Communities across the U.S. are fueling a secondary arms market by giving seized and surrendered guns to disposal services that destroy one part and resell the rest.

When Flint, Mich., announced in September that 68 assault weapons collected in a gun buyback would be incinerated, the city cited its policy of never reselling firearms.

“Gun violence continues to cause enormous grief and trauma,” said Mayor Sheldon Neeley. “I will not allow our city government to profit from our community’s pain by reselling weapons that can be turned against Flint residents.”

But Flint’s guns were not going to be melted down. Instead, they made their way to a private company that has collected millions of dollars taking firearms from police agencies, destroying a single piece of each weapon stamped with the serial number and selling the rest as nearly complete gun kits. Buyers online can easily replace what’s missing and reconstitute the weapon.

Hundreds of towns and cities have turned to a growing industry that offers to destroy guns used in crimes, surrendered in buybacks or replaced by police force upgrades. But these communities are in fact fueling a secondary arms market, where weapons slated for destruction are recycled into civilian hands, often with no background check required, according to interviews and a review of gun disposal contracts, patent records and online listings for firearms parts.

42 points

Buyers online can easily replace what’s missing and reconstitute the weapon.

I like how this article doesn’t mention that since it is the serialized receiver they need to “fix” the buyer still has to pass a NICs background check at an FFL to get the receiver separately, instead implying they can just buy it online like ordering car parts. Nice subtle move to make it sound worse than it actually is, gotta push those feature bans!

permalink
report
reply
15 points

Yep. Most people clutching their pearls at this story don’t have any idea how difficult it is to actually build anything outside a gen 3 Glock or an ar-15. And those have “80% kits” that basically say “drill hole here” available on the market. Try finding a hi point, lorcin, or even Taurus or low end S&W pistol, or cheap shotgun(like a Stevens or Remington 870) receiver(because that’s most of what comes into these guys who have businesses like this), and you’ll find out it is a) cost prohibitive, b) still has to go through a nics check bc there’s nobody home building much of anything (well, the hi point may be the odd one out bc there are 3d printed frames you could make). What they do end up doing is a lot of business with guys refurbishing grandpa’s old deer or duck gun.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

And thankfully these kits are out there. Say you have inherited grandpa’s old rifle and it has a clean receiver but is otherwise pretty thrashed… You can spend a few hundred bucks and get parts to repair old guns that would otherwise have no parts availability.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

For sure!

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I guess that companies like this one

https://youtu.be/5q54yLuJlKk?feature=shared

adhere to regulations, but it is not unimaginable that there are those who could make the same part and sell it under the table. It’s not even a necessity to own a CNC to cut this part out of a block of aluminium, an old-time milling machine and 20 hours worth of training are enough to get the job done.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Well yes crimes can always be committed but making and selling without a manufacturers license is a serious crime punishable by iirc 10yr in prison or more. Making your own is legal but virtually impossible to stop even if they have to make a luty SMG and ECM rifle the barrel at home.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

I would like to have the imagination that would let me come up with schemes like that. It would never occur to me to make money off of gun violence. American capitalist are something else…

permalink
report
reply
-4 points

you’d be amazed how far we take our fetishes here. the pro-murdering-kids-lobby is hella strong.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

the pro-murdering-kids-lobby

They prefer to be called “conservatives” now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

They already pivoted, it’s “pro-life libertarians” now. AKA the people who think that murdering kids is ok as long as it happens outside the womb.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

Sounds like fraud, but I’m sure they have some bullshit legaleze protecting their ass.

permalink
report
reply
53 points

A “gun” is legally defined. There are dozens of parts, but usually only 1-2 are deemed to be the “firearm” for legal purposes, and those get the serial number. The rest, even when necessary for proper operation of the weapon, are essentially just accessories as far as the law is concerned.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Sounds like a useful loophole for gun reform and getting around the 2nd amendment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

It’s a practical line that has to be drawn. Otherwise your going to have to go for a background check for every pin screw and spring you want to buy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That’s kind of what California has in place for semi auto rifles. If the gun has certain ‘assault features’ like a collapsible stock, pistol grip, muzzle device, etc - the firearm needs to be taken apart to remove the magazine.

If the firearm has no assault features, then you can have a standard removable magazine (capped at 10 rounds). As a result you’ll see some pretty odd looking CA compliant rifles sold in state that are featureless.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

it’s why the “high end airsoft” market is so big in Japan. they’re basically just the externals of a gun, then they buy rest piecemeal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points
*

Gun buyback programs are almost always a joke of one kind or another.

permalink
report
reply
27 points

It’s wild how you get: gun buyback programs = bad. Rather than: corrupt corporations need watchdogs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

Gun buy backs are a total joke. All you end up buying is a bunch of busted ass guns that nobody wanted. Wish they would have one around here. I could unload a few that I hate, are useless or nonfunctional. Get paid son!

Saw a hilarious picture of an Australian buy back. Those ancient rifles, shotguns and rusted out revolvers were laughable. If you used a photo tool to gather the most common color from that pile, it would be the dark orange guns turn when they rust. Bet not 1 in 10 was functional.

And the idiots in the article were patting themselves on the back for doing such a fine job taking these guns out of circulation! They were so very proud.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Why would you “sell back” actual guns when you can build a functioning 12 gauge shotgun from $20 of parts from the hardware store? Slap a few of those together and turn them in for a solid contribution toward your next gun.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

How many mass shootings has Australia had in the past decade, again?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

You think intentionally fraudulent programs with no meaningful oversight or meaningful accountability are OK? That’s what seems wild to me but ok.

There’s no way this is the first time this has happened either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Maybe, then, you should be calling for more oversight and accountability of such programs rather than dismissing them as a joke.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

You think intentionally fraudulent programs with no meaningful oversight or meaningful accountability are OK

You should use concrete to make sure those goalposts don’t move around so much.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Only in the US, again. Other places just crush that stuff and melt it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Pretty much, yeah.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Why would you destroy a perfectly good gun, when you could sell it to someone who can legally own it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Why is that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*

There’s no real oversight, no accountability, little to no regulation, and the prices they offer are almost always well below the fair market value of the firearm (never mind the black market value) so most people end up keeping, selling, or pawning the gun instead. Functional firearms are kept in circulation as a result (the opposite of the supposedly intended goal).

There are also cases of people just making $20 pipe guns to rip off even the well intentioned programs, some programs try to mitigate this, some don’t, but there are no set rules beyond whatever the program decides.

I guarantee you, the program mentioned in the article is not the first to pull that reselling shit too.

These programs need to be regulated and there needs to be meaningful oversight or they will always be a joke. As it stands they are, at best, public relations campaigns and, at worst, fraudulent and potentially very dangerous.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s unfortunate. I wish we had competent government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Buybacks don’t make a lot of sense when the people turning in their guns can just use the money to buy new ones. May as well cut out the middleman and just give money directly to gun manufacturers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I kinda doubt many are doing that, the prices buy backs offer are usually ridiculously low: They’d be financially better off just trading the gun, doing a private sale, or illegally selling it for even more to a convicted felon on the black market.

If buyback programs really wanted to get guns off the street, they’d pay more money and the process that occurs after the buyback would be transparent and verifiable.

What they actually seem to be are a mix of shady profiteering (like mentioned in the article above) or PR feel-good projects that allow politicians to act like they’re actually doing something to fix the problem, when the reality is, it’s a band-aid at best and profiteering off of undermining programs meant to reduce gun violence.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

This assumes nobody has anything to do with their money other than spend it on guns.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

It’s an exaggeration, but here’s something that’s not.

There’s demonstrably a big market for guns in the US. A certain number of gun sales will happen every year. Used guns reduce the demand for new guns, thus reducing the money gun manufacturers can make. By destroying surrendered guns rather than selling them, buyback programs are choosing not to let the surrendered guns satisfy part of the demand for guns, thus increasing the demand for new guns and thus the revenue of gun makers.

Buyback programs can reduce the number of guns in specific communities, but the number of people nationwide who have guns is limited only by the number of people who want guns and have legal access to them, not the availability of guns for purchase. In other words, the usefulness of a buyback program is largely predicted on the discredited theory of supply-side economics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

The alternative to “a portion of guns surrendered don’t get destroyed” can be far worse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

How about just banning the profiteering off of fraudulent buybacks and making sure buy backs adhere to reasonable standards and oversight?

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Most of a gun isn’t the part that is legally considered a gun. The lower receiver, which is the part that makes it shoot and has the serial number on it is legally the gun. The rest are just gun accessories essentially and anybody can buy and sell them. You can’t just turn any amount of them into one functional gun, you need the lower receiver. You cannot buy a lower receiver without going through a background check and the fact that you can buy everything but the lower receiver without a background check doesn’t change the fact that you don’t have a gun without getting a hold of the lower receiver which does require a background check to get.

This article is rage bait for people who don’t know about guns.

permalink
report
reply
19 points
*

You cannot buy a lower receiver without going through a background check

yeah but you can easily buy an 80% arms lower, finish that yourself, and no bg check involved.

Or you could just get a lower from private sales which aren’t required to bg check.

Saying it’s impossimole wivvout de lowah is just bullshit and you know it. But cute attempt to be cranky. Like you’re attempting to rage bait for people who don’t know enough about the arms trade.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

Yes, there is no (federal) law against making a gun yourself or from a kit that has basically always been a thing. You can also 3d print most of all of a gun. And this also does nothing to change the lack of UBC law. Those are unrelated issues. (And for the record, I support most UBC laws).

The ability to buy or build a gun without a background check via private party is unchanged by the ability to cheaply buy gun accessories from destroyed guns.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

The ability to buy or build a gun without a background check via private party is unchanged by the ability to cheaply buy gun accessories from destroyed guns.

yeah pretty fucked up that we’ll let people buy most of a gun without a check, then the rest without another check. good to find ground we can agree on.

440 million firearms in the USA. Never seems like enough to some folks. And you know what, I’d be chill with it, if they could fucking secure their weapons.

But they won’t. Sometime this week, someone, somewhere is gonna get murdered with a firearm some dickhole couldn’t bother to secure, who left it in their car, who didn’t even know it was already stolen because they’re too fucking dumb to do the minimum.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 18K

    Posts

  • 468K

    Comments