From Klein’s ShopRite:
FOREST HILL, MARYLAND, DECEMBER 15, 2012: Klein’s ShopRite of Maryland funded and sponsored a “Gun-Buy-Back” program in Baltimore City on Saturday, December 15, 2012, wherein the Klein family gave a $100 Klein’s ShopRite Gift Card for every firearm turned in, resulting in 461 weapons being collected in one day. Turn-in was anonymous, with no questions asked, and only actual firearms were accepted — the program did not collect pellet guns, paint-ball guns or BB guns.
The 461-weapon response was overwhelmingly greater than either the police or Klein’s ShopRite had anticipated, probably largest single gun turn-in day ever within Baltimore City, with many of the citizens who turned in weapons mentioning the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut, the day before, as the reason they wanted to get guns out of their homes. Although initial reports of the gun buy-back program mentioned mostly rifles and shotguns being turned in, in fact the weapons deposited were a large assortment of “long guns” and hand guns. All the turned-in weapons will be destroyed by the Baltimore City Police Department.
“Both we and the police were amazed to see so many modified ‘long guns,’ being turned in, including sawed-off shotguns, pump-action shotguns and shotguns with shoulder straps, just the sort of weapon that could be concealed under a coat,” says Michael J. Klein, Vice President of Klein’s ShopRite. “As well, there were about as many different kinds of hand guns as you could ever imagine,” he adds.
According to Michael Klein, at least a dozen people turned in weapons and refused the gift card reward. “They just wanted the guns out of their homes,” he says.
Since the firearms turn-in was held in Baltimore City, most of the weapons came from inside the city limits, but not all. “We had people coming in with weapons from as far away as Joppatowne, Aberdeen, Glen Burnie and Randallstown,” Michael Klein also states.
“I think there was a heightened awareness due to the tragedy in Connecticut. People seemed aware of the danger of having guns in the home. Perhaps more significant, it was obvious to me that a lot of the people who brought the weapons in were not educated in gun safety or safe weapon handling — there were a number of guns turned in that were still loaded! Even the police had trouble in a few cases with jammed or improperly maintained guns,” Michael Klein says.
According to Howard S. Klein, Vice President and General Counsel of Klein’s ShopRite, “People were thankful that the program was offered. People were dramatically and visually upset at what had happened in Connecticut and many expressed their grief as they deposited their weapons. A gun in the home does no one any good — food in the pantry is what people need. So this was an opportunity to do some good on both sides — removing a danger, and increasing a benefit, at the same time,” Howard Klein adds.
Klein’s ShopRite is considering sponsoring more such programs in the other locations served by its stores, including possibly Harford County, Maryland, where 6 of its 8 stores are located.
“Although we have not reached out to other police agencies or departments in other municipalities as yet, we intend to start that process right now, and in the months ahead” says Marshall Klein, Chief Operating Officer of Klein’s ShopRite. “Many of our staff and family worked hard today helping this program succeed, and we thank them and appreciate their assistance,” Marshall Klein adds.
Marshall Klein also states that “many of those turning in weapons appeared unaware of gun safety. How to handle any weapon – loaded or unloaded. That was exactly why the cooperation with the Baltimore City Police presence was appreciated. They checked all presented weapons for ammunition and safe handling even for those waiting in line. The goal was safety. Because the turn-in was anonymous, we believe it encouraged many the opportunity to dispose of weapons in the home without question or fear of repercussions,” Marshall Klein concludes.
“This is just one aspect of what the Klein Foundation does for the communities,” says Andrew P. Klein, President of Klein’s Shoprite. “We create programs beneficial to the people we serve, beyond just buying guns back with ShopRite gift cards, as important as that is. The ShopRite mission includes many different kinds of outreach to the community, including the Partners in Caring program, which just from Klein’s ShopRite alone results in $80,000 going to the Maryland Food Banks each year. Thanks to Saturday’s success, we hope to now talk with some major Baltimore-area foundations about partnering with us in the future to benefit the people. Our Klein’s Family Foundation raises funds just so that we can present these type of community awareness and initiative programs,” Andrew Klein states.
Retired Klein’s ShopRite President Ralph Klein, when hearing the total of guns collected, was absolutely amazed at the level and quantity of the firearms turned in “I was astonished — absolutely astounded!” Ralph Klein stated. Other members of the Klein’s ShopRite organization present at the gun buy-back included Sarah Klein, who led over a dozen Klein’s employees in helping at the event, and Mike Basher and his staff of Uplift Solutions, who partner with Klein’s ShopRite in their Perring Parkway location, and who have sponsored several similar weapons-return programs in the Philadelphia area.
For more information on Klein’s ShopRite and ShopRite community efforts, please visit www.ShopRite.com.
I am curious to know the stats on these guns; especially the handguns. How many were stolen? How many were registered? etc..
Kleins should be congraulated on doing something that will truly make a difference to the community.
I feel sooooo much safer now!!!!
Ron Jeremy's Big Tool says
LOL I thought these gun buy backs were anmesty program for prohibited persons to bring their unlawfully possessed firearms for cash. now news articles make it sound like legal and lawful firearm owners are urged to do this.
if they had a buyback in Harford, they would have to trump up the article because it would be 90 percent Baltimore city demographics again.
Jay Bee says
The sad thing is that it looks like quite a few of the guns look like $300 plus handguns that any pawn shop or gun shop would have paid cash well over the $100 food card unless they were stolen. On the other hand most of the guns look like junkers worth little. I hope they do bring the program to Harford so I can trade in my junkers for the food cards and then sell the food cards for cash so I can buy a quality gun before they are gone. Reports are that gun shops are selling out due to an anticipated ban. If a foreign terrorist had been shooting up our schools they would have been a call for more people to be armed instead of the opposite. Even if every gun was banned and somehow removed from circulation I still believe it is time to use some of that Homeland Security money to put police in every school. I also find it strange that the lame stream media has failed to report that in the last few years the Obama administration cut funding to several programs designed to put more security and police in schools. Time for that old but true saying: when guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.
Peter north's south pole says
Tell you what, i’ll sponsor my own gun-take back program. Bring your used firearms to my house and I’ll cook you dinner or something. No questions asked.
Wayne Norman says
Kudos to the Kleins. I think they helped get a lot of unlawful guns off the street.. In the pix it looks like a lot of the shot guns have been sawed off or otherwise modified.
Damm shame, Looks like some good hand guns
According to Howard S. Klein, “A gun in the home does no one any good — “. GARBAGE! I’d welcome any would-be home invader with a Bushmaster .223!
Also, the above weapon, used in Newtown, is not an “assault weapon.” it’s barely even semi-automatic. it fires 3-round bursts.
You can have my guns when you pry them from my lifeless grasp.
You really are inviting some entertaining invective
I really don’t care what type of gun it is, I’d just like to know what the purpose of owning one (that specific gun, not any gun) is? Honestly.
The 2nd amendment was put in the Constitution so the citizens could protect themselves from government oppression, not so we can go deer hunting. The militia referenced is the people not the national guard, a government entity. It’s fine if you don’t want them in your home but we are guaranteed the right to have them in ours.
Mike Welsh says
For most of the gun owners in the United States the purpose of owning a gun is defense. The same reason the police have them. The police do not use guns as an offensive weapon, nor would I.
I understand the Constitution very well as well as why most people own guns. As I said, that wasn’t my question. Why would someone own THAT gun or a similar one?
why would someone buy a 500 series BMW…..
Because they can? Because it’s cool? Because they like it?
I’m having a hard time finding justifiable reasons here and looking for help. I’ll pre-empt a couple responses by stating that I respect and appreciate your opinion when it differs from mine, and that “justifiable” is a subjective state, but while it’s completely clear the 2nd amendment preserves the rights of an armed citizenry, to what degree it does seems to be easily up for debate, and that’s what I’m driving at.
Because it’s cool, and you need it for self defense, do not seem to be worthwhile arguments when weighed against the public good.
That’s not even to say I think we should ban those types of weapons entirely, or prevent you from owning one, but I think we have to fundamentally re-think and change what that right actually means and how we go about balancing your right against public safety.
And there are absolutely some very important concrete things we need to change in the mental health side of it, school security, etc. It’s going to take all approaches to make a significant change that saves lives. Gun ownership is not the problem here.
Mike Welsh says
Noble, you are absolutely correct. Gun ownership is not the problem. The type of gun one is permitted to own is also not the problem. How and why a gun is used is the problem and until we address those issues we will never be able to prevent the illegal use of guns, the illegal use of a knife, the illegal use of an arrow, the illegal use of fire, etc…
Imagine the storyline on all the news outlets had there be a different outcome in the recent school shooting incident. Had the shooter forced his way into the school with weapons in hand and started shooting in the hallway only to have a young beautiful teacher step out of her classroom and shoot him dead with her Glock 17 before he had actually killed a child, thus saving untold lives. What would be our national discussion?
Your welcome to feel that is a solution. I personally do not.
You are, of course, correct that illegal use of a firearm is the problem. I disagree however, that we are going to solve that problem. We can’t prevent people from breaking laws, murdering, or doing much of anything, except at incredible expense and sacrifice. Obviously some degree of expense and sacrifice is going to be required to mitigate the unlawful use of weapons, but we also have to value and preserve our freedoms. I accept this.
However, it seems like you are implying that there is some change or systemic problem, or amazing cultural shift that’s going to save us from ourselves? That’s just not going to happen. People are what they are, fallen, imperfect, chaotic creatures. This is well documented in all recorded history. There is basically nothing we can do prevent isolated incidents like the one last week. We cannot structure our society or our daily lives based solely on the unpredictable behavior of .0001 percent of the population.
But it seems to me there is a lot more we can do, in terms of responsible gun ownership, gun control laws, ammunition restrictions, mental health issues, school and public security, etc, that would do a lot to reduce the impact, the mass casualties, the depth of sorrow, and the psychological impact on all of us.
You don’t have a right to drive a car, but let’s assume that you did. The law says that we can, within numerous restrictions. I see gun ownership as exactly the same. A person’s right to own any and all firearms and all types of ammunition and other kinds of weapons does not extend to infinity just because it is protected in the Constitution.
So I return to my original question: why would someone decide to own that type of firearm? What purpose does it serve that cannot be otherwise filled?
Mike Welsh says
What type of gun one owns is not material, nor is what kind of car one owns. Owning a gun, regardless of the type, is only a means to an end. The user decides what that end will be. In my case it would be defense, not only of myself, but for others as well.
I am not suggesting any solutions. There will always be hateful deranged people among us, who will devise ways to create ill will. How we deal with those people has more affect on outcomes than gun control for the masses.
Interesting that you did not comment on the probable storyline had the shooter been killed by a young beautiful teacher before the shooter could kill anyone. Harry Reid would probably have wanted to put her in jail had she not had a permit for the gun, and fired from her job since guns are not allowed on school property. Just sayin!!
To say that what type of guns people own is immaterial ignores the fundamental point I was making.
It’s like saying we can ignore any kind of weapon people have. Let’s give people shoulder fired missles, armed gunships, or just very very small nuclear devices that only destroy one city block, right? It’s the people that are the problem, right, not the missle?
I’m exaggerating so there’s no mistaking my point, which is I think people should be asking themselves serious questions about how important their right to gun ownership is and how far does it extend? Surely people can defend themselves and their families adequately with something less than an AR-15? Or 10 somethings less? Have all the non-auto home defense rifles and handguns you like, but is there really a *right* to own a weapon designed exclusively to kill as many people as possible as quick as possible?
I’m not seeing it.
ps. I did respond to your proposed scenario by only stating that I do not agree it’s a viable solution. This, I realize, is a matter of ideological preference. What happens when that nice teacher with a gun never needs it at her school and her 13 year old son finds the key and decides to play with it? More guns available to more people doesn’t appear to be a real solution. We already have something like 4 guns for every man, woman, and child in the country out there, but are we safer because of it? We’ll have to disagree.
Mike Welsh says
I repeat, I did not offer any solution, nor did I imply that teachers having guns is a solution. I merely asked what you believe the national discussion would have been in such a scenario. I can assure you that the national discussion would be much different had such a scenario occurred.
There is no right to own a weapon designed exclusively to kill as many people as possible as quick as possible. That’s why you can’t own or possess such weapons of mass destruction. A semi-automatic rifle does not fall into that category, nor do extended capacity magazines. Fully automatic weapons start to fit that category, however it is illegal to own such a firearm, and has been for several years.
Why need a reason? The right to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed. There is no debate what that means. The constitution doesn’t grant this right to us, It recognizes it as a natural right, and limits the government power in its ability to infringe on this right.
It amazes me that many laws were broken in this tragedy, yet people are naive enough to think that more laws on top of what is already existing are going to solve the problem. Connecticut has some of the most restrictive laws in the country, Passing more is not going to make you any more safe from the bad guy then you are now.
One responsible armed citizen in that school could have saved many lives. The liberal media will tell you it is the fault of Fox news, or the NRA, or weak guns laws, but it is the progressive rejection of one of our most fundamental rights that makes us all a potential victim.
B… I understand your points and don’t totally disagree with them.
But I think it’s clear our right to bear arms IS infringible, just for the fact that certain weapons ARE unlawful, and my point is that a firearm that enables a fairly average young man to kill 26 people in less than 10 minutes should require some kind of justifiable reason it shouldn’t be infringed- which is why I asked, because I’m looking for it instead of just having an opinion.
I guess my hope is that other gun owners would seriously ask themselves the same question.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government,” Alexander Tytler is attributed as warning. “It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”
There are troubles ahead with the reckless spending of this government. This right is not only to protect you from foreign threats, but also domestic. Look at what happens in events like Sandy or Katrina where government has no control. The true strength of the people of this country is their ability to defend themselves. You cannot count on government to do this for you.
I am familiar with those themes and the record of human history, and I often remind fierce gun control advocates that our way of life today may not be the same way of life in America 25,50, or 100 years from now, and that the Constitution was written with a long-view, and we should appreciate the genius of that.
However, I still can’t see this as justification for personal ownership of such a weapon. This end, I feel, can be met by other means.
Even if someone goes so far as to consider these kinds of weapons as “insurance” against “doomsday” or civil unrest, eventually you’re going to run out of bullets. Believe me, I take a survivalist mentality more than you probably think, but it’s that mentality that also leads me to the conclusion that a gun is a temporary solution at best.
And all of this on the generally perceived small odds that it even becomes necessary. It’s like a guy with a wood shack on a mountain top buying flood insurance for $1 million a year.
I just feel the costs are becoming too high a price and that small sacrifices of our right to bear arms, along with many many other important changes in other areas, would reap a worthy reward.
—> noble: To answer your question, I had a gun like that once. The reason I bought it is because I was interested in trying it out. I’d had several different types of guns by then and wanted to know what all the hoopla was about assault rifles. No Rambo-esque fantasies or doomsday scenarios, just another toy. It was fun to fire at the range but it was essentially the same gun as my semi-automatic deer rifle, just with a more military styling and a larger magazine.Not highly useful. I eventually traded it in on a shotgun that I could actually use at the skeet range once in a while.
Not the Momma says
Pile of junk of pictured, albeit a few ones worth more than the gift cards they were handing out, and they make suggesting vibes and comments like the average upstanding legal and lawful American firearm enthusiast is there to relinquish their firearms.
I support the removal of firearms from those prohibited from possession, but some wordsmithin’ in this article really makes me laugh.
What’s next? Baseball bat buy backs… “No questions asked”
pissed with the government says
I never will shop at Kleins or Shoprite again, there true freedom hating colors have shown and I will never let them see my money again.
not Jeff says
As usual Jeff, you win the dbag kneejerk provacateur award. Do you know what semi-automatic means or should I come teach you proper terminology and maybe how to handle your toy? 3 round bursts and still not an assault weapon?
You do no favors for either side of the debate with such misinformation.
ps. better load your toy with frangibles so do you don’t kill someone from over penetration in that house full of kids.
Are the serial numbers traced? And if so…..if the weapons are discovered to be stolen….Are they returned to the Lawful owners?
Yes. And they run ballistics on each weapon too. This is a good program.
More guns, Less Crime says
Do you have any evidence of that claim? Because they claim to destroy all the guns.
Let me get this right… you come at me with personal attacks and I win the d-bag award? ok.
let me educate you just a bit. the term “assault weapon” is a fabrication. anything used to assualt someone is an assault weapon. Cain killed Abel with an assault rock.
The most common of these is probably the AR15, which is basically a dumbed-down civilian version of the military M16.
I did say “barely semi-automatic”, did I not? One trigger squeeze = 3 rounds fired. so by definition, yes it is semi-auto, but it could be better.
Now, if you want to have a meaningful conversation about my second amendment right to defend my life liberty and happiness WITHOUT bringing my family into it, I’m all ears. Oh, and man up and use your real name. I promise I won’t shoot you through the internet.
More guns, Less Crime says
Jeff– I want your argument to be sound. Look up the bushmaster version of the AR15. It certainly does not have a three-round burst. That would qualify as an assault weapon. Semi auto is one trigger pull, one bullet.
More people die from obesity than guns; let’s outlaw the forks….
Neon Dion says
That is such a ridiculous argument.
I need my gun to protect myself from the government & county police!!!!! who’s worried about so called criminals
Actual “Assault Weapons” (one trigger pull = more than one bullet being fired) can not be legally purchased without a special license called an FFL (Federal Fiream License). which you must apply for and get approval before the purchase of such a weapon is finalized. So, this proposed “Assault Weapons Ban” will not get actual “assault weapons” off the street. It is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to a deeper problem. The reasons behind all the angst and anger as well as the “it’s not little Johnny’s fault” mentality in this country is what needs to be solved before any real change can be accomplished.
Mike Welsh says
I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately most citizens do not understand what a real assault weapon is, and the politicians are counting on the masses being uninformed! They are also counting of the media jumping on the band wagon and fanning the flames of passion and emotion to try and pass legislation that will not in any way curb violence in America.
The Klein’s should be ashamed of their actions ! If during the thirties every time those Brown Shirted Bastards beat on a Jews door they had been met with a 38 maybe my father and uncles would not have spent their youth marching across Europe.
Fed up says
They would have made more money if they turned around and sold those weapons to law abiding citizens who do wish to exercise their God-given right to protect themselves and their Constitutional right to maintain a firearm. Anyone thinking that this will result in drop in violent crimes is delusional. What the news never reports is that criminals DO NOT obtain firearms legally, nor do they purchase their ammo at sporting goods stores.
American Citizen says
When the feds and the state are the only ones who have guns then we will be so much safer..lol but when you hear rumors of citizens dissapearing in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again, dont be concerned. We can rest assured that our gloriuos leaders are doing everything they can to keep us all safe from those bad citizens who subvert or dissent. Be very careful what you write or say or feel, because the gov will pass a law to make it illegal, of course they’re real purpose will be to MAKE MONEY at your cost, but thats all the unitedstates government is good for now, that and selling property they seize from hard working citizens…..To comment on the previuos post…”Law Abiding Citizens”? …definded by who?..you cant be talking about any citizen who had to us a gun to defend themselves because if they did they’re either in jail or they no longer have any weapons because the state conviscated them, This is their policy, take as many guns from citizens they can!..all you have to do is us them one time to defend yourself and you will never us them again, thats if you dont spend all your money and the rest of your life in prison …”Freedom”,..what a joke. You might have the freedom to piss out the back door..just dont get caught, you might go down for sexual misconduct?…or firing your weapon in public..lol
I’m collecting 20 dollar pistols to turn in for 100 bucks.