Communities across the U.S. are fueling a secondary arms market by giving seized and surrendered guns to disposal services that destroy one part and resell the rest.

When Flint, Mich., announced in September that 68 assault weapons collected in a gun buyback would be incinerated, the city cited its policy of never reselling firearms.

“Gun violence continues to cause enormous grief and trauma,” said Mayor Sheldon Neeley. “I will not allow our city government to profit from our community’s pain by reselling weapons that can be turned against Flint residents.”

But Flint’s guns were not going to be melted down. Instead, they made their way to a private company that has collected millions of dollars taking firearms from police agencies, destroying a single piece of each weapon stamped with the serial number and selling the rest as nearly complete gun kits. Buyers online can easily replace what’s missing and reconstitute the weapon.

Hundreds of towns and cities have turned to a growing industry that offers to destroy guns used in crimes, surrendered in buybacks or replaced by police force upgrades. But these communities are in fact fueling a secondary arms market, where weapons slated for destruction are recycled into civilian hands, often with no background check required, according to interviews and a review of gun disposal contracts, patent records and online listings for firearms parts.

  • douz0a0bouz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s wild how you get: gun buyback programs = bad. Rather than: corrupt corporations need watchdogs.

      • tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Why would you “sell back” actual guns when you can build a functioning 12 gauge shotgun from $20 of parts from the hardware store? Slap a few of those together and turn them in for a solid contribution toward your next gun.

    • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      You think intentionally fraudulent programs with no meaningful oversight or meaningful accountability are OK? That’s what seems wild to me but ok.

      There’s no way this is the first time this has happened either.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        2 years ago

        Maybe, then, you should be calling for more oversight and accountability of such programs rather than dismissing them as a joke.

        • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          2 years ago

          You’re making a shitload of wild assumptions about me (also, they are wrong), but ok: Good chat.

          By the way, if you look further up the thread, you’ll see that I called for just that.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        You think intentionally fraudulent programs with no meaningful oversight or meaningful accountability are OK

        You should use concrete to make sure those goalposts don’t move around so much.

        • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          You should misuse more buzzwords and make increasingly wild assumptions.

          Anyhow, you’re going to have to try and start an argument with someone else now.

          Goodbye.