There is something unhealthy about a city administration that lists destroying valuable property as one of its highest priorities. That is the case with Savannah, Georgia. According to WTOC, Savannah, Georgia has a great many important issues on their plate. After considerable effort, they whittled down their list to their six highest priorities. Bold added. From wtoc.com:
The city has had a lot of issues, but city council members managed to narrow them down to a list of just six items. This list includes addressing the on-going blight issues, dramatic increases to commercial property taxes, improving transparency with the Pardons and Parole Board, ID cards for parolees, reinstating the law that allows law enforcement agencies to destroy weapons and drainage improvements.The priority to destroy weapons is in opposition to a state law that requires that the valuable assets be sold to licensed dealers rather than be destroyed. Destruction of these valuable items only benefits firearms manufacturers. If there are fewer used guns to supply the demand, then more new guns will be manufactured and sold. But city councils, especially of large urban areas, often have no understanding of simple economics.
City leaders are asking the law to be changed so that local jurisdictions have the option of destroying *or* selling weapons at auction. Despite the city's efforts in making this a top priority, Rep. Ron Stephens says not to get your hopes up.When the firearms are sold to licensed dealers, they are treated just like new firearms are treated. Numerous academic studies have shown that destruction of such guns has no measurable effect on crime.
Part of 1,400 guns to be sold by Richmond Co, Georgia in 2013.
Image from chronicle.augusta.com
It is understandable that people who wish the public disarmed want to send a message "Guns bad", by publicly destroying guns.
But making sending such a message one of the six top priorities of a city shows we are dealing with a delusional group, not rational players. The chance of the State of Georgia reversing this law is essentially nil. The bill, SB 350, passed in the Georgia Senate in 2012, 49 to 4.
Consider a statement made by an Atlanta Democrat, Sen. Vincent Fort, about the bill, three years after its passage, in 2015. From ajc.com:
Fort doesn’t always agree with the Reed administration, but he does this time. “We’re going to find that those guns are going to be used in crimes. I have no doubt about that. To put that many guns back on the street, when we should be doing the opposite, is bizarre,” Fort said.Fort's statement is itself bizarre. The guns mentioned will be put on the shelf in gun stores, right alongside other new and used guns for sale. If they are not there, some other gun will be sold. If there are not enough guns to meet demand, more will be made. Their presence will make zero difference in the availability of guns. Numerous academic studies have shown that their presence will make no difference in crime.
When such attitudes are prevalent on a City Council, doubt is cast on the logic of other decisions that they make.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.