Scene of negligent discharge (courtesy boston.com)

“One day after a 9-year-old boy was shot to death by his brother in an apparent tragic accident in Mattapan, Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh said the city will partner with the police department on a gun buyback program, in an effort to reduce the high number of guns circulating in the city,” boston.com reports. Circulating as in changing hands amongst the city’s criminal fraternity? No, of course not. That would be your alternate universe common sense gun control. What Mayor Walsh means by “circulating” isn’t exactly clear – to anyone other than himself. “The message for me is clear,” said Walsh. “We need help from the community to find out where these guns are. Let us know, alert police, so we can work to get these guns off the streets.” What does Walsh mean by “these” guns? Guns like  . . .

the one that caused the inadvertent fratricide? I don’t think that gun (or ones like it) were “on the streets.” In fact . . .

There was no evidence that anyone else in the home knew the boy had the gun, authorities said Friday. Today, Walsh and a spokesman for the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office both said that the question of where the boy got the gun was still under investigation.

“All I can say is it’s a tragedy,” said Walsh, who spoke during a community event at an ice rink in Dorchester where reporters asked him about the shooting.

Yes, but that’s not all he said, is it? Mayor Walsh said he wants to spend taxpayer money buying broken ass guns from their owners, creating a black market for stolen firearms and disarming law-abiding citizens.

With no appreciable effect on firearms-related homicides. ‘Cause I’m thinking the vast majority of the firearms-related fatalities in Beantown are down to gang bangers’ banging. Apparently, I’m not the only one who perceived this perfectly obvious fact; one that a gun buyback will do nothing to address.

The city has been mulling a gun buyback for several weeks, after a violent beginning to the year that saw nine homicides in the month of January alone, many of those gang-related, according to police. Clergy met with Police Commissioner William Evans and Superintendent in Chief William Gross at the end of January to discuss ways to end the violence, and emerged from the closed-door session with the announcement that a gun buyback was a possibility.

Walsh today said the buyback will now go forward.

“We’ll be putting some form of a gun buyback together,” he said, though he said details and timing have not yet been figured out. “It was such a shock yesterday to a lot of people, including myself. You don’t want to get a call that a 9-year-old boy got shot. We’re still working through it.”

As Fagan might recommend, I think you better think it out again.

Recommended For You

61 Responses to Boston Plans Gun Buyback to Stop Negligent Discharges

    • Yep, that’s what it’s called. In fairness to Marty he’s only been mayor for like a week and promised during his campaign to toe the Democrat line. As long as you appear to be “doing something”, actual results are irrelevant.

    • It’s nicknamed murderpan around Boston. It’s not exactly a safe area. That and Roxbury and parts of Dorchester and Jamaica Plain, those are the gang areas of Boston.

    • You haven’t figured out by now that they’re completely aware of that, and that the goal is to get them out of the hands of the populace in general?

      • That’s exactly why it’s called a “buyback”, so people think that only the government should be selling firearms.

  1. Getting guns off the street? “Legal” guns in Boston already have nice homes, which they never leave because licensed carry is all but banned in Beantown. And from what I’ve seen of the more unseemly side of Boston, what Hizzonah needs to get off the street are punks, pushers and streetwalkers.

    Okay, leave the working girls alone. But get rid of the punks and pushers.

  2. Just more wasted tax-payer dollars, more rusted and old and broken guns that have never and will never be used in a crime, more wasted man-hours that can be better spent actually catching criminals (or something otherwise productive), and more feel-good rhetoric from the civilian disarmament industrial complex that doesn’t give two shits about its members and contributors.

    Again.

    Still.

    And the beat goes on.

  3. “We need help from the community to find out where these guns are”

    Sounds a little Orwellian dosesnt it. neighbors and family ratting out each other.

    • My thoughts as well, save for those who bring ’em to the police and say “See? Here’s where they are.”

    • Since I can’t (legally, anyways) police my own neighborhood, I can at least help the police know where the criminals are. Now, before anyone gets all “YOU HATE GUNS!!! AAAARGHGHGBGBLLGHRRGH!!,” let me say that informing on people who have an AR or load their Glock with 11 rounds (I’m a NY-er) isn’t in the mission statement. On the other hand,there is a guy on my block who has broken into several neighborhood homes, blares profanity laced music at top volume, and habitually smokes crack. If I saw him bring a .22 crickett into his house, I’d be on the phone a minute later letting the cops know about a parole violation. Ditto if I lived in a Boston gang neighborhood. I don’t see how helping police get bangers off the streets, even by calling in their guns, is a 2A betrayal. On the contrary, wouldn’t helping stop gang violence only help us? Less “gun crime” means less bloody shirts to wave, means less infringement for us law-abiding gun owners, right?

        • Nest question, then. Actually, several. Are you seriously trying to say that gang violence somehow helps people to see guns in a better light? Or are you trying to say that we should encourage gang violence because we can use it as a justification for concealed carry? Or are you just in a terrible hurry to get your vagina waxed, and you’ll elaborate on your “No” later when the stinging stops? Or are you a troll who likes to leave one-syllable answers to serious questions from others?

          Looking forward to more monosyllabic debating tactics!

        • I don’t know what Ralph had in mind, but my first thought was that gang violence doesn’t play much of a role in the worldview of grabbers. They do lump young adult criminals into their stats on children killed by “gun violence.” However, I’m sure that if gang violence suddenly went away they would simultaneously claim victory for their authoritarian policies and point out how the sudden drop-off in violence shows that people really don’t need those icky guns anymore.

          Poor benighted founders and their obsolete Second Amendment. They must be forgiven for their ignorance, though. The founders lived and died before the glory that is the modern Progressive, the enlightened, fully realized end-stage of human evolution.

      • You should video him and his pisanos smoking crack and anonymously deliver it to police. Then do it again. Then do it again. Eventually they will move on them, especially after your local TV news runs an hours worth of your “production”. The electronic age, ain’t it wonderful.

        And for those who will screech that they do it under cover? Wake up. A$$holes like this do their druggin’ right out in the open, and as we all know you can film anything anyone does in public.

  4. Phrases like “apparent tragic accident” bother me to no end. There is no question the accident happened, and someone somewhere WILL dispute that it was “tragic”. But it was NOT an “apparent accident.” Surely no one could believe a little boy would kill his little brother with malice aforethought.

    • That’s happened on several occasions; murder doesent randomly find its way into the human heart at puberty.

  5. Stupid is as stupid does.
    If I had a busted up anything toy or zinc gun.
    Id trade it in for whatever they were giving away.
    That’s about all they get in this type of thing anyway.
    Why they think this is getting guns off the street is beyond me.
    All it does it give you something, on the tax payers dime for something useless as is.

  6. RF, if you read the herald or globe,you will see that almost every single homicide in boston, gun or no gun, is gang bangers killing each other, either over a drug deal, or “disrespect”. I would estimate 95%
    The other 5% is due to Aaron hernandez

    • the media always quotes the parents, excuse me, the mother or grandmother, as saying they were good kids, . . . even if they had noted state-funded stays in their short history

      • Or they were “just about to turn their life around”… or they were just thuggin’ in order to feed their kids because “he was trying to be a dad”… or he “was just about to get a legit job”… etc etc. Always an excuse, which is the trend with that lifestyle.

    • It’s not just Boston, but the whole damn country. The FBI’s National Gang Threat Assessment proves, factually, that the vast majority of murders (and all other violent crimes) are attributable to gang-bangers (and they’re usually bumping off other gang-bangers which doesn’t really sadden me all that much).

      • Far too often they are killing people who are totally uninvolved in their gang crap. Which is exactly why citizens should be armed. When little trayvon or jose or richie starts banging away there should be an absolute RAIN of return fire from every citizen within sight of their stupid a$$es. And since the local citizenry knows where jose/trayvon/richie are when they are not shooting innocent bystanders they should be waiting for their punk a$$es when they come crawling out and see to it they do NOT get to do their business as usual bullshit.

        Just a thought, for the cradle of America’s Revolution.

        • Seems to be working in Mexico. At least armed citizens seem to be making progress. Regardless, things are not nearly as bad here as they are in Mexico, though the Progs are doing their level best to push us in that direction.

        • Within a 1-4 hour drive from the house I am sitting in I can place you on a street corner where the likelihood that you will be assaulted/killed simply because your skin is too light and you look like you have something of value in any one of several cities. Hell, Detroit is only 6 away. This deterioration is rather widespread, it is still mainly centered in several metro areas, all under the long term control of one political Party. Saddest part is given proper leaders from their own areas, and the active use of self-defense against gangs/criminals who are using weapons against these citizens every day these trends could be reversed. Americans could take back their cities with relatively small amounts of bloodshed, especially compared to Mexico, Africa, the Balkans and all of the southeastern European/Russia region. And lets not be forgetting the ME, might hurt their feelings.

          And I don’t mean a bunch of white outsiders going into these places, that is already a huge part of the problem, I mean the people actually living there. American citizens who have been betrayed by their local, state and Federal governments at every turn. Who have been failed by the entire LEO community, often at the hands of government and just as often by the greed, corruption and incompetence of leaders inside the LEO ranks. The people living in these places know better who is to blame than anyone else, if they honestly look at it.

          Hell, thus endeth the sermon, for the moment.

    • Just like it is in Rahmbo’s People’s Paradise on the Lake. Take out the gang-related homicides and the rate drops like a rock.

  7. I’d also like to pose a question, a question that’s been asked many times of the civilian disarmament industrial complex, but has never been concisely answered by the same: How does the government “buy back” something that does not and should never have belonged to them in the first place?

    • Don’t quibble over semantics or confuse them with the facts. They are doing something about gun violence. For the children. And about 80% of the people in Eastern Mass will probably hear the news and think something good was done. Because it is something.

  8. Gun buyback? So, Mayor Numbnutzz is confessing to selling guns to criminals, since the only way he can “buy back guns” is if he personally sold them. A prosecution seems in order, here.

  9. When I think of municipalities sporting a large number of firearms, Beacon Hill and surrounds don’t exactly top the list.

    • Beacon Hill is just the kind of place that has guns. Expensive guns. Large safes. Keys to the boat. And a wish that the hoi polloi would be disarmed. A perfect world for them. Oh, and some coke, molly, and viagra. Nice sorts. Clubbable.

      It often occurs to me that the anti-MSR agitation expresses a desire by the gentry to prevent the obsolescing of their fomerly-traditional firearms.

  10. Mayor Marty and Billy the Comish couldn’t wait to stand in front of the cameras and waive the proverbial bloody shirt. Evans lied on live television and said he was unsure if the gun was legal (registered); any idiot knows it would take the BPD less than three seconds to run a check and find out. Massachusetts sucks!

  11. Just be sure you get the “bad” guns walsh, you wouldn’t want to take any good guns from good people? The gun you triumpfantly buy back might have been that which saved someones life, can’t have any of those attrocities can we? Randy

  12. Unfortunately, MA lows are detrimental to private citizens setting up a buyback store so that those who would turn in guns for a fraction of their value can be fully compensated. When buybacks are instituted in less restrictive states, owners can sell to private parties at a premium to what the government will pay.

  13. Walsh joined MAIG yesterday. Just in case you thought that sanity had returned to Boston after the reign of Master Menino.

    • The Cradle of Liberty wasn’t murdered in its crib. It was murdered in its late dementia. The sclerotic, atrophied dementia of the Left rendered this once proud and independent Commonwealth a pathetic shadow of its former self.

  14. “Surely no one could believe a little boy would kill his little brother with malice aforethought.”

    A 14-year old with an illicit gun isn’t a little boy. Apparently he’s been in trouble before: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/02/09/report-police-called-often-fatal-shooting-site/JdQONdmhBpCWAFa2j7dzpN/story.html So, yes, I believe that he might have shot his brother on purpose.

    “White kids go to school on weekdays. Apparently black kids ages 9 and 14 stay home and shoot each other.”

    How do you know they’re black, and what does it matter? I went to several different sites, and couldn’t find the names or races of the family involved. Howsabout we stop giving credence to the “only racist OFWGs care about guns” myth, hmmm? Whether the kid was white or black isn’t really the issue, it’s that a young punk got an illegal gat and shot his brother, and now the anti-s have more ammo in the gun control games. Next time try “Kids who have good families that stay together and care about their welfare go to school on weekdays. Apparently kids ages 9 and 14, whose parents are not together and leave them unsupervised, stay home and shoot each other.” Fixed it for you.

    • Because if they were white kids their race would be in BIG letters all over the headlines and mentioned at least twice in the body of the stories.

    • The vibe I get from that article was that this wasn’t an “accidental” shooting. Like you, I also believe this could very well be a premeditated homicide.

  15. Money spent on “gun buying” could be better spent on teaching children what to if they find a gun. It’s totally naieve to think a curious kid is not going to play with a gun, unless taught that it can hurt or kill someone, it’s not like TV or Movies where people shot show up in another movie or program.
    I feel badly for the brother who shot his brother, that’s a kind of guilt one never gets over.

  16. So, they’re buying back guns from the LEOs to reduce negligent discharges?:)

    If they really want to reduce negligent discharges, the money would be better spent on training.

  17. The new lie is the number of “children” killed or injured by hand guns. The new definition of children being all who have not yet reached their 21st birthday. While I agree with the premise of safe gun ownership, I would never allow access to anyone without a warrant to have any idea of where or how many firearms I might possess. Any parent that doesn’t think your kids know where every item you own (better hide that leather S&M outfit ) then you are fooling yourself.

    I have always loved guns but was taught to respect what they were and what they could do at an early age. I have grown children who I would never consider giving a firearm to and others who I would not hesitate to give them the combination to my safe.

    You cannot idiot proof the real world, there are just too many of them. Sadly, a majority of them also vote….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *