A republican in Kentucky voted for this.

[ThePreBanMan]

Then why are used J frames here almost the same price as new ones at the store? Not buying it (pardon the pun).

Scarcity of the resource. Just because the used gun market is saturated, does not mean that every specific make and model is at a level of such saturation.

Revolvers aren't as popular as semi-automatic pistols and that's been the case for quite some time. And now you're referring to a very specific model within a niche market. So yeah, price is going to reflect that reality regardless of where you buy that revolver.

 

[Coyote33]

So, in other words, "not saturated". THANK YOU.

 

[not new guy]

The conversation should never even get to a market impact analysis. It's completely irrelevant unless you're willing to entertain the idea that certain guns are evil (as evidenced by them being used in a crime) and need to be taken out of circulation by the state in contravention of the normal rules regarding the handling of property that's been entered into evidence. And why on earth would anyone entertain that ridiculous idea?

"I am willing to entertain that ridiculous idea!" you proudly announce. Alright, fine. How many frigging legally possessed guns are actually used in a murder in Kentucky each year? How many of those guns end up retrieved and end up in evidence? Do people really think that number is going to sway local gun prices? If not then why the hell is this even being discussed, except to try to defend this ridiculous gun grabbing legislation at the expense of all logic, reason and established property rights? And why would anyone on here want to do that?

 

[ThePreBanMan]

So, in other words, "not saturated". THANK YOU.

There are plenty of used cars for sale on car lots. I don't see many 1960s split window Corvettes among them. That must mean the entire used car market is a scarce resource right? I mean that's your logic here. And if by some miracle you did find one, I wonder if it would be for sale for more money than what it sold for new?

A specific niche item in a niche market is in no way representative of the marketplace as a whole.

You're throwing out mental gymnastics just to be contrarian. It makes you no less wrong.

 

[Agnotology]

Depends on if it's contraband, who the actual owner is, etc., but if it's only being held because it's evidence (i.e. isn't contraband) it's supposed to be returned once the prosecutor no longer needs it as evidence.

If a gun is used in a crime and the defendant is guilty the gun should be returned to its owner. If the defendant is the owner and they're no longer legal to own guns (because they murdered someone) that's one thing (and I'd argue that it should be able to be passed/sold to someone else if it was legally owned before the crime), but what if the defendant had stolen your gun and used it? You don't think you should get it back?

If someone stole your gun and used it to commit murder you should get it back. Provided you weren't an idiot in your means of losing it. Like the cop who left their gun behind in a bathroom and it got stolen.

The conversation should never even get to a market impact analysis. It's completely irrelevant unless you're willing to entertain the idea that certain guns are evil (as evidenced by them being used in a crime) and need to be taken out of circulation by the state in contravention of the normal rules regarding the handling of property that's been entered into evidence. And why on earth would anyone entertain that ridiculous idea?

"I am willing to entertain that ridiculous idea!" you proudly announce. Alright, fine. How many frigging legally possessed guns are actually used in a murder in Kentucky each year? How many of those guns end up retrieved and end up in evidence? Do people really think that number is going to sway local gun prices? If not then why the hell is this even being discussed, except to try to defend this ridiculous gun grabbing legislation at the expense of all logic, reason and established property rights? And why would anyone on here want to do that?

How is it a gun grab? Best I could read, the are making a policy change on what happens with guns used in a homicide after said person is convicted. Assuming the above isn't the case, we are talking about a max average of 288 guns (assuming all are recovered, and 1 wasn't used for multiple murders) being removed. What is the normal procedure in these cases? If it were a knife, a tire iron, or some other kind of melee weapon, it would get scrapped right? Not become another piece of murderabilia (found out that was a thing today) I'd hope.


The guns finding a new home is a net positive. The police getting funding via voluntary transactions as opposed to taxation is a net positive. I'd agree the change is policy is overall bad and stupid. There is a "downside". I'll hand-wring with everyone else.

 

[67ray]

Like so many proposed laws, the legislators must be compelled to answer the question "What problem is this going to solve?" Some dorkus in the video says that such firearms go on to be involved in crime again. Oh yeah - show us. It's all BS to create more fodder for MSM and for legislators to appear like they actually do something. This is a publicity stunt and no surprise she has tried to get traction three times and no one is buying it. Karen all the way