Quote of the day—Sgt. Jim Barrett

Are we really expecting these people to walk down the street to this drop box, with the gun tucked in their shorts, and drop it off? It doesn’t seem to me to be a thought-out process as of right now.

Sgt. Jim Barrett
Tacoma Police Union
September 9, 2015
Worth a shot? Tacoma mulls gun ‘drop boxes’
[Here is the idea Barrett is legitimately questioning:

Gun control advocates in Tacoma, Wash., are thinking inside the box — literally — with a controversial proposal to set up a gun “drop box” to encourage residents to turn in firearms, no questions asked.

Gun “buybacks” don’t work, so why would people participate in a “giveback”?

These people are out of touch with our reality. Apparently in their reality guns are what we think of as garbage and they expect everyone to put them in bins for the local government to haul off.

As is usual, these people have crap for brains.—Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Sgt. Jim Barrett

  1. At least the “drop box” doesn’t have quite the same Orwellian naming as a “gun buy back” (which implies that guns are inherently property of the State).

    But in either case… we see that the deodand fears of the antis are so intense that they want the *police* to provide the safest means for a criminal to dispose of incriminating evidence.

    At least they’re not giving the crooks money I suppose. Where a “buy-back” turns the police into not just a way to destroy evidence, but also the /safest/ place to fence hot property. Sure a crook might not get much, but he can get paid without worry of getting in trouble with the… police.

    • Are the police then aiding in the commission of a felony if they take guns like this that have been used in capital crimes?
      Sovereign immunity is turning into a bad thing if it hasn’t done so already.

  2. I dunno – the boxes seem like they’d be handy for depositing bags of dog poo, after you’ve taken Fido for a walk in park.

  3. I think there’s a sort of unstated implication to the buybacks and dropboxes and such. I think on some level the antis know that legitimate owners of guns won’t turn them in like that, but some other people with access to those guns just might. The widow who never understood her (now passed away) husband’s hobby is the most benign case, but next up is the heated divorce scenario, or the mom with a kid whose interests she doesn’t approve of (whether target shooting or criminal), or even the case where someone no longer wants the guns they have and is intimidated by the laws that might make them a criminal for simply taking other ordinary actions.

    They use the power of the State to intimidate, harass, and threaten gun owners. And then they offer a way out: just give up the guns and surrender to the State. It only works because of the intimidation effect. But it *does* work, at least on those who aren’t firmly committed.

    • It would amuse me greatly if the only guns turned in were used in some infamous unsolved murders the anti-gun people have to take responsibility for the turn of events.

Comments are closed.