There's not a lot of pro-gun moves left for the state of Missouri. I mean, they even tried to nullify federal law, for crying out loud. That's about as baller of a pro-gun move as a state can make.

Yet once you reach a certain point, you start nibbling at those things that have always annoyed you, which is where Missouri apparently is.

Good for them.

It seems there's a bill in the legislature that takes issue with some police departments destroying guns simply because they don't want the public to possess them. We're not talking about machineguns made after 1986 that the public really can't buy, either, but all firearms.

The bill would prohibit them from destroying the guns without at least trying to provide them to the public.

But anti-gunners are going nuts because it'll invalidate something they love so much.

State lawmakers debated a Missouri bill that would render local gun buy-back programs irrelevant.

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Tony Lovasco, R-O’Fallon, would ban any local government or law enforcement agency from destroying a gun without first offering it in a public auction at least two separate times for just one dollar.

The policy would effectively render any local gun buy-back program irrelevant, which is typically aimed at reducing the number of guns on the street.

Lovasco contended that the way many local agencies dispose of firearms is wasteful.

“The reality is, it’s more about surplus property,” Lovasco told the committee members. “We don’t normally destroy perfectly good working equipment that the state has no use for just out of spite – but with firearms, for whatever reason, we do exactly that on a regular basis.”

...

“Every day, we sit here and talk about gun violence, and we beg for hearings on bills to address gun violence,” said State Rep. Peter Merideth, D-St. Louis. “And instead, we’re talking about a bill to protect the guns, because guns are getting destroyed, and how can we handle that? I’m sorry, Representative, I consider you a friend. But I’m angry at seeing this right now.”

Lovasco said he was open to a carve out that would allow guns used in crime to be destroyed, but there's no mention of those obtained through buybacks. Frankly, guns used in crimes are simply guns that were misused. They're not cursed. They're not going to drive the new owner to commit crimes, but this isn't a hill I'm interested in dying on.

And Merideth is really upset, but perhaps he'd feel better if we told him that buybacks don't work?

See, gun buybacks--and that's a silly name since "buyback" means you're trying to buy back something you once owned--are great performative theater. They sound really good when you're on the news, talking about taking guns off the street, but then nothing happens.

Look at the table at a buyback some time and what are you going to see? You'll see a lot of old, worn-down rifles and shotguns, old revolvers, and generally the stuff that was sitting in the back of grandpa's closet that people just didn't know what to do with.

Oh, you'll occasionally find a firearm that someone might actually use for a crime, but most of the time, they're things criminals would give a pass to.

This has been studied. This isn't me just ranting about buybacks sucking. This is based on countless studies that have all come to the same conclusion. Absolutely nothing happens with buybacks.

So the fact that this bill will invalidate them isn't exactly a reason to oppose it, in my mind.

And the truth is that those guns being sold to the public for at least one dollar means there are some people out there who will have the opportunity to defend themselves for a pretty reasonable price.

I don't see the downside here.