The way that these programs work, it is no questions asked (intended to get even criminals to turn in firearms, to prevent them from using in future crimes/suicides). So a "show ID to turn in" policy is a non-starter.

Shameless promotion, but even absent such gaming I am quite skeptical these are cost-effective, https://andrewpwheeler.com/2022/08/21/gun-buy-back-programs-....

Making it so they only take working handguns, and if the gift cards were more on the order of $25-$50 makes it a more palatable to me from a cost-benefit perspective. But still evidence they actually work is pretty slim.

I won't argue with you on the effectiveness of a gun buyback because when Australia did it in 03 the follow up report determined that whilst yes, 70k firearms were removed from the population this didn't seem to curb gun crimes to a lower level prior to the buyback.

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/australi...

Australia's gun buy back could be considered a real political compromise, if you're willing to consider no one is happy with the results. IE total gun owners lowered from 6 percent something to half that. Number of guns per owner went considerably up, and total guns imported each year is higher than it's ever been.

Basically when you see an extreme (American) view on gun control trying to use Australia as an argument for their policy, you should just laugh at them. The numbers are so "inconclusive"/"manipulatable" that such a view can use the numbers to say whatever they want to their own uncritical base.

it demonstrates that the program organizers either don't understand enough about firearms to realize they would be "overpaying", or they simply don't care about wasting public funds.

it also raises doubts about the number of guns/parts that were actually removed from circulation (vs purchased/manufactured only to turn in). I recall a similar story where a guy simply bought the entire stock of cheap shotguns from a local Walmart and turned them in for $80 profit each.

Those programs are universally designed to buy votes, rather than firearms.

They are wasting public funds to further their narrative that gun violence is an entirely natural phenomenon - sort of like a hurricane - where people people involved in it are universally victims of the circumstance and have no agency in the matter. It's the only explanation why presumably rational people would set up asinine-economics schemes like these:

Eg offering $400 for garbage hi-point 9mms pictured that change hands for $100-200 on the black market - essentially a wellfare subsidy program for gangbangers.

It's all about "doing something". Whether that something is useful or not is very much of secondary importance.

He transferred $21,000 of the public funds to his own pocket in an honest and legal transaction. On the whole this strikes me as a virtuous and patriotic thing for him to have done and I can only aspire to be this enterprising in my own business affairs.

I generally hope this is sarcasm. If not then it's disappointing so many view this man's actions as virtuous or patriotic.

If you don't have empathy for the problem then by all means ignore the actions that's being taken in an attempt to rectify the problem. By no means is a buyback going to solve the issue tomorrow but it certainly isn't hurting this man or anyone who's against the idea.

If this man truly wanted to "point out the flaws" with this program he simply could've made the drive and speak his mind at a city council meeting, email, leave a voice mail to the party in charge of the program.

There's no shortage of apathy in this country and exploiting a public system rather than coming together to find a solution seems counterproductive.

Maybe instead the fascists in the statehouse can stop trying to disarm the citizenry.

Yeah like all those other times they forced citizens to give up their firearms. I consistently hear this but outside of maybe 4 senators that push a bill that prevents the sale of a certain model of firearm it's a boogeyman at best.

Guns don't commit violence. Saying that they do is at best a category error. "Not even wrong" would be another fair description.

By all means, let's disarm prohibited persons though. But can you can stomach the "disparate impact?"

No one is forcing anyone to give up their firearms, why does this keep being argued?

It's even more comical when firearm manufactures record their most profitable years when Dem's control the white house.

> No one is forcing anyone to give up their firearms, why does this keep being argued?

You're straying rather close to intellectual dishonesty here. I think you're well aware there are some people in the USA who very much do want to force people to give up their firearms. Furthermore, similar groups have largely succeeded in other countries. That's why it keeps getting argued.

> It's even more comical when firearm manufactures record their most profitable years when Dem's control the white house.

I don't get the joke. What's funny about a perceived future shortage pushing demand forward in time? We saw the same dynamic with toilet paper in 2020. I suppose it's kind of funny that the perception of a shortage then creates a shortage, but somehow I don't think that's what you meant.

Interesting point; do federal firearms laws have exemptions for these programs?