on *lots* of toes.

>As you may have guessed, I'm against my tax dollars (or corporate tax dollars,
>in the case of puget power) being used to directly support this program...

What do you think would be a proper use of your (or Puget Power's) tax
dollars?

>I think the city of Seattle will be committing several crimes, including
>knowingly receiving stolen property, and overlooking the crimes of people, as
>well as possibly promoting crime.

They already do all of these things.

>What does the network world think?
[...]

Now if the cops offered $500 for each weapon turned in, that *would* really
make a dent in the problem!  $50 is too small-potatoes, IMO.  Only
small-potatoes people will go for it.  It shouldn't bother any RKBA people,
though.  If they fell for it, they're not much of an RKBA person...

My SO thinks I'm evil for thinking this, but I've thought for a long time
that sabotaging SatNiteSpecials so that they were likely to explode when
fired, then releasing them back into the general gun population would be
a pretty good idea.  This would tend to nullify the adverse effects of having
lots of cheap guns around, a la Gresham's Law.  It would also tend to destroy
the market for inexpensive weapons if they could not be trusted.  Of course,
it would also create entreprenurial opportunities for weapons provers... :)
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: seattle.general