Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakebasile | Hacker News Reader

The very term is a lie. These guns were almost surely never owned by the government, so it is not buying anything back. Guns do not belong to the government by default. The word has also been used to describe involuntary confiscation of weapons, which many people who value their rights would oppose in the strongest terms.

In addition, guns have value to people for more than functionality. There's endless stories of people selling "back" their grandpa's WW2 take back piece that would be worth thousands of dollars to the right collector and would be restored and enjoyed for decades, only for a police officer to at best "lose" it in transport or more likely send it to be melted down for scrap so someone could get a $50 gift card and local police can post to Twitter about how another dangerous war relic is off the streets.

View on HN

Buyback as in you bought it from somewhere, and the government buys it from you. Buyback doesn't, to me anyway, imply that the government sold it to you in the first place.

Your notion of the word doesn't match the definition :

NOUN buyback (noun) the buying back of goods by the original seller. the buying back by a company of its own shares. a form of borrowing in which shares or bonds are sold with an agreement to repurchase them at a later date: "a share buy-back" synonyms: retrieve · regain · recover · get back · reclaim · repossess

Other dictionaries include broader definitions. American heritage dictionary specifically includes a “government program to incentivize something” definition. Googling buyback brings the top hit of a company that will buy your used electronics.

Well, no matter your personal definition I stand by my response illustrating why some people are very hostile to so-called gun buybacks.

> Buyback as in you bought it from somewhere, and the government buys it from you.

That's simply "buying".

Sure, but a “government gun buying program” sounds like they’re starting their own collection.

"buy back" doesn't imply destroy. If I sell something to you then buy it back from you, there is no implication that I subsequently destroy whatever it was.

Your position in this whole sub-thread is very odd.

My position is whatever you think of gov “buyback” programs, the name being misleading isn’t a valid criticism. Nobody thinks the implication is the government sold you the gun in the first place. Sure, it’s a slightly irregular use of the term “buyback”, but governments and corporations and people use language irregularly all the time and it means very little.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com