News

More than 400 firearms turned in during gun buyback event

 

San Mateo County sheriff's deputies collected more than 400 guns for destruction at a gun buyback event on May 5, according to the sheriff's office.

The anonymous buyback took place at 1402 Maple St. in Redwood City. All firearms will be destroyed after they are processed, the sheriff's office said.

Residents turned in 427 firearms, including several assault rifles. They received up to $100 in cash for a handgun, shotgun or rifle and up to $200 for an assault rifle.

The gun buyback program was organized by a citizens group and funded in large part by donations from San Mateo County cities and towns, including Menlo Park, Portola Valley and Woodside.

— Bay City News Service

Comments

4 people like this
Posted by Joe
a resident of Portola Valley: Woodside Highlands
on May 14, 2018 at 7:16 am

Had I known, I would've gone over there and offered $150 / $250! That's a deal! Shame people wanted to sell them for such low prices, but no-one else got the chance to buy!


5 people like this
Posted by mac
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 14, 2018 at 2:31 pm

These programs usually end up with junk with some of the proceeds used to finance new guns. Few of the guns were worth what was paid.


5 people like this
Posted by Greg
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on May 15, 2018 at 7:02 am

Foster City gets it. They didn't pony up the $5,000. They voted down the resolution without much discussion. This after a presentation from the group advocating these buy backs as a previous meeting. San Bruno and Pacifica didn't even consider it.

Web Link

The advocates for this event report 70% of the guns are turned in for safety reasons. Of the guns turned in, 54% were acquired through inheritance, gift, or random find. They suggest the key benefits are reduction of available guns, provide an opportunity for the safe disposal of guns, and to raise awareness.

Importantly, the event does not draw the criminals who actually use the guns to commit crimes. At best, the event reduces the guns criminals might steal when burglarizing your home. At worst, it draws in non-functioning junk that's been taking up closet space. The beneficiaries of these hand-outs can go to the gun store and buy a new gun with the money (after their waiting period, of course).

The better alternative for these gun buy backs is to fund them through private donations, not tax dollars. Of course, without the tax deduction incentive, people might feel less passionate about charitable giving for something like this.

If citizens want to get rid of their guns, there is a free alternative available twenty four hours a day, seven days a week -- they can take them to the local police department for destruction.


31 people like this
Posted by Santa Fe HS
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 18, 2018 at 8:30 pm

Another responsible gun owner sears the name of a school into our memories...

16 school shootings so far.

This year.

What's your solution? Or do you care about changing?


11 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 18, 2018 at 9:23 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

NO, another "responsible" gun owner didn't sear the name of a school into people's minds. What happened was an IRRESPONSIBLE gun owner did that. The shooter wasn't able to purchase a gun. He took his father's guns. Guns his father was responsible for properly securing. His father FAILED to do that. I hope they throw the book at his father. If his father had done what he was required to do, this tragedy wouldn't have happened.

A responsible gun owner would have properly secured his fire arms.


10 people like this
Posted by Petr
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on May 19, 2018 at 4:49 pm

16 school shootings with 29 dead. Thousands of kids exposed to firefights. Maybe tens of thousands exposed.

This year.

What number is too high?

Apparently, for some, no number is too high. Just pick each incidence apart...


4 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 19, 2018 at 7:32 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

Petr:

the problem isn't weapons. It's something else. Guns don't fire themselves.


6 people like this
Posted by windy hills
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 20, 2018 at 12:31 pm

It is guns. And one country allows far more firepower than almost all other industrialized countries (probably COMBINED.) Oddly (not), that country has far more gun deaths, more mass shootings, more school shootings than all the others.

It is the guns.

Folks who claim to want better mental health screenings and services are throwing out a red herring. Oddly (again - not) the same folks that seek enough unlimited firepower to wipe out a school are the ones who insist on cutting metal health services.

Look to the other countries. There are answers. One notes that never offers answers, not do they answer a simple question: how many mass shootings are too many for you?

Does it really have to happen to someone you know, to give you the courage to answer the question?

How many mass shootings are too many for you?

How many school shootings are too many for you?

How many gun deaths are too many for you?


4 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 20, 2018 at 4:09 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

Windy Hills:

guns don't fire themselves. If they did, I'd agree guns are the problem. As long as it takes a person to fire the gun, PEOPLE will continue to be the problem.


4 people like this
Posted by windy hills
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 21, 2018 at 8:06 am

More guns, more gun deaths. Less guns, less gun deaths. Proven worldwide.

Guns ARE the problem.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 21, 2018 at 10:54 am

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

windy hills:

have stats to back up that claim?


Like this comment
Posted by pogo
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 21, 2018 at 11:28 am

pogo is a registered user.

I've never understood why some people want to force a single solution?

Better gun laws. Fortify and harden schools. Less violence in media and video gaming. Better mental health care. Improve identification of "at risk" people. Stop media glorification and publicity for shooters. Better qualifications and background checks for gun ownership.

You miss the point if you think just one element will solve it. So how about ALL of it?


6 people like this
Posted by windy hills
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 21, 2018 at 11:34 am

MV: Readily available on google. More guns, more deaths by guns.

Also a basic fact - a gun in the home is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.


4 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 21, 2018 at 12:35 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

windy hills:

I'm not going to do your research for you. You made a claim(s), back it up.


6 people like this
Posted by windy hills
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 21, 2018 at 1:04 pm

Yeah, that sideclick is a real carpal tunnel instigator... Harvard collected a number of studies:



1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.



2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.



3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten-year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92:1988-1993.



4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.



The Harvard list of studies goes on, of course. And that was just the first item that came up on google for my search. There's a few more listings you can view:

About 77,100,000 results (0.46 seconds) "More guns, more deaths by gun"


4 people like this
Posted by windy hills
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 21, 2018 at 1:06 pm

Now, you don't honestly dispute the 2nd item, do you? With your background, it should be obvious.


"... a gun in the home is more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense"


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 21, 2018 at 2:34 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

windy hills:

yes a lot of people use guns to kill themselves and other people. Guns can't and don't fire themselves. People are the problem. and if you think you can collect up all the guns in this country you are naive. That horse left the barn a long time ago. So let's get realistic and deal with the people part of the equation.


2 people like this
Posted by windy hills
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 21, 2018 at 4:10 pm

More guns, more gun deaths, MV wanted proof, and was provided a few of many studies that prove it.

Now it's MV's turn: "if you think you can collect up all the guns in this country"

Where did I, or anyone in this thread claim that as a stated goal? The problem with Straw Men - on a windy hill, they blow away.

---

A gun in the home is more *far* likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.

Every time a gun injures or kills in self-defense, it is used:

11 times for completed and attempted suicides
7 times in criminal assaults and homicides
4 times in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 21, 2018 at 4:21 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

So what is your solution windy hills?


Like this comment
Posted by windy hills
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 21, 2018 at 5:19 pm

Happy to share. You were asked questions above which I didn't notice a response.

Do you have a point where you will say: "enough"?

I, perhaps obviously, have reached that point. But it is easier for me: I do not have an emotional attachment to guns, and the data offers no rational reason for me to support widespread, nearly unrestricted gun ownership.


4 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 21, 2018 at 6:41 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

windy hills:

you didn't answer the question. Just saying "enough" isn't a solution.

I've said enough on other threads. I've also offered what I consider a solution. That is we need to take mental health care seriously. We need to start housing the seriously mentally ill again. Against their will if need be. That will take care of a large part of the mass shooting problem, if not all of it and will also deal with a majority of our homeless problem.

Your turn.


Like this comment
Posted by Barb
a resident of Atherton: other
on May 21, 2018 at 7:56 pm

"better mental health services" is not a solution.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 21, 2018 at 8:48 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

barb:

please elaborate. What is your solution?


7 people like this
Posted by The Truth
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 22, 2018 at 7:20 am

Treating mental illness will not eliminate all mass shootings. Nor will eliminating the Second Amendment and taking all the guns. Even in Australia, a country which banned guns following a mass shooting, there continue to be gun related homicides.

The Supreme Court has ruled it will not eliminate the Second Amendment. To ban guns in the USA, two-thirds of the States must act to repeal it through popular vote. There are options to regulate gun ownership and California has availed itself of many of those options. Guns in this state are highly regulated. Not so much in Texas.

People look to the Federal government for answers. This is really a States rights issue and the individual States should regulate firearms if their citizens believe that is the solution to mass shootings.

The mental health, system, however, is absolutely linked to this problem. Not many sane people commit mass murders. The lack of mental health options can be laid at the feet of Ronald Regan and this article is a great primer on why we find ourselves in this ridiculous predicament:

Web Link

Most of the school shootings are committed by teens with access to guns. The perpetrators were mentally ill. What kind of interventions could have been done by the schools (rather than expulsion) had there been a government funded mental illness treatment solution in place?

The gun violence problem is a testament to the need for national healthcare which covers mental health treatment and allows for forcing treatment involuntarily before they are a danger to themselves or others.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 22, 2018 at 7:17 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

barb & windy hills:

we know what you don't think is a solution. What is your solution?


Like this comment
Posted by The Truth
a resident of Woodside: other
on May 23, 2018 at 11:35 am

This thread was originally about gun buy backs, an ineffective policy solution. It makes for great campaign photo opportunities and it feels good as the politicians are doing something. It is a waste of tax dollars. Let the non-profits pony up the money, not the government.

Speaking of policy choices, this a an interesting graphic:
Web Link

There a host of options -- most of them already in place in California. By the way, mental health treatment options is an effective option, supported by many Americans. This would be a great policy area to pressure politicians to actually "do something".


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 23, 2018 at 7:26 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

barb & windy hills:

your solutions????

Crickets

Typical


46 people like this
Posted by windy hills
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 28, 2018 at 2:41 pm

My solutions vary under the conditions of the debate: am I a monarch and my rules go? are they to be debated between 2 bi-partisan groups honestly trying to cut gun deaths and costs in America (as much a fantasy as the first option)? Or the 'real world' where the GOP will block any and every effort to create even a modicum of safety?

1. I'm a monarch: You get one long gun, one handgun, no bumps, no high capacity mags, etc.. Strict licensing, background checks, annual checks for safety and health, etc.. Most of all: the GOP 'get out of jail card for manufacturers (who no have essentially no liability no matter what they do) would be gone. You want more than the 2 guns? Then you face more checks, etc..

2. Two bi-partisan groups honestly trying to cut gun deaths and costs in America: take ten countries that do not have the massacres we have, and do a compromise on their gun laws that are proven effective in not killing their own citizens. Take Canadian, German, Brit, Aussie or Israeli gun laws as an example.

3. 'real world' (GOP obstruction due to fear of the NRA): I don't know the solution when we have folks like MV (who *know* the damage inflicted and why) who won't take a stand.


Geez, dude: weren't you a cop? Why on earth do you want so many folks to have access to arsenals?!? Do you have grandkids?

Doesn't it just *terrify* the officers on the street, and their families, to know at any moment some nut had access to assault-style weapons?

As you said: "PEOPLE will continue to be the problem". Well, duh. Why let them carry around so much firepower?

The only way to stop a Paddock and his fever swamp Waco/FEMA dreams is to say: you want 50 guns? Then you need to be checked annually.

The only way to stop a teen grabbing daddy's guns is to be SURE they are locked. A surprise inspection would make sure they are - or gun nut Daddy spends a couple nights in the hoosegow.

Thanks for the discussion, I guess, but you completely failed to offer up anything meaningful: just it' the nuts, gosh lets pretend we're in favor of more mental health options. Go ahead and tear my post apart. I had hoped you had solutions, or would at least answer: how many more deaths does it take before you say "enough"?

May you and yours always be able to duck in time....




12 people like this
Posted by windy hills
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on May 28, 2018 at 2:47 pm

"I've also offered what I consider a solution. That is we need to take mental health care seriously. We need to start housing the seriously mentally ill again."

Mental health check-ups for every American, or just those that want lots of guns?

I'll check back in someday to see what your answer is.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 28, 2018 at 4:29 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"Geez, dude: weren't you a cop? Why on earth do you want so many folks to have access to arsenals?!? Do you have grandkids?"

Yes I was and I have grand kids. I'm not worried about law abiding citizens having access to "arsenals". Law abiding citizens aren't the problem.

"Doesn't it just *terrify* the officers on the street, and their families, to know at any moment some nut had access to assault-style weapons?"

I'm sure it does and you've just reinforced my premise about what needs to be done about this problem. This isn't a gun problem. It is among several other things a mental health problem. It is a problem with how we deal with the mentally ill in this country. We don't. THAT'S the problem. We also don't properly enforce the gub laws we already have on the books. DA's routinely bargain away gun charges for guilty pleas. THAT'S another one of the problems.

"As you said: "PEOPLE will continue to be the problem". Well, duh. Why let them carry around so much firepower? "

Because we have a constitution and I swore an oath uphold and defend same. See above, I have no problem with law abiding citizens (the VAST majority) carrying firearms. If you want to change the constitution there are ways to go about it.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 28, 2018 at 4:33 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"Mental health check-ups for every American, or just those that want lots of guns?"

I'm ok with those wanting lot's of guns.

"I'll check back in someday to see what your answer is."

Typical. Don't like the answer ignore it or deride it. If you ACTUALLY want to have a conversation, I'm here. Of course,I'm pretty sure you don't actually want to have a conversation. You just want to tell me how wrong I am and how right/righteous you are.


4 people like this
Posted by well regulated militia
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Glens
on May 30, 2018 at 2:21 pm

Does America have more mentally ill than other countries?

No.


More guns than other countries?

Yes. Vastly more guns.


And that's the difference. Keep a gun at home and you and your family less safe.


Like this comment
Posted by well regulated militia
a resident of Woodside: Woodside Glens
on May 30, 2018 at 2:24 pm

Besides: was Vegas Paddock mentally ill, or was he acting out his alt right, Infowars FEMA camp Waco fantasy?

Dozens of guns equals mentally unstable in my book. What about yours?


Like this comment
Posted by Pearls
a resident of Atherton: other
on May 30, 2018 at 3:22 pm

Any idea of per capita mental illness between US Brit Australia Germany France etc.?


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 30, 2018 at 8:17 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"Any idea of per capita mental illness between US Brit Australia Germany France etc.?"
A more important question, how do those countries deal with their mentally ill?


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 30, 2018 at 8:19 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"Dozens of guns equals mentally unstable in my book. What about yours?"

I know plenty of people that have "dozens of guns" that certainly are NOT mentally unstable. That's the problem with people that know nothing about guns or gun owners, they know nothing about the subject yet think because they have an opinion they do.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on May 30, 2018 at 8:21 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"And that's the difference. Keep a gun at home and you and your family less safe."

Back out the suicide portion of that statistic and see where it leaves you.


6 people like this
Posted by Roy Thiele-Sardiña
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jun 1, 2018 at 3:16 pm

Roy Thiele-Sardiña is a registered user.

@Menlo Voter, the 2016 stats show that over 2/3 of the 33,000 gun deaths were suicide. and white males over 50 account for over 60% of those suicides. White males killing themselves was a bigger number than ALL the homicides by gun in the country.

of the remaining 11,000 gun deaths in 2016 (the last year the CDC has data) 790 were in Chicago (think about that, 7% of all the gun deaths in the country are in ONE city with the STRICTEST gun control laws) the top 5 cities (Chicago, New Orleans, East St Louis, Baltimore and Detroit) account for the MAJORITY of those deaths. 1500 of them are domestic violence (spousal death). While all this sound dire, remember that in 1990 New York City had 2000+ gun deaths by itself (it only had 220 in 2016) so in that respect the whole country is safer (well except Chicago)

Now to add to the why guns aren't that bad argument. Opioid Overdose deaths in 2017 were over 50,000 (yup that's 150% more than guns). Driving deaths (motor vehicle) over 38,000 with over half coming from DWI.

so the 400 guns turned is a mere pittance to the real issue.......

here are the Chicago stats: Web Link


Roy Thiele-Sardina


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jun 1, 2018 at 6:52 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

Roy:

nice to see there is something we can agree on.


3 people like this
Posted by Roy Thiele-Sardiña
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jun 1, 2018 at 9:05 pm

Roy Thiele-Sardiña is a registered user.

@Menlo Voter

Molon Labe my friend.

Roy


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jun 2, 2018 at 5:56 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

Roy:

Molan labe


2 people like this
Posted by yep molan
a resident of Atherton: other
on Jun 3, 2018 at 6:14 pm

Sounds like 2 dudes who are sacrificing family safety for the illusion of safety.

Guns are 7 times more likely to be used against the family than any criminal.

Real safety vs perceived safety.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jun 3, 2018 at 7:36 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

Yep:

look at the statistics. Anti gunners always include suicides to skew the stats. Not to mention all of the other things that kill people at far higher rates than guns. But, let's just ignore that because we don't like guns. Most, if not all of those that are anti gun, usually have zero knowledge or experience with them. Guns are tools. Shall we ban hammers because they can and are used as murder weapons?


6 people like this
Posted by O'Neil
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jun 3, 2018 at 10:34 pm

Voter misrepresents the facts posted above:

Every time a gun injures or kills in self-defense, it is used:

11 times for completed and attempted suicides
7 times in criminal assaults and homicides
4 times in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries


Yep stated correctly. Suicide numbers are much higher, Menlo voter.

-- 7 times in criminal assaults and homicides

11 times in suicide. Which counts an awfully lot re family safety.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jun 4, 2018 at 8:55 am

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"11 times in suicide. Which counts an awfully lot re family safety."

If you want to spin it that way.


4 people like this
Posted by spinning tops
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Jun 4, 2018 at 10:12 am

Who's spinning?

"Every time a gun injures or kills in self-defense, it is used:

11 times for completed and attempted suicides
7 times in criminal assaults and homicides
4 times in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries"


Like this comment
Posted by yep molan
a resident of Atherton: other
on Jun 6, 2018 at 6:49 pm

7 times, 11 times.... false perception of safety.


Like this comment
Posted by Joad Road
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jun 7, 2018 at 2:57 pm

Always find it fascinating when someone tries to argue the falsehood of "guns make me safe."

Demonstrably not.

So therefore, folks need to stop lying to themselves and amend the statement to "guns make them FEEL safer" - which is something for them to work out with their therapist.

Guns make a home less safe.

Am happy that buybacks make it easier for folks to make their homes safer.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Global Warming Diet
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,373 views

Couples: "Taming Your Gremlin" by Richard Carson
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,271 views

Preparing for kindergarten
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 722 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 320 views

 

Race is tomorrow!

On Friday, September 21, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run, or—for the first time—half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More