Guns less than .38 caliber were worth a $50 gas card, Moore said. Anything higher than .38 caliber was worth $100, except for assault rifles, which were $300.

What is upsetting about this is that many of the firearms turned in were probably worth far more than a tank of gasoline, something not mentioned in the story.

The article took aim (no pun intended) at how gun control isn’t the answer. The editorial noted:

“One need look no further than last month’s rioting in London to see that violence and chaos do not end when the populace has been disarmed. At least 100 homes burned to the ground, and shopkeepers watched helplessly as their businesses were pillaged and their livelihoods destroyed. London’s Metropolitan Police issued a 13-point list of ‘crime prevention’ tips that boiled down to a few basic recommendations: Remove valuable items from view, fire up closed-circuit surveillance cameras and call the police emergency number when the rioters arrive. Not that placing one of the 20,800 calls received in a night would have done much good. By the time the bobbies restored order, damage estimates exceeded $300 million.

“When chaos hit the streets of Los Angeles in 1992, police beat a hasty retreat. Shop owners in Asian neighborhoods, by contrast, took matters into their own hands. They organized themselves and stood watch from rooftops with their personal rifles, shotguns and pistols. They opened fire on local gangs and approaching looters, enabling the good guys to end the day with their places of business unmolested and their lives spared.

“Leftists prefer everyone to become victims. Allowing good people to defend themselves requires the intolerant admission that there’s a difference between good and evil. It’s safer for them to put all of their reliance upon government and blame society when the state isn’t up to the task.”

And maybe this is the issue. Leftists do seem to prefer everyone is the victim. Perhaps a riot is seen as a way of wealth redistribution, a Robin Hood mentality of sorts. Let the poor have their way as the rich are unarmed.

She seems to ask a question, but then interjects with an opinion that makes it impossible for any reader to really give their own thought to the issue:

“Should more communities offer this family friendly event? A positive and hopeful message these children went home with healthy options to toy guns. No one should play with guns, especially children.”

We agree that guns are not toys, so the statement, “no one should play with guns, especially children” is apt, except that this is about “toy guns” not real guns. There is a major and significant distinction. Children shouldn’t drive cars, but they play with toy cars, and even drive battery powered toy cars.

Conflict resolution and “fighting monsters” or other evils is part of childhood, and by taking away toys – even toy guns – we are in essence controlling how children play. Isn’t play supposed to be about independent expression? Instead we are saying, “conflict is bad, so don’t do it.” We’ll have to see how this plays out.

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose action-hero characters have brandished some big guns over the years, asked Stockton residents Monday to consider giving up real firearms that in the wrong hands might add to the city’s chronic violent crime problem.”

In exchange residents would be given gift cards, and from the reports the values were… in a word, pathetic. According to the paper:

“The gift card values range from $10 for an antique or nonworking gun to $150 for an assault weapon.”

Of course once again there is no definition of what exactly is or is not, an “assault weapon,” whilst suggesting that $10 would be given for an antique firearm is simply insulting. Why not ask residents to turn in vintage artwork for a bag of tacos next?

While the city is trying to give more in gasoline than they would in cash – partially so that people don’t go and spend the money on drugs or more guns – we still question the results. The point about buying guns with the money is of course laughable, as these buybacks never pay close to the price of a gun’s value.

Interesting the main motivation to “get guns off the streets” doesn’t seem to be the primary motivation. But we still have to question why law-abiding citizens should be encourage to give up their guns?

Even the actual reporting suggests otherwise.

One person was quoted as saying, “I had these guns for a long time,” and that these items belonged to his father, while another person handed in a gun saying, “it was my aunt’s gun. She’s 97.” In the latter case we don’t have reason to believe the 97-year old “aunt” had a gun that came from the mean streets.

The question is whether a single gun was even actually removed from the streets?

“Organizers weren’t sure what to expect from the first gun buyback in the Grier Heights community. They would be happy, they said last week, if they recovered one gun from the streets of a neighborhood that’s seen its share of high-profile violence in the past few years. But just after 2 p.m. Saturday, community leaders stood in front of a stack of handguns and ammunition that had been exchanged for nearly $500 in gift cards.”

The question is whether the organizers should be happy?

Can they really say for certain that any of those recovered guns were ever in fact “from the streets?” Did the organziers even care if the guns were on the streets or in a closet? We think these organizers are just anti-gun, not anti-crime.  News 14 Carolina offered another spin on the story:

“Many of the guns collected were passed down from generations. While organizers don’t believe those that participated in the program are potentially violent offenders, they do say the program helps keep the firearms out of the wrong hands.”

So what we have here were guns that could be considered family heirlooms, and possibly collectible in nature and were “handed in” for a gift card valued between $25 and $50. That seems like a real shame to us, more so because as the story points out even the organizers felt those weren’t actually on the streets. But not that the organizers clearly believe these guns – and probably any gun – could end up in the wrong hands.

The question in that case, was these really about getting guns off the street then, or just about getting guns out of private hands? And why didn’t any of the reports about this event ask that question?

“This is not about trying to diminish someone’s Second Amendment right, and it’s not about us telling people they shouldn’t own a gun. This program is for people who are too old to operate a gun or for people who no longer wish to have a gun in their home.”

Well, this is upsetting, because the paper added that most guns would end up being destroyed. We must question whether valuable items will be practically given away for a $100 gift card, and we further ponder how much history could also be destroyed – especially in Texas, where guns helped tame the once savage land.

“…there are a number of dangerous weapons that are off the streets.

“It looked like a yard sale for violent criminals with more than 2,500 fired arms [sic] on display for L.A.’s gun buyback program.”

We can only wonder how KABC would describe a gun show? There is also some questionable logic in this story. It ends with this statement:

“…there are 300 million guns throughout the United States, overshadowing the 2,500 weapons retrieved through this program. However, every weapon counts because statistics show that the crime rate in Los Angeles is down.”

If crime is already down, then why would these weapons count at all? If crime were up previously, but fell after the buyback than it could be seen that the buyback was a success but if crime is already down, then does this matter at all? Doesn’t this just prove that guns aren’t the problem?

“Phoenix police took dozens of weapons off the street with a gun buy-back event Saturday.”

Again, we have to ask why anyone believes, and why the mainstream media continues to report that gun buyback events actually “take guns off the street.” There is no evidence of criminals actually handing in their guns. And unlike other buybacks, this one was clearly an anti-gun rally as well. The site further noted:

“Youth leaders, safety advocates and police spoke out against gun violence.”

Who were these leaders and advocates? The news site didn’t mention, but we have to wonder if the real motivation here wasn’t really about gun control rather than crime reduction. While liberals may think they go hand in hand, recent statistics have suggested otherwise.