Cliffview Pilot Calls out Critics of Buyback
Posted by FirearmsTruth on September 1, 2010 · 2 Comments
In a heavily editorialized “news story” for the Public Safety section of the CliffviewPilot.com community news site, publisher/editor Jerry DeMarco says that “Critics of Bergen’s first gun buy-back program are off-target.” He notes complaints from critics, but yet didn’t take the time to actually talk to any, and the points he addresses are vague at best. DeMarco notes that critics suggest the programs are futile, as the “antique” guns turned in – “both from World War II” he says” serve as an example of this.
As critics of these events, we don’t believe the buybacks are futile because World War II guns – which we wouldn’t exactly label as antiques, but that just shows that DeMarco doesn’t know guns – were among those handed in. It isn’t the age of the guns to us that matters. It is the fact, in this case anyway, that these guns were doing no harm to anyone. These were veteran bring-backs and were family heirlooms. How were these guns any sort of a problem? These guns could have been easily donated to a museum instead, and the owners would have gotten a tax credit likely that was more than the $75 they were handed.
The problem we see also is that buybacks are an easy way for criminals to dump guns, no questions asked. These could use guns that were solved in crimes, and even DeMarco notes that this could help close some old cases. But is this justice being done? The criminals weren’t actually caught, just the guns used were recovered – and in this case the likely shooter paid for handing it in!
Finally, the program gathered 708 guns, but how many were actually on the streets is what needs to be asked. The other question is how many guns remain on the streets now. That’s the bigger concern.
This is the first I’m reading your remarks. You didn’t have the stones to approach me about this? You couldn’t email me or try to contact me by phone? I’d give your argument credence if you didn’t act like a little girl. Thanks for the hyperlink, though. Gutless.
Thank you for your comments. Our purpose here is not to argue with editors and reporters but rather to “report” when what we see. We’re more than happy to invite you to offer a rebuttal that we would post.