Here’s the latest Amazon deal: Turn in your handgun, shotgun or rifle and get $100. Have an assault weapon? That’s worth $200.

Part of the Seattle-King County Gun Safety Initiative, Amazon is donating $30,000 in gift cards for trade to people who turn in their guns. Thanks to contributions from Amazon, the Seattle Police Foundation ($25K), Nick and Leslie Hanauer ($25K), the University of Washington Medical Center ($10K), SEOmoz ($10K) and Pemco ($5K), $108,000 has already been raised, topping the $100K goal.

The first gun buyback will be Jan. 26 from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in the parking lot underneath I-5 between Cherry and James Street near City Hall.

The buyback program is anonymous and the SPD assures that it won’t be taking pictures of people at the buybacks or looking for signatures. Once turned in, the guns become part of SPD property and will later be destroyed from the earth.

“This isn’t a trick, and this isn’t a sting,” writes SPD. “Whether you’re turning an anti-tank missile launcher you “found” in your basement, or your Gammie’s old .45, the buyback is anonymous with no questions asked.”

SPD reserves the right to limit the number of gift cards to one person, so that people aren’t showing up with 1,500 guns and receiving a $150,000 gift card.

Seattle implemented a similar initiative in 1992 when 1,172 firearms were turned in. Los Angeles also did the same thing last month, taking in more than 2,000 weapons and two rocket launchers. Yes, rocket launchers.

But there are doubters that say this program won’t work. Dave Workman, senior editor at The Gun Mag, told The Yakima Herald that “we’ve had a history of these gun buybacks around the country, and they haven’t done anything.”

Seattle had 26 homicides last year, which is about average looking back at the past 10 years. 22 of those happened in the first half of 2012.

Previously on GeekWire: WhitePages CEO spread awareness about school shootings with online database

Latest News

Comments

  • Kim

    the guns become part of SPD property and will later be destroyed from the earth.

    —-

    Is good thing!

  • http://twitter.com/jclaussftw Jason Gerard Clauss

    Well this will certainly help increase the average IQ of firearm owners. You have to be an idiot to give up a semiautomatic rifle (or in Orwellian Newspeak, an “assault rifle”) for $200.

    • Guest

      Thank you for missing the point, which is to have these firearms destroyed. If you were to sell your semiautomatic rifle, it would eventually end up in the hands of a criminal who would massacre me. By turning your firearm in to the authorities, you ensure that it will be melted down in a furnace at a steel mill.

      • ThomasCampbell

        The POINT (other than the one on these idiots’ heads) is that less than 3.5% of gun homicides are caused by semiautomatic rifles…which means the idiots turning one in are: 1) getting ripped off; and 2) not substantially reducing your chance of getting massacred. :) Especially since the majority of gun violence occurs in cities with more than 250,000 people. Are you in an urban area with a population of 250,000 or more? Then reduce your chances of dying from a semiautomatic rifle to near-zero by moving to the suburbs.
        But regardless of where you live, you have a 5 times greater chance of dying in an automobile-related incident than you do from dying at the hands of criminal with a gun and a 10 times greater chance of dying BY ACCIDENT! So be careful in that crosswalk…and don’t drink and drive…have someone plug in all your electic appliances for you…and you might want to install some rubberized grips in your showers and tubs…and avoid sharp objects…and don’t stand outside in the rain.
        And here’s something to REALLY keep you up at nights: if that police department removed 2000 guns from the mix each year, they would still be falling behind because the overall number of guns being produced and bought in the United States each year is much greater than that…and the EXISTING guns number in the hundreds of MILLIONS. A thousand less guns on the street is statistically insignificant.
        Sleep well!

        • Guest

          Thomas, I will not move to the suburbs. I live in the city. I expect not to be slaughtered by some gun-wielding maniac. My mayor is already working to remove automobiles from the streets; the next menace to be so destroyed is guns.

          I understand that you have a right to carry a gun. Frankly, you shouldn’t. It’s no longer necessary in cities to bear arms. You just proved so yourself. Because of this, I’m calling on our President and on our Congress to introduce legislation significantly curtailing gun rights. Carrying a firearm ought to be a privilege, not a right. I understand that the 2nd Amendment exists. We should significantly amend this amendment. The Constitution used to say that black people counted as 3/5 of a person, and we changed that out-of-date provision ages ago.

          • Rkanum

            @Guest – Just because you THINK the 2nd Amendment is outdated does NOT make it so sir! Considering most major cities in the US have some of the highest crime rates (like Chicago and DC for starters, which ironically have the most unconstitutional gun laws as well) I’d seriously reconsider your foolishness of your ideas of grandeur that bearing a firearm to protect yourself is unnecessary in such places. Again I say, you are a FOOL if you think you trusting our government state, local or federal to protect us from violent criminals! When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away… Even the Founding Fathers of this nation knew better and have stated as such in their writings and commentaries, to ignore their council and wisdom is a fool’s notion!

            The whole principle behind the 2nd Amendment is not solely for hunting, sporting or any other such trivial notions, it is first and foremost for SELF-DEFENSE and most importantly for the citizenry to protect themselves and their freedoms a from a TYRANNICAL AND DRACONIAN GOVERNMENT who would seek to take them from us!

          • Guest

            I trust my government more than I trust you. Times have changed. Industrialized nations the world over have criminalized gun ownership and they have gun death rates that are literally orders of magnitude lower than the U.S.’s. When guns are criminalized, only criminals will have guns — and our law enforcement will deal with the criminals.

            Again, I trust my government and my law enforcement more than I trust a bunch of pseudonymous gun nuts on the Internet. Please turn in your guns, as should all citizens, law-abiding and otherwise.

            In enacting an amendment to limit the scope of the obsolete 2nd Amendment, I’d also like our government to invoke the 5th Amendment and take the guns of citizens who, frankly, shouldn’t have them. You’ll be compensated for their fair market value, to the extent that guns are marketable at all.

          • tryingtocalmdown

            The fact that you “trust” government is evidence that you are not living in reality. Sure, trust but verify as Reagan said about arms control. With the law enforcement-security-surveillance industrial complex continuing to run rampant over our civil liberties, tracking our physical and digital movements being able to exercise 2nd amendment rights becomes ever more critical to remaining a free people.
            Having said that, I might turn in my old Browning .22 for $100…

          • Guest

            Owning a gun has nothing to do with “remaining a free people.” Gun owners have no right to terrorize me by coöpting the duties of law enforcement agencies and the military. If you honestly believe that men from a government are coming to your house to enslave you, and that your Browning .22 will help you defend yourself against a SWAT team who is sworn to uphold the law, I would recommend a fine mental institution.

            Never mind that; Reagan closed those down.

            Firearms are not being kept to protect men from law enforcement. Pull a gun on a cop and you’re as likely to get killed as you are arrested. Firearms are being kept by men who think that guns will protect them from their fellow civilians, and in their delusions, gun owners take the law into their own hands with tragic results. The list of atrocities committed with handguns in the United States is too long for me to list; were I to do so, your web browser would run out of memory before the page finished loading.

            I hope that these buybacks are just the beginning of the end of the U.S.’s shameful firearms- and paranoia-based culture of self-destruction. As a natural-born U.S. citizen, I will support all efforts to disarm my fellow civilians.

          • Your Neighbor

            No effort will be great enough.

            Also, if a man with a knife were running at YOU… and I (a law abiding armed citizen) was walking next to you, what would you ask me to do? Be honest, there is no room for pride here.

            And by the way, at that point in time, I would respect your political and social opinion on gun ownership, and let you remain in your Utopian cloud.

          • Guest

            I wouldn’t ask you to do anything. I would step aside, allowing the man to run past me. I would then remove my mobile phone from my pocket, take a photo of the assailant, tweet it to the police, and flee to safety.

            If you were to fire upon the man, I would be required to turn you in to the authorities as well. The law does not permit you to fire upon a man because you perceive him to be a threat to me.

          • ThomasCampbell

            Actually, in Texas, the law DOES allow me to use deadly force to prevent harm to someone else…or even to protect their property. Just because you live in a backward state with silly gun laws, don’t assume we all do. :)

          • debra manahan

            Good for you & your gun that you live in Texas. And, good for me that I don’t.

          • Guest

            By the way, in what world do you live where “a man with a knife” runs directly at YOU? Have you been playing that old Kung Fu game for the Nintendo? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZFuU_BPOo

          • ThomasCampbell

            I trust my government less
            than I trust my neighbor’s dog. You, I trust even less. And criminals…I
            don’t trust them at all. Our law enforcement is ineffective in dealing
            with criminals or we wouldn’t be having this debate over the need for
            self-protection and guns…because they would have prevented Sandy Hook
            and Columbine and all the other anomalies sensationalized by the
            media.

            And please, feel free to waste your time politicking for modification
            to the 2nd amendment. If, in the EXTREMELY unlikely event you can get such
            an idiotic notion through our deeply-divided (and completely useless)
            Congress (who can’t even pass a BUDGET, which they’re required to do by
            law!) it will be just as effective as the Amendment prohibiting
            alcohol–which they later had to overturn due to its unenforceability.
            Just like this one would be.

            Regardless of what laws are passed, the 270 million (or so) guns
            estimated to be owned by the American public will NOT magically appear on
            the doorsteps of police departments…and law enforcement wouldn’t be able
            to process them if they did. So, here’s how your totally impractical idea
            would have to play out. (I just love when liberals try to do math and
            stuff!!)

            The government can’t afford to pay fair market value for all that
            weaponry even if the police COULD process that many weapons! Let’s
            see…FMV for my Glock is around $300, your average AR is worth nearly a
            grand (and probably MORE, as the prices are currently being driven up) and
            there are other guns that cost thousands of dollars. So, as a low-ball
            figure, say the average gun FMV comes in somewhere around $500/gun.
            Multiplied by 270 million guns out there, you’ve just added another $350
            BILLION to the National Debt…not to mention the cost of actually
            receiving and processing and destroying those guns, which would likely be
            multiple more billions, plus completely absorbing the total manpower of law enforcement for years. Are you going to write that check? Because I’m
            certainly not. All of that, and you would still not have decreased homicidal deaths
            by any more than around 9,000 per year. Which, as I said, is the 16th
            leading cause of death, with automobile deaths roughly 4 times that, and
            SUICIDES double that! (Yes, the sad
            truth is, you’re statistically twice as likely to KILL YOURSELF as you are to get
            yourself murdered by somebody else…including all methods of homicide, not just
            guns.)

            Soooo…if lobbying to have your legislators waste their time
            proposing completely ineffective gun laws (which would do absolutely
            nothing to keep the guns out of the hands of actual criminals) keeps you
            busy, I’m all for it. Lobby away! Why are you wasting your time on here?
            You’ve got a big job ahead of you! Check back with us in a few years so we
            know how things are going for you!

          • Guest

            Hi Thomas,

            Mass murders are not “anomalies.” They are a regular consequence of excessive gun ownership. Tell the families of the thousands of men who have been slaughtered by firearm-wielding maniacs in this country that they are the victims of “anomalies.”

            I don’t care that guns aren’t the leading cause of death. They are one of the largest PREVENTABLE causes of death. I need a car to drive to the store to buy goods. I might hit a few life forms on the way, but that’s hardly preventable, as the court records will show. You don’t need a gun for any purpose other than to stoke your ignorant hatred of law enforcement.

            You don’t need a gun, Thomas. Get rid of your gun. You have no purpose for it, especially since you’re not in a “well-organized militia” (the purpose of the Second Amendment) anyway. You’re part of a forum of mentally unstable men whose paranoia represents a credible threat to the lives of the men around you.

            In fact, the U.S. needs for you and all the other gun owners to simply dispose of your guns. With less guns will come less crime. You can scream and shout all you like, but the numbers back me up. A simple Google search for “handgun death statistics by country” shows that civilized countries in Western Europe that have banned guns have much lower gun death rates than we in the U.S. do. I don’t mind borrowing another $350 billion to disarm you: after all, we’re ending military aggression and interest rates are at record lows, so why not snag some cheap money and create some jobs at steel plants to make our country a more peaceful place for the next generation? Heck, I bet you could even get one of those jobs. You’d earn enough money to buy a knife, a baseball bat, or some other weapon to fool yourself into thinking you’re protected from the evil gummint.

            Get rid of your Glock. You don’t need it. I want you to do it not only for me, but for the 300 million Americans that you will no longer be able to kill with it.

            A copy of this message will be posted on the Internet, where my Congressman will be able to read it.

          • ted

            Well, then, I’ve got a couple of amendments that I do not like and consider them “outdated”. When will we begin repealing those? It’s, you know, for the children.

            You don’t seem to grasp the fact that the 2nd amendment is one of the founding pillars of this country. It was made an amendment for a reason – so that people like you can’t scrap it as they see fit. These are the rules, and if you don’t like them – change them, but until then you’ll just have to abide by them.

          • Guest

            We’ve scrapped amendments and clauses of the Constitution before, and we will do so again. The second-place vote getter in the election used to be the V.P.; now we vote for the President and the V.P. together. Slaves used to be counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation; now all men are counted equally. We used to inaugurate the President on March 4; now it’s January 20. According to a coaster I read at a bar, we even outlawed liquor with a Constitutional amendment — then outlawed prohibition with another amendment!

            The Constitution was built to be changed, Ted. I don’t live in the 18th Century, so why should my laws?

          • concerned citizen

            guest you are correct that when you ban handguns that handgun deaths go down but unfortunately murders and violent crimes triple or more than triple such as England, Chicago, and Washington D.C. now lets move on, you stated that we should turn in our guns and give up our second amendment now in all fairness shouldn’t you give up your first amendment? we made it fair to the blacks by making there vote count in full as we should have from the very beginning so we should be fair to everyone and you give up your first amendment and I’ll give up my second. also if I’m carrying a handgun I’m not going to massacre you unless you try to massacre me, just because I’m a gun owner does not make me a blood thirsty vigilante ready to try to kill every criminal in the world, it just makes my little area of it safer because there will be no taking of innocent lives unless criminal element takes mine first

          • Guest

            What do you have against the First Amendment? An intelligent man talking never killed anyone in this country. Men invoking the Second Amendment have effected premature death thousands of times just last year. You do not have the right to assume the duties of law enforcement in your area of the country. That’s for law enforcement.

          • GuessWho

            I have come to the conclusion that you are more than a douchebag, you are a fucking idiot.

          • debra manahan

            How many times have you had to avoid being massacred?

          • Mark Dietzler

            What rights I may or may not have are not granted by a piece of paper, nor cease to exist because that piece of paper is changed at the whim of a manufactured majority.
            If you really believe that removing all firearms from society will make said society safer, I invite you to try and institute such a thing personally. Don’t send your paid government enforcers, do it yourself.

          • ThomasCampbell

            Wow. You’re more out of touch with reality than I thought. Let’s enumerate some of the more obvious things you’re wrong about.
            First and
            foremost, I have nothing but the highest respect for law enforcement. I count
            among my close personal friends a Louisiana State trooper, a Texas city police
            officer (helicopter pilot), a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI—formerly
            ICE) officer, an officer in the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations
            (OSI) and a County Sheriff’s deputy. They are great people and deeply concerned
            by the amount of violent crime in this country…much of it in Texas imported by
            our direct neighbors to the South. They are incredibly motivated and amazingly
            effective—individually—and they and their sister agencies’ combined efforts have contributed to
            reducing violent crime steadily (per capita) for the past several
            decades.
            But as an organization our law enforcement agencies are simply
            outmatched by the amount of money, manpower and ILLEGAL guns that criminals are
            bringing into this country to support the trafficking in drugs and people…not to
            mention the home-grown crime for simple profit. If our law enforcement agencies
            were truly as effective as you seem to think, they would be able to go in and
            eradicate most of the gun deaths in our country by going to all of the 250,000+
            population urban areas where the majority of gun deaths occur, and take the guns
            from the career criminals who own one ILLEGALLY. They know where these deaths
            regularly happen, nearly down to the city street. If they made a concerted
            effort to get THOSE guns, gun death numbers would plummet.
            But it’s not their
            fault…people won’t pay enough taxes to increase the size of their departments
            and arm them appropriately to do so, and we can’t up the penalties enough to
            truly deter criminals. The death penalty is not enforced nearly often enough to
            make it an effective threat (you’re more likely to die from a lightning strike
            than the electric chair) and our prisons might as well have a revolving door.
            And then there’s those “pesky” issues of civil rights prohibiting search and
            seizure (also in the Bill of Rights!) and the inevitable claims of racial
            profiling producing the equally inevitable political squabbling. So…those gun
            deaths are not going to decrease any time in the near future, regardless of the
            laws passed. Because law enforcement won’t be able to enforce them.
            As for giving up my guns…that’s obviously not happening,
            either. Neither I nor anyone else in Texas is worried about any of the proposed
            (and completely laughable) laws currently proposed by Congress, and the
            possibility of a Constitutional amendment is a delusion so far-fetched it seems
            it MUST have been drug-induced. Because the simple fact is, it would be
            political suicide for about half of those members of Congress who come from
            gun-toting states to even contemplate such a foolhardy act. They’d be lucky to
            not be victims of a mass recall and immediate replacement. Apparently you don’t realize how hard it is to amend the Constitution. You have to have
            a 2/3 majority in both houses to ratify the proposed amendment, and then it has to be approved by 3/4 of the states–a majority which they clearly don’t
            have.
            As for law enforcement curtailing the use of weaponry? It was one of
            those nice police officer friends of mine who arranged to sell me a gun, from
            another nice officer who wanted to trade his existing “spare” weapon in for a
            better model and needed some additional cash. And they’re helping me select and
            buy a good shotgun next. When the prices go back down to normal—after this
            silly scare wears off—I’ll probably invest in a rifle next. Because Obama has
            sold more guns each time he’s been elected than any President before him. Any
            time the politicians have to make noise about “doing something about guns” to
            fool the weak-minded into believing they’re really serious about gun control,
            gun sales go through the roof! Shelves get emptied, prices rise and it’s an
            amazing boost to the gun industry! They’re actually helping to PROMOTE gun
            sales and gun manufacturers! Isn’t that funny?
            Finally, I’d like to address YOUR paranoid fantasy
            of “a forum of mentally unstable men”—which, with 270 million guns out there,
            would apparently include at least half of the people in this country–many
            of whom are women. As a result of purchasing my Glock, I took the time and
            trouble to get my concealed carry license, which involved consenting to a
            background check, being certified as being able to fire reasonably accurately
            and I continue to keep up my skills by training regularly. I have literally
            dozens of friends, men and women, the vast majority of whom also own guns and
            carry them concealed, legally.
            My wife doesn’t usually carry herself, but
            likes that I carry wherever we go because it gives her peace of mind as well.
            But most importantly, now I don’t worry that if someone breaks into my house
            while I am there that they will ever break into anyone else’s. So our combined
            level of paranoia has actually DECREASED, because gun ownership has made us less
            likely to be victims of violent crime…proven over and over again.
            And I
            appreciate you thinking of me, but I already have a very good job, so I don’t
            need one working for a steel mill melting down guns…thanks for the kind
            offer. And I want MY police department on the streets, NOT in a back room
            cataloguing guns for destruction while violent crime runs rampant after
            disarming the law-abiding population. My cop friends are already overworked and
            underpaid enough. And we need to spend LESS money in the government—much, MUCH
            less—to reduce the Obamanation that is our current multi-trillion-dollar debt
            situation. But then, you’re apparently of the delusion that ANYTHING that would
            weaken this country further must be good for you and your friends who
            are our foreign enemies, as well.
            So, despite my increased interest in
            arming myself and protecting my family, I’m hardly likely to be the guy who will
            “massacre” you. In the unlikely event you die from a firearm, statistics show
            you’ll most likely die by a bullet from a stolen or unregistered gun, fired by a
            career criminal…which means they won’t be paying any attention to any
            inconvenient laws you dream up or any 2nd Amendment modifications you could
            envision. They are criminals—which you don’t seem to understand means that they
            break laws—ESPECIALLY laws governing the use and ownership of guns! So, your
            chances of dying from violent crime would actually INCREASE because you’ll have
            ensured the career criminals know that you live in a “gun free zone”—basically a
            game preserve for criminals to hunt in without fear—which is what has occurred
            in most countries with unarmed populations.
            Because, not-so-strangely, as
            guns are outlawed, gun deaths go down, but overall violent crime goes up
            dramatically. You’re welcome to check those statistics, as well, while you’re
            Googling. And comparing the raw number of gun deaths by country is a nice
            trick, but the fact is, we have much greater population than those other
            countries, too, so the disparity (per capita) isn’t as large as those anti-gun
            slides make it look when comparing overall deaths to overall deaths. MY
            takeaway from all of those fun graphs is this: I think it’s very curious that
            in those countries where guns are supposedly outlawed…GUN DEATHS ARE STILL
            OCCURRING! How do you suppose that happens and who do you think is still doing
            the killing? Surely you aren’t suggesting that there are people who are willing
            to break the law and who would still find a way to get to weaponry if we took
            the simple step of OUTLAWING them, right? Because you’re convinced that would
            just solve ALL of those pesky gun death problems, wouldn’t it??!?
            Mass murder is not a new concept, and certainly predates our modern guns by many
            millenia.
            Luckily, as I say, I live in Texas, where the last whacko who
            decided to cut loose with a gun in a theatre (a month-or-so ago) wounded only
            one person before he was stopped by a gun owner. This is NOT Colorado where you
            can expect to get away with a “massacre” in a public place before someone takes
            you down. And the only innocent harmed was the one shot by the gunman himself!
            Imagine that! No hail of stray bullets from maniacal gun-toting citizenry took out dozens
            of babies and moms. In Mississippi? Same story. Lone gunman, firing in a
            crowded place…incident resolved. Immediately and with finality…and without
            “collateral damage”. And the nice lady in the news who just shot a home invader five times while protecting herself and her children while 911 responded with officers “only minutes away”? She’s a hero. As a friend of mine once said to me, recounting his
            training as a sniper in the Marines, “You got your basic sitchyation. You shoot
            him. No more sitchyation.”
            As for the 300 million people who are “at risk”
            from ME owning a gun? Again, wow! I’d have to save up A LOT for the ammunition
            necessary to be a risk to that many people! Especially at current prices. At most, I only have a couple thousand rounds on hand at any given time.
            But you know who HAS killed
            millions—after they’ve disarmed the population, of course? Political leaders.
            Do the names Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong sound familiar? Do you know
            why those massacres of MILLIONS didn’t happen here in America? I believe it’s
            called the 2nd Amendment, which was put in place by our founding fathers to give
            tyrants pause before they decide to oppress, terrorize and ultimately kill
            “undesirable” portions of their populations.
            Soooo…by all means, lobby in your
            home town to open up the game preserve, and turn on the “free hunting” sign in
            YOUR area. We’ll watch as the disarmed idiots run for cover from over here while the wolves fleece the sheep. And we’ll have guns
            at the ready, of course, in case the bad guys foolishly come our way, but we’ll respect your right to remain defenseless, bringing knives and bats to a gunfight. Who has the
            popcorn? Should be a good show…

          • debra manahan

            Are you in a well organized militia? What is it called?

          • ThomasCampbell

            It was settled back in the early 1800s (while the founding fathers were still alive) by Nunn v. Georgia that it was the intent of the Constitution and its framers that all people should be able to carry guns.
            “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree.” Pretty hard to misinterpret that, but you’re welcome to try.

          • debra manahan

            How terrible it must be to live in such fear.

          • ThomasCampbell

            Why would I fear anything? I’m armed…pretty much all the time. I’ve had years of martial arts training, I’m fairly competent with a wide variety of weaponry, from sticks to knives to swords to large guns, and in a pinch, even though I’m older and out of shape, I think I could still do significant damage to most people with less training than myself even if completely unarmed. But as they’re fond of saying in Texas, you don’t want to be caught bringing a knife to a gun fight, so…I keep the guns handy. :)

          • ThomasCampbell

            Reminds me, in fact of this joke that’s been going around the Internet a while:
            —-
            A Kansas State Highway Patrol officer made a traffic stop on an elderly lady the other day for speeding on U.S. 166 Eastbound at Mile Marker 73 just East of Sedan, KS.
            The Officer asked for her driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance. The lady took out the required information and handed it to him. In with the cards the Officer was somewhat surprised (due to her advanced age) to see she had a conceal carry permit. He looked at her and ask if she had a weapon in her possession at this time.
            She responded that she indeed had a .45 automatic in her glovebox.
            Something — body language, or the way she said it — made him want to ask if she had any other firearms.
            She did admit to also having a Glock 9 mm in her center console.
            Now he had to ask one more time if that was all. She responded once again that she did have just a couple more: a .38 special revolver in her purse and a shotgun secured in her trunk.
            He then asked her what was she so afraid of.

            She looked him right in the eye and said, “Not a damn thing!” :)

          • Rudy311

            You’re exactly the kind of useful idiot that the city and federal government is looking for. If there ever is a time that your loved ones look to you to protect them, you can feel smug when you plaintively tell them “don’t worry the police are on their way”.

          • Suzy

            Thank goodness your mayor is working to remove automobiles! Next he can outlaw sugar, uncomfortable shoes, stupid people, phones, and pornography.

          • ThomasCampbell

            What a great idea, Suzy! But before tackling those problems, I think he should probably outlaw drugs, since they kill thousands more every year in this country than people with guns, and the collateral damage from addicts inflicting violence on others puts that butcher’s bill at about 250,000 per year, by a couple of estimates I’ve seen! And after he legistlates THAT little problem away, maybe he can outlaw alcohol and save thousands more lives, by removing drunk drivers from the road and preventing deaths from alcohol abuse! Because, obviously, all you need to do to make these pesky problems go away is just to declare them a criminal act and people will just obey the law, right?

  • http://twitter.com/robertmclaws Robert McLaws

    The part that you missed about those rocket launchers was that they were fake. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52267

  • guest

    If Amazon was serious about gun control they wouldn’t hire lobbyists who also advocate for the NRA. See for example the client list of Cauthen, Forbes & Williams – both Amazon and the NRA right in there together: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000032406&year=2012

  • Bre

    This is a really get step to making change..

    Also,Cheikh Davis created a Flash Mob with inner city youth to bring to life a positive message of stopping the violence and fighting for DREAMS. check it out!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W43rNoMSGVs

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=659836318 Stephen Peele

    I feel a massive boycott coming….I would watch it!

  • Anon

    Pry it from my cold, dead hands first.

    • ThomasCampbell

      Molon labe!

  • C.D. in Georgia

    The only thing this accomplishes is to reduce the number of law abiding citizens who own guns. Do you honestly think criminals are going to line up to turn in their weapons? Please. Actually, on second thought, if you’re dumb enough to voluntarily turn in your weapons to the police for a gift card, then it’s probably best you don’t own a gun anyway.

    • debra manahan

      Law abiding citizens turning in their guns keeps those guns out of an unstable person’s hands.

  • Aaron

    Before you go there and trade in send me an email of what you have. Depends on what you have I’ll pay you more Thank you aabrodell2@yahoo.com

  • http://www.facebook.com/gregg.park Gregg Park

    By “rocket launchers” they mean single use only, useless, empty tubes that are perfectly legal and easily obtainable. Don’t let that get in the way of a good anti-gun story though. Dumb asses…

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.curcione David Curcione

    The N.R.A. Last hope to tell the Citizens to hold on your Guns too! Rifles, Shot Guns , Hunting1 Coinceal Weapons : Semipistals, Revolvers, too! Alot of the Mfg is not Mfgs those old Guns no more is done true! They gone foever true!!!

  • l

    If you do not want guns go to a different country

  • pjb1

    I’m sorry to see Amazon getting involved in this mindless political posturing. I had thought they had a better understanding of liberty than this; firearms are the primary tool for liberty, along with the Internet. They might as well have a computer turn-in program to get dangerous ideas off the street. Fools! Well, what can one expect? They are a big corporation after all.

  • The Embryo Parson

    Laughable. As are the comments of the bedwetters here.

  • Phillip Evans

    No questions asked? Hmmm, easy way to destroy evidence? Aiding and abetting? And only one gift-card per “customer”? I guess getting rid of only a few guns is good enough for them to make a big show – for a program that will accomplish nothing in the way of reducing crime.

    My next purchase will NOT be from Amazon!

  • Ace

    It will be great to see Amazon buy up the junker guns no one else wants, so that their owners can use the funds to buy better, more workable weapons.

Job Listings on GeekWork