digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Hand over your gun (no questions asked), get $100

chicagotribune.com — "The buy-back program was challenged last week by Dr. Carl Bell, a psychiatrist and president and CEO of Chicago's Community Mental Health Council, who said at a City Council hearing that the guns being turned in "don't work in the first damn place."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/23/2008, -3/+21They do a buy-back from time to time here in DC too.
    • reastydirtstar, on 07/24/2008, -3/+7it reminds me of that crappy Family Matters episode where they held a drive at the school or wherever to get people just to give their guns away. not even for $100, but just piss away your gun. what a crappy show. let me just take $100 out of the bank and burn it.
    • WhiskeyWrites, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9Huh.. hows that been working out for them?
    • cardyology, on 07/24/2008, -0/+12"But my gun cost me $800?!?"
      • MikeFromAmerica, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4Depreciation?
      • Ajajadude, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but, these guns have probably been used a lot.
    • SolituSneiku, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4try that here in the south
  • Hetman, on 07/23/2008, -11/+61This is so asanine. People usually spend more than a 100 buck buying a gun. Even if they buy it illegally. Why would you sell a gun back for less than you paid for it. And even if you did pay less that 100$ there is probably a good reason you bought the gun in the first place.
    • Detritus, on 07/23/2008, -11/+18I dunno where you're buying guns illegally, but when I was a kid they were well under $100. Sure some sexy ones would get close to $100, but most were in the $20-50 range. Sheesh, shop around.
      • puter, on 07/24/2008, -2/+18I think he was referring to pistols, ones that are worth buying.

        You can go buy a cheap pistol...but you have no real guarantee that it will fire when yo u pull the trigger.

        A gun of any quality is going to start at no longer than $300 or so.
      • willskillz, on 07/24/2008, -1/+13man, where do you live? i wouldn't even want to buy a gun if it was that cheap... probably missing parts on the inside or something lol.
      • TehProphet, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3That's crazy, my remington .243 rifle cost about $500 with the scope and everything, Idk where you can get anything more than a pellet gun for $20-$50
    • ohnoerino, on 07/23/2008, -1/+19I think that's where the whole "no questions asked" thing comes in. I've heard that a lot of times kids and teens will turn in their parents' guns that have ties to drugs/gang activity.
    • Hetman, on 07/23/2008, -2/+6Thats inflation for you.
    • DaDrake, on 07/24/2008, -0/+17People on thehighroad and ar15 admit to buying used ruger .22 at a gun show (usually around 30 bucks each, since they are so damn common) and then going to a buyback. A quick way to a quick profit.
    • XxtraLarGe, on 07/24/2008, -0/+38You don't sell back working guns, you sell back your broken ones...
    • RogueMountie, on 07/24/2008, -24/+6"Why would you sell a gun back for less than you paid for it?"

      ...to make the world a better place?
      • gyrfalcon, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1How does that make the world a better place exactly RogueMountie? Basically they're taking tools of humanity and destroying them.

        Seems wasteful to me.
      • Ajajadude, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1They're not tools of humanity. They're tools of destruction. Why were guns first created? Before you answer, remember, guns were created prior to when the Second Amendment was written.

        Humanity could be capable of living without guns. Hunting isn't necessary. War isn't necessary. Crime isn't necessary. It's always a bunch of assholes who have to make everything difficult in life, and that's why guns are a necessary evil.
    • LastDitchHero, on 07/24/2008, -2/+12Cause it is a stolen gun, or a gun used in a crime so 100 bucks no questions asked is far better going rate.
    • Andrwmorph, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3You have obviously never been out of porn money.
    • bridow, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1you would think that, but stolen guys can't be pawned. they did this in philly before an they received 500+ guns...scary.
    • BadAshe86, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Because a $100 for a stolen gun is probably better than the going rate at the pawn shops.
    • Cyrock, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Hi-Point Firearms makes a 9mm and 9mm compact for $179 retail. Thats the cheapest I have seen for a new hand gun.
      • gyrfalcon, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1You can make Zip guns for a few bucks... that would be a great way to put them out of "business".
    • pjpark, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7It's a political stunt. $100 of your tax money for each worthless chunk of metal buys publicity for Daley. There's nothing new about politicians wasting money to get their name in the news. If it's about guns being bad, then it's guaranteed to get positive press coverage.
  • AdamFromMyspace, on 07/23/2008, -1/+97This just in: gun theft has increased by 1000%.
    • ohnoerino, on 07/23/2008, -4/+9Holy Onion headline Batman!
      • GreatSunJester, on 07/24/2008, -1/+8The Onion would not touch a potential real headline!
  • MrBatguy, on 07/23/2008, -2/+14Well, it worked in Sadr City.
    • ninepointfive, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3cause some people are actually starving to eat over there maybe?
    • gyrfalcon, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1@MrBatguy

      WTF are you talking about? They paid 1.3 million and got a bunch of crap turned in... 4000 AK's and a few mortar rounds, etc.
  • acmaurer, on 07/23/2008, -1/+15Yeah, I've heard this doesn't really work because it's just so easy for people to get guns. Granted, this may be an easier way to get $100 (or a gift card for that much) instead of killing someone/robbing someone for it.
  • buba1243, on 07/23/2008, -2/+64Seems like the perfect way to dispose of a murder weapon. Shoot the guy you don't like then turn in the gun.
    • puter, on 07/24/2008, -8/+5I'm replying to this just so that it's more likely to get read.

      That is an excellent point.
    • funnylookinhat, on 07/24/2008, -6/+4No... that's a horrible point.

      Because they do actually take your name (I'm from Chicago), and I guarantee that they run the gun for prints and any unidentified slugs found in victims once they get it.

      The reason it's "No Questions Asked" is because it's illegal to own a gun in Chicago, and so for them to collect it without asking questions means they won't pry about owning it in Chicago and whatnot (thus breaking a law).
      • StormyAaron, on 07/24/2008, -0/+17I wonder how much longer that will last (illegal to own a gun) since the D.C. ruling.
      • ryanize, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1It is not illegal to own a gun in Chicago. There are a bunch of requirements you must follow (get Firearms Owner’s Identification Card, register guns, no concealed carry) but it isn't illegal to own a gun in Chicago.
      • tamuengineer, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3The article said they were trying to double the 6,700 retrieved previously, that is 13,400 guns. You really believe they are going to check that many guns for prints and ballistic analysis?
      • d-ude, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2To tamuengineer:
        Of course they won't run 13,400 guns through. But, if they were able to determine that they have a victim that was shot with a specific caliber bullet they may very well run all the guns turned in of that caliber.
      • gyrfalcon, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2@dude
        @funnlookinhat


        You're idiots...
  • ColonelTribune, on 07/23/2008, -0/+16There's a new one: Gift cards for guns. Could be tough to make a slogan around that one.
  • electricwaffles, on 07/23/2008, -0/+33If it's no questions asked, I'll try my luck with a b-b gun. I could use the extra cash.
    • ohnoerino, on 07/23/2008, -0/+18"You'll shoot yer eye out!"
    • cawpin, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1Good point. I'm gonna try that if they ever do this in Phoenix.
    • nodong, on 07/24/2008, -2/+10I'd bet the kinds of idiots who support the buyback program couldn't tell the difference between an airgun and a real gun anyway.
    • slimpip, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5The city buys back BB guns and airsoft guns too. I think they pay $30.
      • marx2k, on 07/24/2008, -0/+27What about caulk guns? Can I get anything after finishing this bathroom tiling project?
      • VinnieDaMac, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Will they take my Super Soaker?
  • motivatedmama, on 07/23/2008, -27/+8Just take all the damn hand guns, run them through a big grinder, and give all the money to all the thousands of victims of violent crime. There!
    • j33pn, on 07/24/2008, -2/+14So they can buy a pistol for self defense. Huzzah!
      • motivatedmama, on 07/24/2008, -5/+1I think your assumption that the majority of victims would think like that is sad and illogical besides.
        If there are no more hand guns and automatic weaponry, and I mean NONE, where does the self defense angle come in?

        What a nation of pussies. I bet most gun toting men would cry like babies if they had to actually throw a punch. Here in Ky. you're generally regarded as a puss if you feel you have to be "packin" and you make it known you are.
        Here guns are used for hunting. Fists are for fighting.
      • ninepointfive, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3haha... motivated is such a little wanker.
      • Egoist, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1No, an illogical position is to believe that all hand guns in the world can be put into a big grinder and disposed of.
      • motivatedmama, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Pure facetiousness. I do believe I have been successful. Look at these ridiculous 'arguments' against gun control.

        If my wife is being raped in front of me, it's quicker than calling the cops.
        We may someday have to overthrow our government.
        People will just sit in their kitchens making new guns (referring to instructions gleaned from Google of course).

        My work here is done.
    • NewGTGuy, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3As a human being, it is natural law that I am my own first line of defense. By giving up my gun, I am giving up my ability to defend myself. Basically, I am voluntarily giving that right to the police. So when your wife is being raped you should call the police, they take minutes when seconds count.

      BTW, the second amendment was not meant to facilitate American citizens killing each other. It was meant to allow us to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. I think we can agree that this is what we have.

      Have a nice day!

      • motivatedmama, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2So, knowing your rape angle doesn't hold water, i.e. I really don't think that if I saw MY wife being raped I would call the cops and then WAIT for them to arrive OR shoot the guy. A good whack in the head should do. So then we move on to the big bad government bit.

        Yeah I agree, pretty soon we won't have any rights at all but most are going willingly into that long, dark night as long as they have cable and beer, so already your "forces" are diminished. Even if 80% were willing to arm themselves and ???, the government would squash them and now they have the ability to do so legally. Just declare you a terrorist. But I digress....

        .... A few armed people aren't gonna get the job done. It's a ***** rationalization and you know it.

        In conclusion: Neither example is reason enough to rationalize keeping a handgun. Sorry.

      • gurudrew, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3@motivatedmama
        "Even if 80% were willing to arm themselves and ???, the government would squash them ..."
        Once upon a time England thought the same thing. Apparently they were wrong.
      • Ajajadude, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1@ gurudrew

        The reason the British lost was because of their inflexibility with tactics. They just wouldn't adapt to the the Colonists' and their "new" tactics of not being suicidal by standing in columns out in the middle of a field. We barely beat the British and required help to do so.

        It's laughable to even think that the majority of U.S. military personnel would blindly follow orders to fight to their own brothers and sisters in something that would reek of corruption and dictatorship. It would've been like Saddam's military all of a sudden deciding democracy is cool and overthrowing their leader. They wouldn't have known a thing about being free from oppression and living in an open and free society. Just like American military personnel wouldn't be able to comprehend, let alone stomach, an American dictatorship.
      • motivatedmama, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2You give me hope! I had always thought revolution was futile.
        Still, it's an extreme example of why every man and woman should be allowed, with a very minimal background check if any, to own a handgun.

        The fact that these are the types of arguments that are brought out in favor in the first place, further prove how desperate and irrational some are concerning gun rights.
    • doctechnical, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4And then you just wave the magic wand that makes everyone forget how to make a firearm.

      Hint: It's not all that high-tech.
      • gurudrew, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Exactly, you can make a gun with only one moving part. Two if you want a trigger.
      • motivatedmama, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1As if most would go to the effort. One of the main contributors to gun violence is the fact that they're so cheap and accessible. Quite a few are just stolen. Make it difficult, most wouldn't bother.

        And make no mistake when I say "get rid of" I mean ban. This includes forbidding the manufacture of handguns and automatics.

        This grand uprising in England that's mentioned above...what's England's take on handguns for the general population hmmm?
      • doctechnical, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3What effort? Ten minutes in a hardware store, an hour (if that) on the kitchen table, I'm done. Google for "Four winds shotgun". Again: not high-tech.

        And I made gunpowder when I was a kid, that's not high-tech either.

        You're on a quest that would make Sisyphus weep.
      • Ajajadude, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2If you're ever in a position where you're forced to make your own guns, do you think whoever is running the country is going to allow free access to a plethora of knowledge in the internet? Honestly?
  • WhiskeyWrites, on 07/23/2008, -0/+15I know this has been tried before, does anyone know if it substantially reduced gun crime in any area? I really can't remember what became of it. I feel like most people looking to use a gun for illegal purposes probably think that they can make more than $100 with it than without it. OR is this more to get rid of old guns to try and get less accidents?
    • cawpin, on 07/24/2008, -0/+8It is a feeble attempt to "protect the children" and "reduce gun violence" but it does neither. The only people who turn them in are people who could use the money more than the gun, which I don't have a problem with. They did it once in Indianapolis when I was still living in Indiana but they were only offering $50/gun. I seriously thought about going down there and setting up next to them with a sign that said up to $100 per gun just to see if I could get a few deals.
    • eohano, on 07/24/2008, -2/+11Places that implement gun bans (I don't know anything about buybacks, though) almost always have a jump in homicide and violent crimes.
      Would you rather rob a store where the owner probably has a gun, or a store where it would be illegal for him to? Since you're a criminal anyways, I'm sure you still have YOUR gun(s).
      • rpj101288, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2Funnily enough, the homicide and violent crime jump in Chicago occurred after the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire.
      • ninepointfive, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4rpj: you have a source for that?
      • barnett25, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3rpj101288

        I refuse to believe that people wont kill others with low capacity magazines and standard firearms, but put an AR15 into their hands and they become killing machines.
      • Ajajadude, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1It's easier to kill multiple people in one shot, sorta speak, when you have an automatic weapon than if you have a handgun. Not saying what rpj is correct, but just pointing out the fact that handgun=slower rate of fire than automatic weapon.
      • barnett25, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Ajajadude

        Automatic weapons require a permit and usually cost several thousand dollars.
        An AR15 is a semiautomatic version of a military style gun. It shoots no more quickly than a semiautomatic hunting rifle. I think there is a lot of misconceptions among the public about guns. That is why there is support for so called Assault Weapon bans. The only people those bans are hurting are shooting sport enthusiasts (probably the last people to ever commit a crime with a gun).
      • eohano, on 08/03/2008, -0/+0I know this is an old story and nobody will read this, but:

        @Ajajadude: People DONT go out on killing sprees, spraying bullets into shopping malls with fully automatic weapons very often at all. Sure, there have been a few examples of maniacs who do so, but it happens less than once a year. Suicidal people would use homemade explosives or other weapons if they didn't have a gun, anyways. Your argument holds true for GTA, but when was the last time you saw Nikko Bellic walking around your city, invoking completely un-provoked manslaughter on the masses? You haven't. Never in the history of the world has a civilian committed a gun crime like that.

        @Barnett
        I actually thought about making another account to digg you up again. Bravo.


    • VigRoco, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9Very little gun violence is ever caused by people who legitimately own guns.
      Look it up.
  • Crackerpat, on 07/24/2008, -4/+19How about having a "Guns for Gas" campaign? Turn in your guns for gas!
    • listerinemouth, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4That could work.
    • roomforpanic, on 07/24/2008, -1/+17They already do that, it's called armed robbery.
    • whataboutdave, on 07/24/2008, -0/+11Yo do know that you can exchange cash for pretty much anything, right?
    • Greengoo, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1Gives new meaning to "calling shotgun"
    • rpj101288, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2I believe I did hear about one group in Chicago doing that about a year ago.
  • h3smith, on 07/24/2008, -9/+37These silly programs don't work, they are another liberal "feel good" "solution" to gun problems.

    Want a solution? Use the laws we have on the books to PUT and KEEP violent offenders IN JAIL!!

    We have some many existing gun laws, but we don't utilize them against people who break the law with guns.
    • Rudegar, on 07/24/2008, -7/+1remind me of that other story about 1 out of 4 persons in prison was in usa
      • h3smith, on 07/24/2008, -0/+12Uh, that has nothing to do with violent crime, that has everything to do with our ass backwards drugs laws. I have no issue letting all offenders out who have committed a victimless crime. If they stole and were caught to fuel their drug habit, fine leave them in jail. If they were caught with a oz of weed and were locked up, let them out.

        Create more space for violent people!
      • andyd273, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2I think it's the first Ringworld book, where the law says that any crime over a felony is punishable by the death penalty, and then the criminals organs are harvested to help keep other people alive... thus solving both the overcrowding and lack of organ donor problems.

        Granted, its a horrific idea, and violates all kinds of human rights...
    • puter, on 07/24/2008, -2/+9While I agree that gun buyback programs don't work, I think we already have way too many people in prison.

      You want to reduce violent crimes? legalize all drugs and then tax the crap out of them. You will get rid of all the people who make a living selling drugs, a lot of the violence that surrounds drugs would go away.
      • h3smith, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3violent criminals and drug offenders have nothing to do with one another

        Yes, I want more people in jail WHO COMMIT VIOLENT CRIME.
      • jgzman, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7Violent Criminals and Drug offenders have this in common: they both take up the same amount of space in a prison cell.

        IF (release drug offenders)
        THEN (free space in jail)

        WHILE (free space in jail)
        DO (arrest violent offenders)
        DO UNTIL DONE
      • thedarkwolf, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2"violent criminals and drug offenders have nothing to do with one another"

        Well, nearly every murder in my county for the past 40 years has been drug related (save one or two domestic violence cases). Granted, not all drug offenders are violent, but there is a lot of violent crime associated with drug dealing, gangs, etc.
      • ninepointfive, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Take your tax the hell out of guns theory, and shove it!
      • puter, on 07/26/2008, -0/+0"violent criminals and drug offenders have nothing to do with one another"

        Do you actually believe that?

        Do you have any idea how much violence surrounds the distribution of drugs?

        Do you have any concept of where gangs and other violent groups get their money from?

        Drugs, drug offenders, etc. are very closely related to violence. The reason is not the drugs, but their illegality. Legalizing drugs would take the livelihood away from gangs and eliminate the violence around drugs by eliminating the need for it. On top of that you can tax the hell out of them and use the money resulting from that for good causes.
    • mxmj, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1"Use the laws we have on the books to PUT and KEEP violent offenders IN JAIL!!" So no one deserves a second chance? Yes, repeat offenders should be locked up for a long long time. but if a 19 year old kid does something stupid he should be given a chance to reform himself. Why lock him up for life and spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers money to keep him there?
      edit: I agree that these programs don't really do anything fwiw
  • screamthenrun, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4This happens all over the US... buried as lame because at my local event someone turned in a rocket launcher
    • cawpin, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6It was an empty rocket launcher housing. Anybody can buy one.
    • puter, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2awesome, did they only get $100 for it?
    • ninepointfive, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1damn, what the hell? I wonder where you get rockets for those
  • x1soundgarden1x, on 07/24/2008, -1/+60We studied this program in economics class at the University of Chicago. These are the DUMBEST programs done purely for political purposes in all of government. They simply let politicians look like they are doing something about crime without actually doing anything. The people who turn in guns are not the people who have guns to commit crime. So you get a bunch of grandmas and grandpas turning in family guns for cash at the taxpayers expense while the criminals keep killing people. All the while, taxpayer money is spent on this program that could be spent on police officers. It defies all logic and reason. These programs have been proven to be ineffective, yet politicians LOVE to keep coming back to them every election year.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/24/2008, -2/+14"These are the DUMBEST programs done purely for political purposes in all of government."

      That's a bold statement, Cotton. I'd be willing to bet there are dozens of programs that are at least as stupid and cost much, much more.
    • Bloodboiler, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0I doubt the idea is that bad people would turn in their guns. More likely the point is that the granny's troubled grandchildren don't steal the gun when they join a gang. A $100 hardy keeps a cop at work for even one hour (counting all costs, not just his salary), but a bit harder availability of a gun may save cops from days/weeks of murder investigation or a community from school shooting.

      The program may still be economically stupid if legal or black market guns are cheap. US tried similar program in Iraq, where Iraqis just gave up broken guns and bought new ones with the money they got.
    • dcaveney, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0It's been proven to be ineffective, so...where's your proof? It defies all logic and reason...so, what are your reasons?
    • ancientsociety, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1EXACTLY!

      Meanwhile, we are paying our shiny new Police Commissioner, an FBI washout, $300K/yr to sit around doing nothing and railing on victims' family members for hanging with the wrong crowd, while our murder rate skyrockets.

      Welcome to the crazy world of Chicago politics.....no wonder we're a laughing stock
  • aspec, on 07/24/2008, -1/+10Wait... turn in your gun, get 100 bucks... but what if someone takes a second to think about it? I mean... you have a gun, right?
  • removesstains, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7Gangs must love this program. Not only do they get to do a drive by but they get to make $100 bucks in the same trip. Plus you don't have to waste a gym bag.
  • Faustust, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1They give you $200 for guns in NYC. $20 for pellet or BB guns.
  • UTKEngineer, on 07/24/2008, -0/+15Dang. I wish they'd do this in Austin. I'd go down to the pawn shop and get the non-functional guns for less than $100 and make mad profit.
    • GreatSunJester, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5The pawn shops would do it themselves!
      • UTKEngineer, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5True!

        Wonder who they have staffing the turn in, I bet I could go grab metal BB or pellet guns from Walmart for $20 and turn them in. No questions asked, right?
  • BufordT, on 07/24/2008, -0/+19Or you could take it to a gun shop and get the real value, which is almost always going to be more than $100.
    • timusca, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Right, but they're aiming this at people who have questionable reasons for owning a gun. They can be traced if you sell them to a gun shop. This program is "no questions asked".
  • abw1987, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1I didnt't know the guitarist for Fuel got his doctorate...
    • troyfoley, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I didn't know anyone knew the guitarist for Fuel's name.
  • bobjr94, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7Seattle did a buy back like that when I was in high school, about 15 years ago. I brought in my uncles rusted old pistol that had a broken hammer that had been in our attic for years. I got 50$ for a worthless piece of junk. It was a cheap no name gun to begin with and not worth fixing.
  • Ford_Prefect2nd, on 07/24/2008, -8/+2Worked in Toronto, gun crime dropped for the first time this year.
    • MacEnvy, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3... and knife crime went up 200%.
    • colinmcd, on 07/24/2008, -2/+0Why'd you get dugg down? It is true... It might be a more effective program here because there is no real alternative to get rid of guns as (most) are illegal in the first place.
    • use2bacanadian, on 07/24/2008, -1/+0If gun crime dropped in toronto - and I doubt it dropped in a siginificant manner that statistically has any consequesnce to it at all - it was not because of a gun drop program. Canada and especially Toronto has a rising violent crime problem at the same time that violent crime in the US is dropping. Toronto is the murder capital of Canada. The drop in "gun crime" as broadly defined by you has more to do with intelligent policing techniques taught to the RCMP and Toronto police by US Law enforcement and tighter border control. Both of which are opposed my most Canadians.
      • colinmcd, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0Canada's crime rate has been dropping for the past three years:
        http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/17/statscan ...

        I think more crime is being concentrated to Toronto...it for sure seems to be the place in the news I hear about most often (they found an SUV with 3 dudes shot up in it just near my house the other day :S).

        I'm not saying the program is the reason for this drop in crime rate, but I think it might be more effective here than in the US...
      • travis1982, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1@use2bacanadian: Where the ***** do you get your resources? Canada doesn't have a rising violent crime problem, we had a tiny spike I think in 2004-5 and it leveled off. Also, the RCMP and Toronto Police ARE NOT TAUGHT BY AMERICANS for christ's sake. Please provide your references.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0June 25 - 2008
        British Columbia has been Canada's crime leader for most of the past decade, with rates that would rank it among the worst cities in America, says the B.C. Progress Board, a provincial agency that tracks economic and social indicators. The board, in a little-noticed report last year, charted crime rates in 61 Canadian and American jurisdictions, combining both non-violent property crimes — a particular problem in B.C. — and violent personal crimes, from homicide to robbery. Its conclusion: "B.C.'s property crime rate is the highest in North America at 6,534 crimes per 100,000 citizens. The province's violent crime rate is fourth among the jurisdictions in question." B.C.'s combined personal and property crime rate is the second worst of all 61 jurisdictions, the board concluded, "surpassed only by the District of Columbia."
        http://www.macleans.ca/canada/national/article.jsp ...
  • skoles, on 07/24/2008, -1/+20- Stand outside with loaded gun
    - Rob people of unloaded guns to be turned in
    - CASH IN TEH GUNS!
    - Profit!
    • rrife, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Dude, take the guns then start a small army of people going around robbing other cash for guns programs and make your army bigger.....then take over the world.
    • PeninsulaBoy217, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2You've solved the mystery of what ???? means!
    • ryanize, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3FIXED

      - Stand outside with loaded gun
      - Let people turn in guns for $100
      - Steal their $100
      - Profit!
  • readerz, on 07/24/2008, -3/+9title should read! "Turn your guns in, So we can make this New World Order easier"
    • FlaNative, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1Bush already has plans for making the NRA a terrorist organization after declaring martial law January 19, 2009.
  • racerx8413, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2In addition to the initial $100 for the gift certificate, in order to link these guns to crimes, aren't they performing ballistics tests on the firearms, costing further city funds for materials and man-hours? Oh ya, doesn't this also encourage theft?
    • wonderchemist, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2"Oh ya, doesn't this also encourage theft?"

      Doesn't giving money for anything encourage theft?
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7Cook county already has a sky high sales tax and now Daley wants to waste money on a bass ackwards program that isn't going to reduce crime? Sounds like a great idea. Chicago is an excellent example of the lowest common denominator appealing to his own and securing office.
  • humanerror, on 07/24/2008, -0/+14I'm going to use the $100 to buy me a giant crack rock
  • jmpeagle, on 07/24/2008, -6/+2a decent handgun will run you over $1000 for a new one. If you want to illegally buy a used one out of the trunk of a car, it's still going to cost you $250-$400.
    • Buelldozer, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6I'd dispute that a decent handgun will run you over 1K. There are LOTS of name brand handguns (Glock, H&K, Walther, etc) in the $600 - $800 price range.
    • moxley, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5No- I don't know where you're buying your handguns, but a decent handgun is generally going to cost you between 4 and 700 dollars in the US.

      A Glock 17 (which is a very fine handgun) MSRPs for about $550.

      For over 1000 dollars I would expect a new glock with customizations and a high end laser sight.

      Granted, I am sure there are exceptions and very limited edition, collectables that are expensive...but to just own a better than decent handgun in the US you shouldn't have to pay that much.
    • rrife, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5Uh you can get a nice gun for about $500. A really nice gun like a H&K USP Tatical may run you upwards over $1k, but most won't.
  • RogueMountie, on 07/24/2008, -11/+2WTF is up with these comments? I really don't understand how anyone could have a problem with this. It's one thing to say you have a right to own a gun, but now gun nuts want to prevent people from choosing to relinquish their guns?
    • mklcom, on 07/24/2008, -0/+16I think it's more of an issue that tax dollars are being spent on yet another program that doesn't actually work.
      • RogueMountie, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1Do you have proof that it doesn't work? I will admit that I do not have such proof, but I am willing to bet no one else here does either.
      • Mavital, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3@RogueMountie

        I don't think you could ever prove it, but its pretty easy to use common sense on the issue. The people who intend to use the weapons for violent crime are not going to go turn them in for $100. If they want $100, I'm sure they will rob, steal, or murder to get it.

        Having said that, there might be a small group of people who would trade in the weapons for money, and might have used the weapon in the future on a crime fuel by emotion. However, I think that group would be very small and statistically insignificant.
    • use2bacanadian, on 07/24/2008, -3/+0British Crime Rate Soars
      After Gun Ban
      By Richard W. Stevens, Esq.
      Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
      http://www.jpfo.org
      3-26-00



      Beretta Sub Machine Guns -- Only $320! (We Told You So)

      When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will sell guns.

      Exactly one year ago this column headlined "The $200 Machine Gun" We predicted that when guns become illegal to own and sell, then the criminal element would rush in to fill the demand. Thieves, smugglers and black market gun makers could supply machine guns for about $200 apiece.

      About three years ago, the British government all but outlawed private firearms ownership in Britain. Because one vicious killer used a firearm to commit multiple murders in 1996, victim-disarming politicians rushed to ban nearly all private gun ownership and possession nationwide.

      The result? According to the January 16, 2000 edition of the Sunday Times of London, "up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions."

      What are the prices of illegal guns? According to the Sunday Times, "a third of young criminals, [ages 15 to 25 with prior convictions], own or have access to guns ranging from Beretta sub-machineguns to Luger pistols, which can be bought from underworld dealers for as little as £200." ($320 U.S.)
    • use2bacanadian, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1Unlike Canada, Americans have a 2nd Amendment to the Constituition, It guarantees every citizen, unless their rihts have been forfeighted by commision of a felony, that they have the RIGHT to own firearms. This has just been upheld recently by the Supreme Court of the US to include handguns overturning several municipalities local laws to prohibit such. In America people do not rely on the government for their personal protection, that has been proven in court to not be the role of the police. The personal possession of firearms is the backbone behind Americas Independence, which Canada enjoys by default, when the Continental Army kicked the British off of this continent not once but twice and in large part because of the independent spirit and warrior sub culture Americans, unlike Canadians, enjoy.
      • RogueMountie, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2So what you are basically saying is that you are a dirty yankee trator. Nice.
      • travis1982, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Jesus Christ you're a retard use2bacanadian. You think Canada is inferior because we don't have the 2nd Amendment? People in Canada are allowed to own guns, it's just a longer process with proper training and screening...seems pretty logical to me. If you think Canadians are jealous because we don't have a 2nd Amendment than you sir, are an idiot.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0What I am saying - Travis and RogueMountie - is that you Canadian Nationalists would not even be speaking English if it were not for the fact that Americans have a Second Amendment to the constitution, a warrior sub culture that is greatly enhanced by familiarity with personal firearms. Canadians ownership of firearms is not a RIGHT that is guaranteed, it is a privilege that is greatly restricted and can be removed at anytime by a new government that is not sympathetic to the personal ownership of firearms. In the US even the most radical gun banning Democrats have been unable to overturn the second Amendment to the Constitution. And just a few weeks ago the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the interpretation of the Second Amendment that gun ownership is a PERSONAL right that cannot be taken away by a local municipalities or State law.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0And for you personally Rogue Mountie - at least I am not a dirty Yankee cowardly draft dodger which Canadians seem so enamored with. In addition, you a real brave man on the computer aren't you, but like most Canadians - I bet you are a fat nicotine addicted gay chef who wouldn't last 5 seconds with me.
  • Aharoni, on 07/24/2008, -2/+131. Buy a used gun for less than $100
    2. Hand it over
    3. Receive $100
    4. PROFIT
    • rrife, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Heck just build something that is like a gun out of lead piping and duct tape and call it a gun.
    • duckyinc, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1LOSS! Because your hand gun costs $200
  • goingpostale1, on 07/24/2008, -1/+12I love gun buy backs! I take my old and broken guns that cost less than $100 such as a Hi-Point or Phoenix and then take the money they give me and use it to buy a new gun!

    I think I'm gonna buy an AK-74 with this, just to make Daley cry.
    • thedarkwolf, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1If you want to buy a gun with all that gun money, don't make it an AK. go for something a little better, higher quality please.
  • rhino5, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3The only place where I could see this would come in handy is if someone came into a firearm that wasn't theirs (i.e. gun(s) left to a widow from a late husband or something along those lines). If you're not properly educated about owning and operating a handgun you probably shouldn't have one and $100 is better than a stick in the eye. Granted the used market for firearms is incredible but there is some research involved with trying to maximize your profit from sale, this buy-back program takes the hassle out of the ordeal.
  • ProUSADigger, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7Well, sure...$100 per gun is actually a pretty cheap price to pay to turn your citizens
    into subjects.

    • leerayIG88, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I use my gun to rob people. I get more than $100+.
  • Nitz5785, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Hmm guns for gift cards. I'm sure they can get fingerprints, ballistics, and I'd bet they are tracking the gift cards too. They say "no questions asked" but that is when you drop it off. Then they show up a couple weeks later with a warrant...if you're stupid enough to turn in a gun which was used in a crime which is what they are supposedly targeting...
  • mrzack, on 07/24/2008, -3/+9before the total martial law is put in place, chicago must convince the brian dead sheeple citizens to turn in their only source of protection against fascist dictator american government.
    • s0l0s0ul, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2BRIAN'S DEAD?! if only he would have had a gun of some sort...
  • mlagana, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1worked in australia. although guns were being outlawed at the time...
  • awolcfh5150, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9Mayor Daley is a TOOL! What a complete jackass!
  • rrife, on 07/24/2008, -0/+10Wonder what they'd do if I showed up next door and offered $101 to buy the guns? I'd say most are worth more than $100.
  • moxley, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8I don't have a problem with this, and I heartily support gun rights and the 2nd amendment.

    It seems to me that most people who would hand in a gun for $100 likely shouldn't be having it anyway. Most responsible gun owners aren't going to own firearms that are valued at less than $100, and aren't going to part with their guns for a mere $100.

    I have a huge problem with what happened after Katrina, which was illegal and uncosntitutional (and kind of funny too because those people who barricaded themselves in, refused to answer the door or capitulate in any way and refused to hand over their firearms we're eventually left alone, while those who answered the door and were polite to the jackboots were flexicuffed (including wives and children) while their firearms were illegally taken. Someone said "Oh, they only did this downtown where there was shooting in the ghetto - no, they went door to door in upper middle class and high end neighborhoods too, so if you're thinking that this only happened in the ghetto think again. It really shouldn't happen anywhere in the US if people are law abiding responsible gun owners).
    • one2gamble, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Im honestly surprised a few cops didnt get taken out going door to door trying to take peoples guns. I do suppose when push comes to shove the cops probably had bigger numbers but still.....
    • whataboutdave, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Why is this necessary, though? It's a waste of tax dollars and flatly anti-gun ownership.

      Almost any functional gun will fetch more then $100 in a gun shop. Let the private sector deal with this.
      • moxley, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I agree - all I am saying is that if a city or someone wants to do this let em...I certainly would never give up a firearm for cash unless it was something I wanted to do, and I would never hand one over unless it was something I wanted to do.
  • Andrwmorph, on 07/24/2008, -5/+5Them damn librals are takin' my gun away again!
  • irishjays, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2In order to fund the project Churches will hold a Gun Sale, up to 50% off.
  • BECoole, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2What a convenient way to get rid of a crime gun!

    And all that rusty old junk that takes obsolete cartridges!
  • thehemi, on 07/24/2008, -1/+0I wonder what I can buy guns for on CraigsList?
    Turnaround and sell them to the cit for a profit...
  • bocce, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Okay, this is a good thing, but then church collecting guns? I know it's a good thing, but then guns in churches are not really all that good, no matter what the reason maybe.

    Why not turn in guns to the police station or gun shops or something like that?
  • WriterY, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2This is so obviously ridiculous and funny. How 'bout an all call for guns to be put in a central location for a bonfire. Then Chicago/The Obama clan, can feel utterly safe to reinstitute the Al Capone era. I mean really...we should make this country safe for all the crooks!
    • jonshipman, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I don't know, but I hear that there's this organization of crime fighters set up so that we, the citizens, don't have to go all vigilante. Oh yeah, they're called the police :/
    • WriterY, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1The Founding Fathers went out of their way to make certain we had the 2nd amendment. This is because they KNEW how groups of people in power took it to heart and suddenly thought themselves to be the Almighty who could do anything they wanted to the population, which included plundering. The right of gun ownership is an EXCELLENT preventative measure for one of these BOZOS taking their frustrations out on others. For a thief and/or a thug looks at life much differently through the barrel of a gun. Their courage to plunder and destroy seems to take a radical turn!!!
      The second amendment helps insure the "Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness" for the people of the United States!
  • govsucks, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2RogueMountie:Do you have proof that it doesn't work? I will admit that I do not have such proof, but I am willing to bet no one else here does either.

    Errr, government precedent?
    • MikeFromAmerica, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1This is Digg. We don't know the meaning of the word "proof."
      • govsucks, on 07/25/2008, -0/+2Guy, the government has PROVEN time and time again that it can't do a GD thing right. How many times do you need to be smacked before you know its coming? Jeez!
  • Myztry, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2No questions asked? Cool.
    You can make a simple homemade gun for way less than that.
    (knew a crazy guy who used to do that)
    Doesn't takes any guns out of the system but would provide a nice income.
    Pity I'm not in America... sniffle...
  • greenamp, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2I've got a couple of really ***** old .22 rifles I'd be glad to get $100 bucks each for. They aren't even worth $20.

    I'm sure all the criminals are just lining up to turn in their guns. How silly.
  • SalsaNChips, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2Gun "buy backs" are nothing more than a dress rehearsal by liberal gun grabbing groups for their ultimate wet dream.

    As Sen. Dianne Feinstein put it -- "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!"
  • lead2thehead, on 07/24/2008, -4/+1Won't work. Even the cheapest gun is worth more than $100.
    • Kevin108, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Because you've priced every gun in the whole country.
      • lead2thehead, on 07/24/2008, -0/+0Well, I've been to 100 different gun shows and the cheapest one I've ever seen was $125. It was a 30 year old revolver that a shooting range had been using as a rental gun. The grips were falling off and the drum was loose, so it needed another $100 in repairs before it was even safe to shoot, but even that one was worth more than $125.
      • Kevin108, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1You need to stop going to gun shows. My cheapest finds came just from talking to people about guns: a stainless Raven in .25 ACP for $70 and a FN clone of a Baby Browning with no mag for free.
    • VinnieDaMac, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Just like most things, I'm sure guns depreciate.
      • lead2thehead, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Quite the opposite, actually. If a gun is well maintained, it will appreciate as it gets older. As more and more restrictions are placed on gun manufacturers, many desirable features are phased out, making them worth much more than their original purchase price. I have never seen a functioning gun depreciate to $100.
      • brokencrystal, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1"Just like most things, I'm sure guns depreciate." Not really. Guns like Harley Davidson Motorcycles. They don't loose much value. Some gain value if taken care of.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.