3 Responses

1. This is a misleading article. The “rocket launcher” in question was a one time use launcher. It was used by the military, then the tube was sold as surplus. Congratulations on taking a glorified metal pipe off the streets. BTW, they paid $500 for a $200 launcher. Oh, and they were paying $25 for $8 magazines. So many people turned in magazines and then used the money to buy 3x more magazines that the city had to stop taking them. This buyback was a stupid PR stunt.

2. Actually, I would call it a success. The first two took off the streets ” 509 handguns, 273 rifles and 245 shotguns.” This time netted around 1,000. That’s over 2000 firearms that won’t be potentially killing people or being used in crimes. Now if Baltimore could just persuade those states who sell guns to anyone who has a pulse, so they can bring them to Baltimore to sell illegally, to show a little sanity, the homicide rate might just go down a little. If all you’ve got is a knife, it’s a little harder to kill someone, and who ever heard of a “drive-by” knifing?

3. I see two problems with gun buy-backs., The first problem is, as illustrated by NOYB’s post is that the folks who run these events, even the cops, haven’t got much of an idea of what they’re buying. I once sold an old Benjamin air rifle at a buy-back for $100, Not only was that far more than it was worth but I can’t imagine what danger was averred by taking a BB gun “off the streets”. As described in the previous post, the only way that a spent LAW (Light Anti-tank Weapon) could hurt someone is if it were thrown at them. The other issue is a result of the first. Since the authorities basically have no idea of the relative lethality or value of the object being turned in, the result is that they overvalue toys and wall-hangers and undervalue real weapons. Buy-back programs might be much more effective if they
   actually paid market value for real weapons. Why should anyone accept say, $500 for an AR worth 3 to 4 times that or #300 for an 1911 worth $1000?