🚀 go-pugleaf

kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) writes:
| Well, if I were running one of these gun buy-back programs, I'd modify
| the final step, destroying the accumulated weapons, to *sabotaging* said
| weapons, then, reinserting them back into the black market.  Note that
| people who acquired their weapons through non-black-market channels would
| be unaffected; the latter can afford to have their weapons tested by a
| gunsmith anyway.  This way, a black-market weapon stands a pretty good
| chance of damaging the user when the trigger is pulled.  Over a period of
| time, could the proportion of sabotaged or bogus weapons out there rise
| to as high as 10 percent?  Would that change the incidence of violent crime?
| Or would that have any impact at all on a pool of people, most of whom,
| have nothing to lose anyway?  Would there be a shift to other kinds of
| weapons?  If more knives were used, say, rather than guns, I'd reluctantly
| have to count that as a gain of some kind.

  I'll give that idea high marks for humor and originality, but I've got
  another more practical idea.

  Just watching on television, some of the guns that were turned in looked
  pretty decent.  How about instead of destroying the guns, turning around
  and offering to sell some of them to legitimate gun dealers, then using
  the money to buy back more guns?
  ==

  Bob