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.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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
      31
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      11 months 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
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months 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
      ·
      11 months 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
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months 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.