Afternoon read-n-run: Cash for guns in Franklin County
Functional weapons only, please. Photo: Mike J MartelliCC some rights reserved
If you hurry, you still have time to make it to Franklin County’s first county-wide gun buyback, which is being held today until 3 p.m. in Akwesasne and Constable.
Events like this one are interesting to me in that they point to a seemingly-obvious-but-often-ignored element of the whole debate (oh, let’s just call it an argument) about guns: They’re not “inherently” one way or another. A weapon that in one person’s hands, or gun cabinet, might be harmless, could be left carelessly about to “fall into the wrong hands”, if it’s not properly cared for, secured, etc.
And if shooting is a hobby (or if your hobby involves shooting) as is true for many people, we all know that some of the things we use for our hobby aren’t as interesting to us, after a while, as others. We tend to get excited about new “toys”, and over time, some of them fall into disuse. That’s just how it is.
Events like this are a realistic response to that tendency.
Alright, here are the details:
People can bring guns to the Hogansburg-Akwesasne Fire Station on Route 37 and the Constable Fire Department on Route 122, and if you do go over, be sure to take a look at the article before you go — there are some very specific requirements as to how weapons need to be transported and presented to officials. (It’s also worth having a look at the comments.)
Here’s the price list:
For a working assault rifle or handgun: $150
A working long gun or rifle: $25,
Ammunition magazines that hold 10 rounds or more: $20
Officials will check to see if the gun works, and then you’ll get paid. You can turn in any number of firearms, but you’ll only get paid for three of them, up to a maximum of $450.
On the upside, anyone who surrenders a weapon will get amnesty from any gun-possession charge, Champagne says.
If you miss today’s events and you’d like to exchange a weapon for cash, the county will be scheduling more events in the future. You can contact them at (518) 521-1007.
.png)
“Several times in years gone by, yes. More recently I’ve protected my property numerous times using what is now labeled and assault weapon, several times a year in fact.”
Man, I’m 66 years old, and I have never needed a gun to defend myself or my family, and I don’t know anyone who has, either. You’ve either got an overactive imagination, or you should move– you’re living in the Afghanistan of the north country.
“It looks like the new laws here in NYS are having the opposite of it’s intended consequence…”
Well of course they are The NRA has gun owners everywhere at a fever pitch, believing that the federal storm troopers are going to be at their door any minute now to confiscate their guns.
Walker I use guns, what are now assault rifles, several times each year defending my livestock. I’ve used firearms in self defense, without firing a shot thankfully, several times. I know several other people in the same boat and only one has had to fire after being shot himself. Just because your life experience is limited doesn’t mean everyone elses is the same.
“Well of course they are The NRA has gun owners everywhere at a fever pitch, believing that the federal storm troopers are going to be at their door any minute now to confiscate their guns.”
Darn those people exercising their rights!!! What’s the matter with them!!!
“Darn those people exercising their rights!!! What’s the matter with them!!!”
If people exercised their first amendment rights the way gun owners exercise theirs, there’d be people screaming obscenities on every street corner.
[Oh, wait… I guess on the Internet, there are. I find them over the top too. At least they’re not breaking into schools and screaming obscenities at schoolchildren.]
“Well of course they are The NRA has gun owners everywhere at a fever pitch, believing that the federal storm troopers are going to be at their door any minute now to confiscate their guns.”
I don’t think so. It appears that lots of folks who could care less about the NRA are buying guns like crazy.
But for sure it is happening.
Even in these discussions here it is clear that some folks would like to see things go beyond an assault weapons ban or a ban on high capacity magazines.
Seems to me that things like Today’s comments by the NYC police commissioner on handguns does more to increase pistol permit applications than anything that the NRA has said. I could be wrong.
I find it interesting the comments that refer to the fact that at the time of the drafting of the second amendment that guns consisted of a single shot muzzle loading rifle (they had pistols also) not the sophisticated things we have now in the military. At that time weren’t those arms the “state of the art” for even soldiers? I agree with and assault weapons ban but I am not sure that it is constitutional.
“It appears that lots of folks who could care less about the NRA are buying guns like crazy.”
And you’re basing this on…?
“I’ve used firearms in self defense, without firing a shot thankfully, several times.”
In self defense against armed assailants? Really? Several times? The livestock I understand, but I didn’t realize you had farmed in Brooklyn.
“Just because your life experience is limited doesn’t mean everyone elses is the same.”
Gee, thank god for limited life experience! I’ve lived in some major east coast cities and traveled from Key West to Maine, England, France, Mexico, half a dozen Caribbean islands. Granted, I’ve spent most of my time in relatively rural areas, but my best friend and my brother live in Manhattan, and neither of them have needed firearms for self protection. Seems to me you’ve got yourself some seriously bad luck!
“And you’re basing this on…?”
Some of it is anecdotal probably like your comment that the NRA is behind it. If you look at the number of guns being sold it doesn’t seem to be just to NRA types. Lots of sportsmen have long since given up on the NRA it sounds like many of them seem to be nervous and buying up guns and ammo. Walker, you disagree and think it is only NRA gun nut types. Like I said either way it is happening.
Again just anecdotal but this isn’t a thesis dissertation but a blog discussion. One thing I saw at the Daily Beast:
““We are seeing some panicked buying,” said Robin Ball, the owner of Sharp Shooting Indoor Range and Gun Shop. The Spokane, Wash., store specializes in handguns, shotguns, and defensive rifles. Ball said her store sold 47 firearms on Tuesday.
“It was our top-selling day ever,” Ball said. There’s no one kind of person buying up guns, she said. “It’s your doctors, your lawyers, your school teachers, your college professors, your guys in the military, your truck drivers—it’s across the board,” Ball said. ”
More of the same stuff from ABC news:
“”The way they are trying to approach it, they are just making people who have never thought about buying a gun, now they want to come in here and buy a gun,” one customer said.
or this from the store owner:
“”They’ve been off the charts. Absolutely skyrocketing,” Nesby said. “If I could give an award to President Obama and Senator Feinstein would be sales persons of the year.” ”
No matter who is responsible it is happening.
We will have to wait to see the data for December is from the FBI. I predict it will be way off the charts. Way more BG checks than NRA members.
I’ve seen the same stuff, Paul, but it seems like pretty irrational behavior to me. They want to acquire a large number of possibly-soon-to-be-illegal weapons? This is smart why?
Or are these all people who wouldn’t pass background checks because they’re felons or crazy?
And even if they aren’t NRA members, you don’t think all the crazed rhetoric coming from NRA members shoves the needle pretty far over towards the nutso zone? You don’t think gun manufacturers no full well that they can induce panic buying in many individuals by pushing the jack-booted-thugs-are-comin’-fer-yer-guns theme?
Walker, I suppose. But it sounds like lots of regular type people that are participating in this. Myabe they are that gullible. I guess the gun manufacturers should have planned better for their marketing blitz. It sounds like they are running pretty low on stock. No matter the guns are flying off the shelves. I am sure that you have no interest in adding the first amendment to the mix. The NRA can say whatever they want, right? Just like people who disagree can do the same.
Myabe is a word?
No, I don’t want to try to tell the NRA what they can and can’t say. I just wish we hadn’t gotten so good at swaying public opinion. We sell so many people so much crap that is so very bad for them. But no, I’ve about given up on solving it. I’m glad I’m old enough I won’t have to see the end of the movie (I hope!) Of course, there’s always Canada.
Myabe!
The vast majority of well meaning folks that have bought into the gun control mania are merely mis-informed and miss the point entirely. The issue is “control”. Control by those “progressive” elements of society who are convinced that theirs is the only correct and meaningful world view, and that they will shape society to fit their progressive ideal (google Bloomberg – soda). Their ultimate goal is to ban firearms and thereby eliminate, or at least minimize resistance in the march to their utopian ideal.
The classification “assault” weapon is a gun banner’s construct; a meaningless definition based on aesthetics. What was a gun manufacturer’s stylistic marketing tool has been turned into a gun banners dream – a scary looking gun that, because it looks bad*ss, is easy to demonize.
I am not a hunter, nor do I own any pistols or AR style firearms, but while visiting a friend a year or so ago, I accepted his invitation to spend some time “at the range” to throw some lead. For those of you who ask “why does anyone need an “assault rifle with a 30 round magazine”, I can give you a couple of very good reasons if you happen to be a target shooter. An AR15 .223 is light and comfortable to hold, with negligible recoil, and the .223 ammo is relatively inexpensive. As for those evil 30 round magazines: when having to reserve time, and paying for your slot at the range by the hour, it makes no sense to spend most of your time reloading; a bag of preloaded 30 round magazines ensures that you have every opportunity to spend the time you have reserved throwing lead, not reloading.
The simple truth is that those States, or Countries for that matter, with the strictest gun laws (or bans) have the highest rates of violent crime, home invasions, rapes, etc because the bad guys have no deterrent. And guess what? They (the bad guys) are completely unaffected by any gun restrictions the government puts in place. Wayne LaPierre was absolutely on the mark when he said that the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That is the reality.
Walker, the question is why does one side “sway” opinion better than the other? There is no ban on marketing for the gun control side of the issue. We make it sound like the NRA has some special upper hand in the debate?
“The simple truth is that those States, or Countries for that matter, with the strictest gun laws (or bans) have the highest rates of violent crime, home invasions, rapes, etc because the bad guys have no deterrent.”
Well, yeah– why do you think they passed those laws? But the fact that cities, counties and states with tough gun laws are surrounded by areas with weak gun laws make the tough gun laws far less effective than a national ban. As for countries, I don’t think you can find a first world country with more gun violence than we have here.
And the states with the highest gun ownership rates are mostly pretty sparsely populated: Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
But the ones that aren’t so sparsely populated don’t reflect your claim at all. The top three states for gun violence are Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina all of which have pretty high rates of gun ownership. Arkansas has the seventh highest rate of gun violence in the country despite ranking 6th in gun ownership at 55%. Missouri has the sixth highest rate of gun violence despite having 42% gun ownership. It’s just not as simple as your claim makes it sound.
“…the question is why does one side “sway” opinion better than the other?”
Who says they do? Like most other questions facing this country, we’re pretty evenly split. It depends a lot on how you ask the question:
And
Walker says:
January 28, 2013 at 8:32 pm
I’ve seen the same stuff, Paul, but it seems like pretty irrational behavior to me. They want to acquire a large number of possibly-soon-to-be-illegal weapons? This is smart why?
Or are these all people who wouldn’t pass background checks because they’re felons or crazy?”
For goodness sake Walker, there is no evidence people are out there trying to get “a large number” of guns, they’re buying 1 or 2. Secondly there are already laws barring felons from obtaining guns, NCIS checks are mandatory at gunshops and shows, and the law already bars “crazy” people, domestic violence arrests, straw purchases, etc.
What’s happened is the fence sitters suddenly realized their right to purchase is going to get a lot narrower shortly and they are doing the same thing people do before the big storm hits- getting what they can before it’s all gone.
Walker says:
January 29, 2013 at 8:33 am
“The simple truth is that those States, or Countries for that matter, with the strictest gun laws (or bans) have the highest rates of violent crime, home invasions, rapes, etc because the bad guys have no deterrent.”
Well, yeah– why do you think they passed those laws? But the fact that cities, counties and states with tough gun laws are surrounded by areas with weak gun laws make the tough gun laws far less effective than a national ban.”
Wow, that makes absolutely zero sense. All you do is reenforce the argument that gun laws don’t reduce crime. You can outlaw all guns in the nation. They will come in illegally from Mexico and Canada, from South America and Europe. You basically can’t own a handgun in Canada, yet Canada has plenty of handgun violence. Felons can’t possess any gun, but they can go to the Rez or many other places and get one illegally. So in the end, all you do is disarm the guys obeying the law and, like “gun free zones”, create more potential victims. Bright.
BTW, you don’t have to live in Brooklyn to have problems with violent people. The world is full of them. I’m glad you never had to stand up for yourself in a violent situation, doesn’t sound like you would have fared to well. But you say you understand the livestock thing. Then why do you feel I should be disarmed and my livestock slaughtered? Why does my evil assault weapon 10 shot 22 need to be registered, outlawed, taxed and insured? More agenda driven thinking that only affects the law abiding citizen and not the criminals that ignore the law.
Walker, those polls you quote ask generic, non-specific questions. If you asked how many were in favor of reducing crime you’d probably get 90% or more. Ask the question and offer specifics that affect most people, like requiring everyone to obtain a safe to store all medication, knives, guns, adding stiff penalties for people who don’t lock their cars and house doors, things like that that intrude on most peoples lives and the poll might only show 20% in favor. That’s the thing, you say assault weapon and people think AR15’s or AKs. Let them know you also mean Dads M1, Uncle Phils Ruger 10-22, your old 45, your Rem 1100 shotgun and the answers change. I can provide recent polls that show well over 70% of the nation believes the 2nd Amend protects the individuals right to bear arms and others that show over 50% believe it doesn’t. It’s all in how you ask the question and to what target group. Garbage data in, garbage data out.
They also must like guns since they are buying them like crazy.
“we’re pretty evenly split.” Why? If gun control is a far better way to deal with gun violence why hasn’t everybody been convinced, there is no reason for a split.
Here is what I think. Sure most people support SOME gun control measures. Like is shown in the top part of your post above.
But many people, something like half the country, know that when this doesn’t lower the rate of gun violence (how could it it a county that has so many firearms?) that some will turn to more gun control measures and more bans. Even here in these discussions in a matter of weeks we have turned away from how to prevent mass shootings to how to prevent all shootings (or at least lower the number).
“All you do is reenforce the argument that gun laws don’t reduce crime. You can outlaw all guns in the nation. They will come in illegally from Mexico and Canada, from South America and Europe.”
Gee, Rancid, you think its just as easy to get a gun into the U.S. from outside its borders as it is to get a gun from Pennsylvania to New York? Think again.
“Then why do you feel I should be disarmed and my livestock slaughtered?”
You’re doing it again, and I’m getting really tired of it. I don’t want to disarm you. I want gun registration and a limit on high capacity clips. You’re constantly trying to make that into a banning of all firearms. Please stop it. It’s foolish.
“It’s all in how you ask the question and to what target group. Garbage data in, garbage data out.”
At 8:42, introducing those results, I wrote “Like most other questions facing this country, we’re pretty evenly split. It depends a lot on how you ask the question…”
But that’s not to say these results are completely invalid. I think, as I wrote, that the country is pretty evenly split on the broad issue of gun control (AND ONE MORE TIME, I DO NOT MEAN BANNING ALL GUNS)
If you’re going to willfully ignore what I actually write, over and over again, in order to try to make your position into some kind of last ditch, defending the Alamo proposition, I’m done talking to you. Have fun in your fantasy world of good guys vs. the bad guys. Get yourself an X-box and leave the rest of us in peace.
“If you’re going to willfully ignore what I actually write” Why should you really care? Why not just post your comments and ignore the ones you don’t like. I do it all the time! If I didn’t I would go crazy.
“I want gun registration and a limit on high capacity clips.” If this does little to curb gun violence here in the US would you then support more gun control measures? The NYC police commissioner said earlier this week that handguns are the real problem in his city.
” If this does little to curb gun violence here in the US would you then support more gun control measures?”
Paul, I have so little hope of effective gun control regulation being passed that your hypothetical is just too otherworldly to seriously consider!
“Why should you really care? Why not just post your comments and ignore the ones you don’t like.”
I don’t know, Paul, I remember you getting crazed over me reading stuff that wasn’t there into your comments. There’s not much point in having a discussion if we’re not going to make it a dialog. I have better things to do. These discussions get pretty interesting sometimes when we actually engage one another’s ideas.
Walker, do you seriously believe that gun registration will not lead to confiscation? Really? And “High capacity clips” now means more than 7 rounds. They’re magazines BTW. That effectively causes several of my guns to become either outlawed altogether or “assault weapons” requiring either registration or disposal or alteration. But you don’t want to “ban all guns”. Just the ones that scare you, right? The ones you don’t see a need for. So we’re back to you assigning rights to people based on your judgement of their needs. One big circular discussion that leads right back to the basic problem of those who believe in peoples rights being precious and those who don’t.
“I don’t know, Paul, I remember you getting crazed over me reading stuff that wasn’t there into your comments.” Good point. Maybe that is what made me start ignoring some stuff!
“Paul, I have so little hope of effective gun control regulation being passed that your hypothetical is just too otherworldly to seriously consider!”
This really just a dodge if you ask me. I don’t think a federal assault weapons ban and a ban on high capacity clips is that hypothetical.
Why not just take a stab? Let’s say it passes, then what if it doesn’t work? There is pretty good evidence that it may not curtail any of this violence.
I think if you or others that favor gun control measures can’t answer that type of questions then you will continue to see mistrust from the other end of the debate. When I saw the ABC news clip where they were interviewing the commissioner from NYC, the anchor started his questions with describing what they would like to do with the new federal gun control proposal. He said do you agree that this would be a good “start”. So is the NRA crazy to think this is just a start? Look you won’t even entertain the question.
Peter Hahn says:
January 26, 2013 at 4:13 pm
“If you are up against a nut-job with an assault rifle(s), (or anybody with a gun) you run as fast as you can.”
Yeah, right. How’d that work for the kids at Sandy Hook or the theater in Colorado or Columbine or Va Tech or at any other time? Running away doesn’t work if the BG chains the doors and blocks the exits. Then what do you do? You have no way to fight back, it’s a gun free zone, you don’t have a permit and you don’t believe in carrying a gun in the first place. What next? Throw erasers at him? Give him a paper cut?
Well said Paul. What were the first words out of Cuomos mouth? “Confiscation”. What have Democrat politicians like Fienstein been heard saying in the past? “Give them (guns) all up.” The problem is leftist/Democrats keep saying “we need common sense gun control”. Your version of common sense is nothing at all like ours. It’s like when Dems say “We need the right to compromise on this…”. When you look into what “compromise” means it turn out it means give up and do what we want!
You know Walker, maybe YOU don’t want to ban all guns. But there are a lot of people who do and many of them are in power and supported by people like you. We’ve already lost many of our rights, you have to draw the line someplace.
One thing that is a good idea to do if you are planning on using a gun to defend yourself is to get some training. There was a good story on NPR this morning. If you are confronted by a shooter where they have their gun drawn and you do not the first thing you should NOT do is pull out your gun. This is why I don’t use a gun for protection in that situation I would get blown away!
Me too Paul.
However, I do think that people who live in high crime areas are in this situation that makes it hard and I don’t want to sit here and tell them they can’t defend themselves. In some ways that is an elitist attitude.
“The simple truth is that those States, or Countries for that matter, with the strictest gun laws (or bans) have the highest rates of violent crime, home invasions, rapes, etc because the bad guys have no deterrent.”
Well, yeah– why do you think they passed those laws? But the fact that cities, counties and states with tough gun laws are surrounded by areas with weak gun laws make the tough gun laws far less effective than a national ban. As for countries, I don’t think you can find a first world country with more gun violence than we have here.
Walker – this response is exactly what might be expected from one who complains that RC doesn’t read your posts. My post read “violent crime” and I gave specific examples; In those locales where law abiding citizens don’t have the option of owning firearms, the criminals have free rein. Ask folks in the UK, or Australia what the results were in violent crime statistics when the govenment took away their guns. Look up the stats for Florida since they passed concealed carry legislation. Bad guys, by definition are law breakers, and will always find guns putting the good guys at a huge disadvantage.
For sure folks deserve to try and defend themselves with guns if they so choose. In fact I think you can probably argue that the second amendment has more to do with defense than hunting (hunting is never mentioned in the second amendment). I think that is why the supreme court has ruled the way it has. I don’t think it is activism like Knuck said but a fair read of the constitution. Abortion is not mentioned in the 19th but it is a woman’s right. Most liberals (and most Americans, myself included) would not argue against that.
Sorry 14th not 19th.
“My post read “violent crime” and I gave specific examples; In those locales where law abiding citizens don’t have the option of owning firearms, the criminals have free rein.”
Yes, and my post reads “The top three states for gun violence are Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina all of which have pretty high rates of gun ownership. Arkansas has the seventh highest rate of gun violence in the country despite ranking 6th in gun ownership at 55%. Missouri has the sixth highest rate of gun violence despite having 42% gun ownership.”
Where’s the disconnect?
Walker I decided to look into your claims. According to Wikipedia, which you seem to trust, the top 3 gun violence states are Louisiana, Maryland and Mississippi. Looking further I find the vast majority of La. gun violence occurs in the New Orleans area. In Maryland it’s again centered in urban areas like Baltimore and the DC area. Ms it’s again in the urban areas like Jackson and Biloxi although meth producers in the country seem to be happily shooting one another too. It sounds to me like the issue is urban societal decay, drugs and urban living in general. Were I to live in those areas with high violence rates, I would definitely wish to be armed. Some people would take that ability from me.