A total of 75 firearms — 44 rifles or shotguns and 31 handguns — were collected during the Edmonds Police Department’s first Gift Cards for Guns event Saturday.
Among them was a handgun reported stolen in 1990, Edmonds police spokesperson Commander Josh McClure said.
Participants could receive a maximum of $200 in Amazon.com gift cards but could turn in as many weapons as they wished, he said.
The event began at 9 a.m .at the City of Edmonds Public Works property. By 11:15 a.m., officers had dispersed $4,500 in gift cards to Edmonds and Snohomish County residents. The department purchased the gift cards that were distributed, he added.
McClure noted that Edmonds police frequently have members of the public call or come to the department wanting to turn in unwanted firearms. Often these weapons are inherited through family, or various changes in life circumstances, and the owner no longer wants the gun in their home. Police also investigate multiple thefts of firearms from vehicles and residences, he added.
The goal of this event was to provide a safe, convenient resource for residents to turn in unwanted weapons, so that they are not stolen and used to victimize others, found by a child and tragically discharged, used by a person in crisis, or left unattended and unsecured, McClure said.
All weapons collected in this event were checked in state and national databases. Those not linked to a previous case will be transported to a regional facility for destruction. Edmonds police does not sell or retain any weapons for department use.
Edmonds Police Chief Michelle Bennett will evaluate the outcome of the event to determine if or when future exchanges will occur.
“I’m extremely proud of our staff for putting on such a well-organized event that furthered our community engagement,” Bennett said. “Safely removing over 70 unwanted weapons from our community means that criminals won’t have access to them, and potential tragedies may be avoided.”
Mayor Mike Nelson added: “I greatly appreciate everyone’s effort in supporting firearm safety and gun violence prevention.”
Who paid for the gift cards?
As stated in the story, the police department bought the gift cards.
In other words, we the taxpayers paid for the gift cards, through police budget. Correct?
That is my understanding.
Wonderful that these guns are now off the street; in my opinion, this is a great taxpayer investment. Thank you to our police department for facilitating this event!
I question that the long guns shown, which are basically old hunting arms, and the flare gun launcher pistol are going to do much in the way of helping prevent gun related crime by getting them destroyed. A few of the pistols look like they make sense to be purchased and destroyed with tax money, but that is about it. I don’t see any modern compact high volume automatic weapons here, that would be used in a mass shooting incident. This was largely a tax paid for publicity stunt using our top notch police dept., that won’t do much of anything to prevent gun crime. On the other hand one could argue; if it stopped one suicide or domestic violence act, it might have been worth it; but that is a stretch.
In that photo of the long guns I see at least three World War 1 era rifles (a couple of Mausers and what appears to be a Lee Enfield). Its a shame that these 100+ year old pieces of history are going to be destroyed.
I can’t see anybody giving up an AR-15 or AK-47 for $200. One could sell them in a pawn shop for $1200 easy. Wonder if local gun shops could do this rather than destroy rare or valuable firearms. Perhaps I could camp out at the next event and bid $300 cash and FFL transfer fees – I’ve been looking for a Winchester 45lc lever-action for years. At least I know I practice safe gun storage.
The real question is this: Have we done this before and did it work program? We have more crime now than ever before. It’s not the Gun, car, knife, baseball bat that kills…it’s the person. Why these buy back programs are popular I have no idea….as every report you read states they are ineffective. The very people who should turn them in never do.
Joy, how do you propose to prove the negative? How many people weren’t killed, held up, or threatened? These programs are not set up to get “the very people who should” to turn in guns (although I’m sure every once in a while one of “those people” have an awakening). Guns are stolen from homes and/or businesses every day and then used by people to kill, hold up and/or threaten others. Is $4500 worth one person’s life? Is it a good investment if two people don’t have to experience a life-time of PTSD should they survive a hold up? How about the child who finds a gun and plays with it, accidentally killing another? What is an appropriate pay back, in your opinion? It’s not something we can absolutely calculate because none of these weapons will get into the hands of those who would perpetrate such crimes. To me, given the rise in violent crime carried out by people using guns, it’s a pretty safe bet that at least one of these weapons would have fallen into wrong hands.
Annon, because decades of research shows such programs don’t reduce gun violence, in large part because they don’t result in guns being taken from people who aren’t supposed to have them. One recent study found “no evidence that (gun buyback programs) reduce suicides or homicides where a firearm was involved.” I couldn’t find any positive reduction anywhere…you can check for yourself.
Joy, when there is an upward trend of violent crime (which there is) of course there won’t be a reduction in suicides and homicides. You’re missing my point so I apologize if I haven’t expressed it in a way that makes sense to you. There is no way to measure the impact of a program such as this in a concrete way because one cannot prove a negative – meaning, if something doesn’t occur then there’s no way to measure that fact. Sense dictates: Because A is increasing (violence perpetrated by individuals using guns, as well as home/office break ins where a weapon is stolen), then B is extremely likely to have a positive impact (getting ANY guns off the street). So I’ll ask again, what’s a big enough pay back for you? A citizen’s life being saved because we spent $4500? A police officer’s life? A child’s life? Seems like a heck of a deal to me.
Annon, Interesting dialog between you and Joy. I think you are both right to a certain extent. The big argument seems to be “people are the problem” vs. “guns are the problem.” This strikes me as a faulty conclusion on both sides; both of which are searching for a simple solution to a highly complex problem.
Personally I have more of a problem with the timing of this project and the over hype of the project than the project itself, or the tax money spent on it. Why worry about spending mere dollars when you are already wasting thousands of them on one thing or another that’s designed to look and feel good, but not of much use in practical terms.
Clinton, I didn’t say “people are the problem” nor did I say “guns are the problem”. Guns in the hands of people with ill intent is a problem; the origin of that intent is another conversation all together (a side note, you’ll notice I never used the phrase “gun violence”). If we have roughly 42,000 people living in Edmonds, and we spent $4500 to get these guns off the street, that’s less than 11 cents per person. (and yes, one of those was a flare gun; a flare gun can easily kill someone). I’ve had a weapon drawn on me and it’s a disturbing event, to say the least. If spending $4500 prevents someone from going through that trauma, or worse, it’s money well spent. I understand what you’re saying about timing, but we differ in what we believe constitutes good use of tax payer funds, in this instance.
Good relevant points Joy. All I know for sure is the person that got $100 of OUR money for that plastic flare gun laughed all the way to the bank (or perhaps his/her local Fentanyl dealer).
If I were the person who traded in the flare-gun, and I used the money to buy diapers or groceries for my children, I’d be pretty bummed at this comment. Seems like a cheap idea to pile on.
Annon, your leaving out the people who have guns and prevent deaths, and there have been many. Way to many to list but you can check that too. Again this money is taxpayer monies and I don’t think it works.
Joy, I’m not following your statement. Bottom line, we disagree on the merits of this program.
Clinton, I would absolutely agree with you on your last paragraph.
Matt W, if all I had was a flare gun…to get food and diapers??…with the job market the best it has every been because no one will work..and welfare benefits are everywhere..including free food, daycare, and training, free phones, free rent…(I could go on) and all you can do is trade a flare gun??? And where is that father to support said baby? Just had to laugh..sorry
We’ve gone all the way from the concept that guns don’t kill people; people kill people; to the idea that the state buying back guns might be helping feed the poor and anyone who questions this is taking cheap shots at the poor. At the risk of looking like I want the last word, I’d suggest ending this one Teresa, as it’s a road to nowhere at this point.
Hi Clint, actually this has been interesting and like a number of posts that are on MEN. Stories bring out a bunch of opinions and all too often insults.
“The goal of this event was to provide a safe, convenient resource for residents to turn in unwanted weapons, so that they are not stolen and used to victimize others, found by a child and tragically discharged, used by a person in crisis, or left unattended and unsecured, McClure said.”
“Edmonds Police Chief Michelle Bennett will evaluate the outcome of the event to determine if or when future exchanges will occur.”
Opinions aside it looks like they accomplished the goal. My bet is we will here from Chief Bennett in the future that will be the evaluation of the program. Stay tuned.
Hi Darrol. To a certain extent I think this has been much adu over nothing. If one just wants to destroy a gun all they have to do is dissasseemble it; throw plastic and/or wood parts in the garbage and take the metal for free disposal at the solid waste disposal site. Why make the city the middleman? I think it was political. I’m all for helping Chief Bennett do her tough job anyway we can.