GUN BUYBACK PRESENTS A DILEMMA

At first glance, a federal department's offer to fork over money to help
cities buy and destroy firearms looks great. That is the glance, of course,
that the politicians want the public to stick with.

A second glance, however, shows signs of a classic dilemma.

In order to get the federal gun-buyback money, cities have to divert their
own anti-drug money into the new buyback program.

So, we have the unusual picture of Housing and Development Secretary Andrew
Cuomo announcing ''in the memory of Columbine the Buyback America program''
at the same time that every city in Columbine's home state of Colorado was
announcing that they wouldn't take part in the program.

Ironically, the announcement of the new program was timed to coincide with
the first anniversary of the massacre of several students at Columbine school.

Under the program, city housing agencies operating under HUD are encouraged
to buy and destroy unwanted firearms. The gun buybacks give cash or gift
certificates ranging from $25 to $150 for each firearm handed over.

A total of 84 cities have signed up, accounting for about $3 million of the
$15 million pledged by the Clinton administration.

But Columbine and many other cities are passing on the opportunity. The
reason: Local housing agencies must spend $100 of their own drug-fighting
money on the buyback program to get an additional $43 from HUD for the
buyback program.

The gun buyback program has generated controversy, but not as much over gun
control as over priorities. While an initial goal of buying back 50,000
guns in 84 cities received lots of attention, critics were questioning
whether the program, would produce false claims instead of genuine progress
in cutting down crime.

That's not the basis for the objection registered by most cities. It's the
necessity of having to choose between two approaches - buying back
firearms, or fighting against illicit drugs.

Some lawmakers are also critical of the buyback program for another reason.
They say HUD does not have the authority to spend anti-drug money on gun
buybacks.

Clinton administration officials say the buyback program would have an
appreciable effect on firearm-related violence.

Opponents say neither criminals nor violence-prone people are likely to
sell their firearms for a few dollars.

There's an argument here, but it seems to lack a vital ingredient - the
problem of forcing city officials to choose between anti-drug and
gun-buyback programs.

The federal government shouldn't try to force city officials to choose
between two programs that hold promise of success against problems that are
often closely linked - the illegal use of firearms and the illegal use of
drugs.

There has to be a better way - and it's up to Congress and the
administration to find it.