Free Shotgun Program: Yay or Nay?

Categories: Morning Poll
oprah-gun.jpg
quickmeme.com
Down in Tucson, some folks will soon be getting free shotguns.

A group called the Armed Citizen Project, funded by donations, plans to give away shotguns to people in certain areas of Tucson -- "for free!" -- in what's being touted as a crime-fighting measure.

See also:
-Tucson Group Giving Out Free Shotguns to City Residents

"The Armed Citizen Project is dedicated to facilitating the arming of law-abiding citizens and analyzing the relationship between increased firearm availability and rates," the group's website says. "We are choosing mid- [to] high-crime neighborhoods in cities across America and offering defensive weapons to citizens that can pass a background check, and that will take our safety, legal, and tactical training. The data that we collect will be used in the completion of a policy study that will measure the deterrent effects of firearms on crime."

This program already started in some Houston neighborhoods, and residents of three Tucson neighborhoods will get the chance at a free shotgun.

The program is funded by donations, and the Tucson Weekly heard down there that there's already $12,000 pledged toward the Tucson edition.

One, concern, as raised by a couple of our readers, is that people would take the free shotgun, then turn around and sell it, to get a few bucks.

The response from the organization isn't exactly reassuring.

"Even if, heaven-forbid, one of our weapons is misused in a manner causing injury or death, one would have to accept the premise that guns, not people, cause crime, in order to find us liable," the website says.

So, in general, does this sound to you like a good plan?

Cast your vote below:


My Voice Nation Help
73 comments
Bort-LongYear
Bort-LongYear

Hell Yes--if it good for VP Joe's Wife it must be good for all of Arizona.  You Go Joe.  



mong001
mong001

Hey, what happened? The other day cowboy Joe Biden was extolling the virtues of using a shotgun for home defense. He even recommended shooting out the door twice if you think there's a prowler.  Now, the Dims in AZ are saying no to letting people have shotguns for self-defense.  Sounds like the left-wing loonies got their talking points confused.

robert_graham
robert_graham topcommenter

A very good idea because I've heard that lately there's been a big influx of illegal aliens in the Tucson area. Those lucky people who get the free shotguns should use them for target practice.

eric.nelson745
eric.nelson745 topcommenter

The recipients of the shotguns will be absolutely thrilled. One might think, "oh wow, now I can rob a bank!" or maybe "now I can teach those punks who tagged my house a little lesson!" I predict that every shotgun given away will eventually be used in a crime. 

Dickjohnson
Dickjohnson

This program gets to the essence of what the modern day NRA is, marketers of guns.  

deniseaz2003
deniseaz2003

i read the guns are to be a single shot . ifthat is so , then if i recall the operations of such style,  if it is to be set up for safe home use , then some jerk will put a cartridge in the chamber , and set it aside ,or in a closet , that is just not good ,, 

back ground checks ,, great , having a reasonable weapon for safety good ,, shot gun for safety good ,, over all plan however , NOT SO GOOD , 


WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

After Mark Kelly's buy of a gun was stopped, because he intended to give it to Tuscon PD, how can these clowns buy guns that they plan to give away?

dean143
dean143

Is Vice President Biden leading this effort?  Considering his remarks on February 19, I would think that he would be top supporter of this. 

davelog
davelog

They have to pass a background check and take training first, right? Sounds like a plan to me.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan hmm..so your solution is homicide? youve been listening to too much Ann Coulter ..ps that would be AGAINST THE LAW 

jonnyquest
jonnyquest topcommenter

Eric, I used to belong to the group, Valley of the Sun Pink Pistols. Great group of very responsible gun owners. They are still active. Cost and distance to drive are the only things keeping me from continued membership. It's not the gun, it's the person. Google the group, check their facebook page, better yet contact them. They will tell you that each of us is responsible for our own security and safety. A gun is a tool, like a fire extinguisher, that can be used in an emergency. It can save your life. Anti-gun people are mistaken and willing to see you defenseless. Don't fall for it.

Bort-LongYear
Bort-LongYear

@eric.nelson745 Makes about as much sense as saying: Well now that Marijuana is legal, everyone will now smoke it or abortion is legal so lets go get one.  EricNoLogic.


valleynative
valleynative

@eric.nelson745 If you would just take a few moments to look at gun crime statistics, you'd see how foolish you sound.  Only an inconceivably small percentage of firearms are ever used in crimes, and very few people are foolish enough to try to carry a shotgun into a bank.   Long guns of any type are very rarely used in crimes, because you can't conceal them and they're really awkward to use to try to cover an entire room full of people.   Most bank robberies are actually committed without any gun at all.  The weapon of choice is the handwritten note.

valleynative
valleynative

@Dickjohnson   And your statement gets to the essence of a large percentage of anti-gun posts.  Arrogant statements about things you don't begin to understand.  The NRA is not connected with this program.

Bort-LongYear
Bort-LongYear

@WhoKnows Don't be a nincompoop.  Gun stores buy guns witht he intent to "legally" transfer them to other owners.  No difference here.  Guns are owned by the entity a person applies for ownership.  ATF form is completed with background check and gun is transferred legally to the new owner.  Technically what Mark Kelly intended to do was legal--anyone can buy a gun with intent to turn it over to the civil authorities for destruction.  Get real people--Logic, Use It. 

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@WhoKnows The front of ATF Form 4473 states, “Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.” The instructions state, “You are also the actual transferee/buyer if you are legitimately purchasing the firearm as a gift for a third party. ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER EXAMPLES…However, if Mr. Brown goes to buy a firearm with his own mony to give to Mr. Black as a present, Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “YES” to question 11.a.” The Organizatin is not purchasing the guns "on behalf of another person" because the Organization is buying them with its own money, taking ownership of them and then giving them as gifts.  Similarly, Mr. Kelly did not purchase the firearm "on behalf of" TPD-meaning they did not ask, request or invite him to purchase the weapon on their behalf. Apparently they didn't even know of his plans. As a result, this is more like the example in the instructions - he was buying it with his own money as a "gift" to TPD and so he was the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@davelog Free shotguns you can sell to anyone!  Sounds like another NRA loony tune scheme!

robert_graham
robert_graham topcommenter

@valleynative @eric.nelson745 But we're not talking about bank robberies. We're talking about very bad people who have guns and are not afraid to use them on innocent people. But now that those innocent people will have shotguns, it should be bye-bye criminals.

valleynative
valleynative

@Bort-LongYear If you don't understand the difference between a federally licensed dealer purchasing a gun for resale, and a citizen purchasing a gun to give to somebody else, you're probably going to have trouble following this discussion.

valleynative
valleynative

@JohnQ.Public The judgement as to whether or not a purchase is "on behalf" of another party is not that clear cut.  Dealers will take the chance in a private sale, but when you tell the national media you're buying for somebody else, there's no reason to risk being prosecuted.  Certainly not in today's anti-gun climate.

Bort-LongYear
Bort-LongYear

@WhoKnows @davelog Where does it say that the intended posser planed to resell them?  Second, why is the resale of property illegal?  Because it is a gun?  Well, dude motor vehicle kill in the area of 35k people a year--by people committing crimes with them are you now and advocate of a background check to purchase a vehicle?  As well, are now going to have to file a request with the Goverment when we want to sell our cars, cause they could be used to kill someone if given to a person with ill intent or mental illness.  Logic, Use It.  

davelog
davelog

@WhoKnows @davelog As it stands right now, anyone can buy and own a shotgun. This proposal requires a background check and training. I'd rather those be the barrier of entry than the sticker price.

valleynative
valleynative

@WhoKnows Nothing to do with the NRA.  Obama's initial suggestion of a gun ban did more to put guns into circulation than any program like this could have dreamt of.

valleynative
valleynative

@JohnQ.Public  Most of the federal power grabs over the decades have been "to save lives" or to "protect our children".  The States have the authority to take such steps, if they believe they're appropriate.  The feds have no such role.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative Maybe its about saving lives.  Even though you may feel its misguided, reducing the speed limit saves lives.  Maybe the effort related to guns is no more than that - trying to find a way to reduce fatalities related to firearms.  Ascribing nefarious motives such as "expanding power" doesn't do anything to advance the discussion.

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01 The federal government can only regulate anything within the States via back doors around the 10th amendment.  When they wanted to lower speed limits, they did so by threatening to withhold highway funds.  When they wanted to control who may purchase guns, they had to do so by imposing a federal tax, licensing dealers to collect the tax, and threatening to take away the license from any dealers who don't follow federal guidelines.  Allowing the CDC to classify gun violence as a "disease" would provide another back door to increase federal authority.   It's all about expanding power.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@valleynative @david_saint01 why did they stop it though? did you know that even the guy who helped stop it years ago is now on board with letting them do the studies? 

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01 What "disease" were they tracking?  They stopped them from doing "studies", not from accessing the FBI's records.

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01 No, David, the boogyman does not stop the FBI from collecting crime statistics.  They've blocked some research studies because they believed the researchers were blatantly biased, but there is a lot of data out there.  In fact, based on their data, the Justice Department has said that banning "assault weapons" and large magazines would be a waste of time and money, because so very few crimes involve either.

valleynative
valleynative

@Dickjohnson There's another sign of your cliche'd thinking.

If you associate the use of guns for self defense with the old west, your views of firearms are based too heavily upon what you've seen on TV and in the movies. 

Bort-LongYear
Bort-LongYear

@valleynative @Bort-LongYear Hey mooseknuckle--every had a gun auctioned for a fund raiser.  Guess what happens if you win the gun--whoever owns it has to take you to a Federal Firearms dealer they do the background check and then guess what--You got it Mr. O-So-Smart they give the gun to you.  Most times you have to pay a small fee to have the gun transferred; however it is minimal.  So I think I am following the conversation perty well.  So in essence, smartyass not much difference here.  Libs want to compare a legal activity to STRAW PURCHASER.  A STRAW PURCHASER has criminal intent--BIG Difference.  I hope you can follow that jackass.  


JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative I didn't see the whole statement, just saw the discussion about the ATF form.  Regardless of Kelly's intentions, and I don't have any reason to believe he isn't sincere when he says that he intended to donate the gun the whole time, secretly filming the store and its staff wasn't right.

I saw a piece on the whole thing last night and Kelly indicated that his intent was to show how easy it was to get through a background check in order to put gun owners and purchasers at ease that even if background checks were made universal they wouldn't cause a significant burden to purchasing a gun.  I initially took it as him wanting to show that background checks were too easy, which is a totally different implication.

valleynative
valleynative

@JohnQ.Public Yes, if you were a store owner, it certainly would.  You notice that he mentioned it as one of his reasons, while the political point was clearly another.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative If I were a dealer and I realized that I were being used by someone to make a political statement, and I learned after the fact that the purchaser filmed me, my store and my other customers with a hidden camera without permission, I'd cancel the transaction because I'm not the purchaser's tool, I didn't give permission to be filmed and/or used as part of the political stunt, and I'm pissed off about the whole thing.  The form 4473 would never come into the equation if I were the stroe owner.

valleynative
valleynative

@JohnQ.Public If you were a dealer, knowing that you could sell the gun to anybody else in a minute, would you take the chance, even if you thought you could win the case?   One of the things they spent a lot of time drilling into me in my CCW training class is that just because you're legally in the right, you don't want to have to go to court to prove it.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative Actually, the case law gives pretty solid guidance on the definition of "on behalf of" so it is prety clear cut in most situations, including Mr. Kelly's situation and this situation of this Organization.

Bort-LongYear
Bort-LongYear

@WhoKnows @davelog Thats like saying:  Well I am poor so I guess I can sell coke, meth or prostitute myself.  What you are suggesting is that all poor people are opportunist and have no values.  You border on bigotry and definately are an elitist dipshit.  

MaskedMagician1967
MaskedMagician1967 topcommenter

@JoeArpaioFan

Jaffy, when was the last time you were force-fed the meds for the voices in your head?

Cuz it's time to force-feed them to you again!

valleynative
valleynative

@WhoKnows You said they would sell it to criminals.  That's saying that they are dishonorable.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@valleynative @WhoKnows I didn't say "dishonorable".  You did.

If someone gave a person a car, and that person sells the car because they need money, would be the same thing.

valleynative
valleynative

@WhoKnows I grew up in a poor neighborhood.  Poor doesn't mean dishonorable.  To suggest that most would sell to the same people who make their neighborhoods bad sounds like bigotry, to me.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@davelog @WhoKnows So, you don't like to be made to look foolish.  But it's SOOOOOO easy to do!

davelog
davelog

@WhoKnows @davelog Lumping me in with those fuckbags just shows me how incredibly off you are, pal. I think I'm done trying to reason with you.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@davelog @WhoKnows Dave, these are people that can not afford a cheap gun for protection, and you given them a gun they can EASILY sell to the highest bidder?

And you think the CHANCE of them getting sold in and the wrong hands is LOW?  Bet you like Arpaio and Pearce too.  There is no fix for "stupid" I guess.

davelog
davelog

@WhoKnows @davelog It would be sad if any of these weapons ended up in the hands of a criminal, I will give you that - but if taking that risk empowers people to take their neighborhoods back and sleep a little easier at night, I think it's a valid tradeoff.

It's better to let a dozen criminals go free rather than jail an innocent man, isn't it? This thinking is just an extension of that. Risk vs. benefit.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@davelog @WhoKnows If ONE of these guns winds up in the hands of criminals, the plan is INSANE, dave.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@davelog If you were broke, and couldn't buy your own gun, would YOU sell a free gun to help pay your bills?

In a minute you would.

This is INSANE.


davelog
davelog

@WhoKnows @davelog I disagree. There will be some who will flip the shotgun, sure, but many? I doubt that seriously. These are people in high-crime areas who would probably appreciate the extra security and would have their time invested by going through training and the background check beforehand.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@davelog @WhoKnows The difference here is that poor folks wouldn't be buying it.  They would be GIVEN a gun, they can sell the same day, to ANYONE.  And I bet many would pick the cash in hand instead of a gun.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative While most gun owners may be capable of thinking for themselves, the loudest gun owners, the ones that seem to be screaming that the sky is falling, seem to be parrots of the NRA party line, which is why it is sometimes hard to remember that most gun owners are free thinking individuals. 

valleynative
valleynative

@david_saint01 No, David, you've got to get over the idea that gun owners care what the NRA says.  I get email and dead tree mail from them at least once a week for the past 10 years telling me that my rights are in dire peril unless I send them money.  Most gun owners are actually capable of thinking for themselves and acting in our own best interests.

david_saint01
david_saint01 topcommenter

@valleynative @WhoKnows i think it has to do more with the NRA and their pundits going around telling everyone "buy em now before the Govt takes em!" 

valleynative
valleynative

@WhoKnows  People favor "universal background checks" as a concept but people who have read the law are much less likely to back it.  It is not universal and is not a background check.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@valleynative @WhoKnows The NRA leadership is INSANE.  They are going against the will of 75% of their members today, with their stance on universal background checks.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...