Senate Votes Against Gun Buyback Plan

by ALAN FRAM Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate voted Thursday to back President Bush's plan to kill the government's gun buyback program, handing a victory to gun-rights forces.

Senators voted 65-33 against a proposal by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., to provide $15 million for the program, created less than two years ago by President Clinton. The Bush administration announced last month that it was ending the program, saying there was no proof that it was taking guns from criminals.

Schumer tried adding the provision to a $113.4 billion measure financing housing, environment, veterans and science programs for next year that the Senate approved by 94-5. The House version of the bill, approved last week, contained no money for the firearms purchasing program.

Under Buyback America, local police departments have received up to $500,000 to buy guns in and around public housing projects for about $50 each. The weapons were then destroyed.

''Someone is alive today because of this program,'' Schumer said.

Opponents said the program was a failure that siphoned money that public housing authorities could better use to upgrade housing or to help the homeless or others.

''Do they take away the semiautomatic and the .38 used in commission of crimes? Absolutely not,'' said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.

The vote was not a clear referendum on the Senate's sentiment on gun issues. To pay for his amendment, Schumer would have taken the money from funds provided to public housing authorities for anti-drug efforts, a program some lawmakers were reluctant to raid.

Nonetheless, the buyback initiative has been opposed by the National Rifle Association and supported by gun-control advocates.

The vote was the second victory for Bush and pro-gun forces in less than a month. In July, the House voted to back Attorney General John Ashcroft's plan to shorten to one day the period the government keeps background-check records of firearms purchasers.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, which administered the buyback program, credited it with removing 20,000 guns from the streets of 80 cities in its first year. But the agency also said the buybacks were removing just 1 percent to 2 percent of guns from those communities.

By 69-30, senators also rejected an effort by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to cut $5 million from some of the hundreds of home-state projects the bill contains and increase spending for the adjudication of veterans' claims.

McCain, a longtime campaigner against such earmarks, had proposed cutting funds in half for 18 projects in the bill, including $100,000 to develop the Alabama Quail; $1 million to improve a rodeo and fair facility in Dona Ana County, N.M.; and $1 million to help Louisiana celebrate the upcoming bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase.

The overall bill would boost veterans spending by 9 percent to $51 billion; restore a $300 million drug-elimination program for low-income housing that Bush proposed killing; and provide $416 million for the Americorps national service program, $4 million more than Bush wants.

The Environmental Protection Agency would get $7.8 billion, $435 million over Bush's request, while ignoring Bush proposals to cut 270 enforcement officials. While NASA and the National Science Foundation would get more than last year, the space station would get $2 billion -- about $100 million less than Bush sought, reflecting congressional impatience with cost overruns.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

Answers

"Someone is alive today because of this program," Schumer said.

That represents one side of this issue, as stated by the liberal anti- gun faction. And if it's true, then we all ought to be moving in their direction. But is it true? Or is it just a slanted opinion?

Because, if we read the book, "More Guns, Less Crime" by Lott, then we will see statistics indicating that even the simple act of showing a gun during an attack will drive away many of the perps. In this case, the above statement by Schumer could be more accurately presented as "Someone is dead today because of this program."

It can't be correct, overall, for both positions to be true. One side of this issue is more life saving than the other side. Which is it? I'm going with Lott's presentation for more guns. And we haven't even mentioned what happens to disarmed citizens in a dictatorship. Millions die.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001