Other State A ‘Moral Dilemma’ After Las Vegas Massacre: Sell the Gunman’s Weapons, or Destroy Them

[slimmer13]

I just don't see how destroying them in this case has anything to do with that argument. It is ok to destroy a gun. In this case I support destroying them in order to make a symbolic action to support the families of the victims. And if I want to destroy my own guns as my own property, that's ok too. And if the government wants go destroy weapons after all evidentiary uses are done from a serious crime, that's ok too. Not as if we have a shortage of guns, if anything a surplus. So I'm confused by this worship of a tool as some sort of special object that should not be destroyed.

Did you read the article? Not all the victims families support destroying the guns.

It sounds like the shooters estate will be divided amongst the families of those killed. Why not give them the guns to to do with what they wish?

 

[11Charlie]

Lets not turn this into a pissing match. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion. For those that don't agree can we please move on and if not then I will close the thread.

 

[slimmer13]

Lets not turn this into a pissing match. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion. For those that don't agree can we please move on and if not then I will close the thread.

I thought we were just having a conversation. Not sure what rules were bent or broke? Y'all are pretty thread lock happy lately.

 

[11Charlie]

Like I said if you weren't directly effected and aren't family our opinions on it are pretty moot, including mine. I merely said I understand the want to destroy them, and would support family who felt that way.

I understand what you are saying. Not disagreeing with you at all. I totally would understand if the families affected by this tragic event wanted them destroyed.

 

[rick benjamin]

The lawyer involved in passing on Mr. Paddock's nearly $1.4 million estate to the families of the 58 people he slaughtered at an outdoor country music festival is charged to liquidate Mr Paddock's estate for the financial benefit of Paddock's victims.
Lawyer isn't charged to make "moral dilemma" "emblematic rejection" moral statement.
Destroying the firearms and firearms related stuff isn't within lawyer's charge.
If the guns used in the crime(s) were to be destroyed, the courts and LEOs would have done that.
My opinion is the lawyer transfer to a "silent" gun dealer to be sold, proceeds to go to the estate to be divided to the victims.
Makes sense to me the gun sales be anonymous sales.
There, easy peasy

 

[rick benjamin]

In OTHER NEWS, Teens got cell phone rights! Uh, cops say not so much.

 

[BSG 75]

Compromise solution:

Disassemble the firearms into components (like an organ donor). Destroy the serial numbered receivers. Sell the components through a distributor without disclosing their source (to avoid selling to weirdos trying to get a piece of a notorious crime). Donate the proceeds of the sales to the victims and their family members.

 

[bolus]

I'd say hang the guns in the town square to warn all those other guns of the consequences.

Or perhaps sell them but only after engraved with a scarlet red letter "G?"

I know, bar them from all gun ranges so that they may never be able to shoot again and try to regain their place in society?

Is there a gun predatory registry? Then the guns would have to inform all their neighbors that they are murderers.

I dont know, this is hard...

 

[gunnails]

Some one mentioned cold logic, that describes my thinking.

Cold logic tells me it's not logical to throw away cash. The bereaved no doubt need cash ($1,100 each) and the sale of these firearms and accessories will hopefully help to offset the loss of a beloved wage earner. In their shoes, I would rather have the cash then some sort of moral compensation.

I don't think they should have a private sell where the buyers would be unaware of the history of the firearms. I think it would be best to have a public auction and I would bet someone or some group would pay double there value or more so they could then have them destroyed.

I would never buy any of those firearms even at a 1/4 of there value because of the creep factor.

I don't believe in destroying firearms even though I have by mistakes, but if anyone else wants to chop up their personal firearms/possessions they can have at it.

No mention in the article of what has happened to the Bump Stocks.

 

[slimmer13]

Understand that the actual gun or guns used in the attack will never see the light of day. The FBI will never release them, so what we are talking about is the other 50 or so guns.

 

[Carbon]

Bonnie and Clyde's guns auctioned for $504K

Bonnie and Clyde killed a few folks, their guns ended up like this. I wonder if the decendents of the deceased recieved any of the proceeds?

 

[bbbass]

Yeah, I'd rather not see his guns in some kind of public freak show. But the lawyer's gonna do what the lawyer's gotta do.

Didn't click.

 

[Lilhigbee]

Not a "moral dilemma", just virtue-signaling BS. By this "logic" we should also burn down the hotel, shred the luggage carts he moved the guns with, crush the car he drove there in, bulldoze the music venue, and prosecute the hotel help that rented him the room.
I find the hypocrisy here very disappointing. In other threads most assert that guns are just tools, incapable of thought or malicious action, yet here we have guns that are somehow to blame.
if there are two or more freaks who want them because of their history, that will drive the price up and result in more compensation for the victims. That is the best outcome I can see here.

 

[clearconscience]

I hate the idea of destroying firearms, but I sure as heck wouldn't want them.

 

[American123]

Instead of destroying or selling, I think they should be donated to an Appleseed type charity for teaching furthering the understanding of those that fear what they don't know. I think it's a far better use of the evil mans former property. I understand the sentiment for destruction, but to me that's a waste that could benefit others and teach more people about guns and how to safely use and enjoy them.

Edit to add that they should be donated anonymously to prevent any knowledge of what they are and who they previously belonged to.

Just a thought.

The best suggestion.

Strip identifiable information that reporters could use and donate them anonymously to educational shooting groups to promote increased repsponsibility and education of firearm use.

If destroying guns for closure is the argument then all the murderes and rapists and etc should be dead along time ago for "closure"

 

[hatchj]

For reals. Sell them. Destroying them won't get rid of grief. Most effective probably wouldn't even know they were destroyed. Sell the ones not used in the crime. And try to sell the ones that were, but with notes that it was used in a murder. Get rid of them if no one wants them? Destroying the guns doesn't get rid of anything but plastic and metal.

 

[Member 52301]

Sell the firearms and all other gun related equipment/reloading supplies/ammunition/etc. and give the money to the victims families.

Let one of the $$$ BLOOMBERG $$$ anti gun groups buy them with an inflated price for THEIR holier than thou news coverage and they can decide what to do with them after they pay up.

Why do I say this? Since they keep trying to make firearms (Firearm = object and a tool with NO pulse of it's own.) the issue instead of the Murderer the issue... someone should tell MR. BLOOMBERG TO GET OUT HIS CHECKBOOK. He can add some more money to his cause. MB, don't give your money to the candidates/politicians... give it to the victims. I think that the estate lawyer SHOULD APPROACH Bloomberg with this offer or any other gun CONTROL GROUP.

(I think that should be investigations on those types of groups, anti gun orgs. and anti gun 'foundations' too! Add the foundation board and the original foundation leader too! What ARE their salaries and bennies? Hhhmmm.)

Now, if MR. BLOOMBERG does not want to give his money to the victims by buying the guns... put them up for sale on the open market. I don't care WHO (A regular shooter or some type of (?!) collector.) buys them or if they get shot at all but use that money and pass it on to the victims.

I personally would not want his guns. But if someone else wants to BUY them... have at it!

I still do NOT believe the 'official story' on this LV shooting incident - murders and wounded people. I DO believe that people got murdered and wounded!

The shooter's past, his lifestyle, his girl friend, his investments, his planes, properties, guns, ME and other trips, etc. Most of all - I still believe that he was Not a lone gun man no matter what GUN/guns were used with or without a bump stock. Tons more - I can't say it here.

I do believe that he was into gun running with or without a FAST AND FURIOUS type of deal.

If he was not in a deal with the F and F guys, his background reminds me of some other historical Alphabet Agency deals, conflicts and, ahem, situations.

I think that he could have been involved with some other mean and murderous types of people - the word terror comes into play.

I think that he could have been involved with some drug cartels and gun running like we have already seen in many U.S. run and foreign run historical events - true history not some conspiracy theory too.

The timing of events, how this ENTIRE CASE was handled from the gitgo, the flip flops, and so many other things... I may be OLD but some of this STUFF still does not add up.

Cate
Typos!

 

[Member 52301]

PS:

I said, "SELL THEM.", above. That is what I think should be done no matter Who Buys them or what They Choose to do with said guns.

They buy them... I could care less what they DO with the gun/guns if the money goes to the VICTIMS.

I do NOT like to see guns destroyed but IF someone chooses to buy one or more of them whether they were used in a crime or not... it is their MONEY and THEIR GUN. Use it or don't use it. It is NONE of my business since you own it!

Re: Bloomberg and his type of big $$$ anti gun and people control = gun control groups:

There ARE specific rules on gun destruction according to the ATF website and in the over 20,000 gun laws on the books! I remember reading about this in the news and on the ATF website in the past. Usually they say to turn your gun over to the AUTHORITY FIGURES, ahem, police station or whoever is in charge (State Police, Sheriff's Department, City Police or some Federal Agency.) and they will Destroy them, Hold them forever in some locked room/facility or in some states... they, gasp, SELL THE TURNED IN and/or CONFISCATED GUNS after a time frame.

So if a Bloomberg type or the man, himself, wants to make a point... pay up, donate the money and get rid of the gun/guns in a legal manner according to the ATF laws.

GUNS that may be released immediately (Not used in a crime.) and GUNS that may be released later on (Used in a crime.) IF they are ever released at all by the authorities should be sold.

Cate

 

[Member 52301]

There were some men and women who destroyed their guns but they did not do it the proper way according to the ATF.

Several of these news stories were all over the news after some mass murders.

Well-Meaning Gun Owner Accidentally Creates Illegal Firearm in Viral Video

(Well meaning?! Carefully worded title by the PM magazine, eh?)

So if Bloomberg decided to buy those guns and donate the money... maybe he should have the ATF destroy them in a proper, legal according to them, manner. I know that he would destroy them and not let HIS private and/or taxpayer paid security force use them even if they have the same types of firearms. He still has taxpayer paid security at some events even if he is no longer the Mayor of NYC when he goes to certain events in NY and around the country. He uses them with HIS private security people too.

Cate

 

[Andy54Hawken]

One of the troubles with these "Moral Dilemmas" is :
Just where do you draw a line :
Should Third Reich items not be sold...
How bout items from the Empire of Japan...
Guns from former Warsaw Pack Nations...
1873 Springfield rifles and carbines...

Any item can be turned into a moral dilemma , when it is artificially given or assigned human values , emotions and some sort of conscience.

A item may be a part of history...but history dosen't care if you like it or not...nor if you have the moral dilemma...its just history , as in a event from the past.

In the case of the OP...
Just what does the law state should happen here...?
No need to make a issue out of something , when none exists.
Andy