The Redwood City gun buyback event is an opportunity for gang members to sell their worthless worn out and broken guns to finance drugs and new guns, and buying back guns from law abiding citizens results in no net benefit. These programs sound good, but do no good for anyone. The money raised could be better used to help victims of gun violence or many other social programs that actually do good. I hope we raise our kids to put more thought into what they do than whoever thought of this program.

Name a better program.

"Name a better program."

Your statement assumes this program is effective. It's not. You really thing criminals and gang-bangers are showing up to give up their guns? They're not. This is just another in a long line of feel good, ineffective programs that everyone can point to and say they're "doing something" while actually doing nothing.

Nothing wrong with the program. People who do not want guns anymore are turning them in for cash. Some of these guns were probably not kept secured in a safe and could have been easily stolen so it is getting some of those out of homes. Super effective at removing guns from criminals, no. Better than nothing, definitely.

The only thing gun buyback programs accomplish is to take worthless broken and, in many cases, non-“functioning firearms out of circulation at a far greater cost than the gun is worth. Having ‘cashed in’ on gun buyback programs in the past (as have licensed gun dealers), it is an opportunity to dump worthless old junk. The proponents of these programs are naive that these ‘feel good’ programs succeed only in throwing money. An absolute joke. This is a scam by well-intentioned folks who are unfamiliar with the reality of gun ownership (whether by legit owners or criminals) and no more than a total waste of private and government provided funds.
Annoyed that my local government representatives are throwing away tax money with an emotional decision rather than a fact-based analysis.

Great program. As evidenced by the lack of better alternatives.

Post Game:

again, you assume this program does anything productive in relation to reducing gun violence. It doesn't. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. The only thing these projects do is make people like you, that know nothing about guns and those that commit violence, feel like you've "done something". You've done nothing. Gun violence is committed by those that couldn't give two ****'s about the law. They don't legally possess guns and they don't care that they don't. And they certainly don't turn in those illegally owned weapons.

This is just another of many feel good programs that don't even scratch the surface of the problem. Wake up. Look at the REAL causes of this violence. Guns aren't it. They are a tool used by those that commit this violence.

better alternatives? You are Queen for a day... name it.

Post:

Almost anything is a better alternative as these programs don't actually do anything. Other than make people that don't know any better feel good.

Can someone please clarify who are the "Citizens for a San Mateo County Buyback"? The Sheriff sent a letter to on Feb 26 saying this group had approached him and he would like to support the cause.

What a convenient event to hold in the run up to the re-election. Even more convenient that Speier and Bolanos were both the key sponsors and they were both up for re-elections.

I can't imagine the City Councils that voted to allocate public funds to this event were at all pressured to do so to support these politicians. It couldn't possibly be that the two cities that gave $10,000 plus matching dollars were contract cities of the Sheriff: Woodside and Portola Valley.

This thing stinks from top to bottom. Ineffective program which was nothing more than an campaign event at taxpayer expense.

Got it. Anything is better. But I just can't describe "anything".

Thanks for your time.

How about this - put in action Israeli gun laws? Lock stock and barr... yeah, never mind.

G'day, mate...

Free gun locks with firearms storage safety information.

Of course, gun control proponents won't lobby for such a program because their real objective is to remove guns from the population, not gun safety efficacy.

Free gun locks? That's the ticket to saving lives? I thought responsible gun owners already did that.

Unfortunately we can't afford that. President Trump just announced $15 billion in cuts to children's health insurance, etc.., so no money for free gun locks.

The gun buyback program pays out $100-$200 per gun/rifle. A gun lock costs $5 each.

Use the money targeted for gun buybacks to pay for gun locks instead. That's where you can find the money. You will make 20 to 40 times more guns safer for the same cost. Efficacy will be much improved if safety is the ultimate goal.

Free gun locks are available locally. No taxpayer money required.

Web Link

Okay, free gun locks, already available, is the only 'solution' y'all support?

How embarrassing. Thought y'all were serious.

Crazy thinking, by me, sorry.

Responsible gun owners don't already have locks?!?!?!?!?

To have a solution, we must first define the problem: Mentally ill people are murdering innocents with guns in groups greater than 3 at a time (the definition of a mass shooting).

The government's role is in setting and enforcing public policy. California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, including a prohibition on gun possession for those who have been hospitalized for mental illness and convicted felons. The laws have had some effect, but clearly they have not prevented mass shootings.

The solution is repeal the Second Amendment or have the Supreme Court somehow interpret it to narrow the right to bear arms. Until that's done, the efforts to buy back guns is an exercise in futility. When funded with taxpayer dollars to promote a politician's campaign, it calls into question whether people should vote for the candidates (Bolanos and Speier in this recent case).

As for better uses of the buy back money: Create more treatment options for mentally illness. A San Mateo County Grand Jury report suggests funding is inadequate: Web Link

It's not quite as tangible as taking a useless, non-functioning gun off the street, but the return on investment is probably better.

"To have a solution, we must first define the problem:"

Tens of thousands of Americans die EVERY year by guns.

Your "definition" just disrespected thousands of Americans who died by guns. Hundreds of thousands of Americans killed by guns. You should be ashamed.

Try again. As you discovered, your gunlock solution is indefensible.

A couple grand from this program for local mental health isn't even a drop in the bucket.

Try again.

Editor:

why are you allowing 2am/post game dubs to post under different names?

2am:

67% of gun deaths are suicides. YOU should try again.

Car deaths 2017 exceed 40,000. Time for a car buy back?

Web Link

Perhaps we should spend some tax dollars on some knives. They can kill too.

The money would be better spent on mental health.

"The money would be better spent on mental health."

Bingo

Tens of thousands of Americans die EVERY year by guns.

You offer two feeble attempts at solutions, both blown apart, and change to knives and cars. You have nothing.

Tens of thousands of Americans die EVERY year by guns. Time to put adults in charge, not the "but free gun locks!" crowd.

All your words pretending to seek safe changes have been exposed .

Knives and cars? A couple thousand to fix mental health systems?

I thought you had more. My bad.

I genuinely hoped you had more.

@2am

Not every city offers free gun locks, such as East Palo Alto and Palo Alto. The money could be used to expand the gun lock program to those communities and advertise it better. The fact that you didn't know about it until I told you is testament that it's been poorly marketed.

You can always save more lives by limiting the rights of individuals. Throughout history, governments have taken away freedom of speech, religion, guns, assembly, right to a fair trial, etc. in the name of improving public safety (and to keep the elites in power). And they were right. People died much less often at the hands of other people the fewer rights you grant them and the more you granted the state.

But the problem with giving up individual rights is you eventually end up with a police state. While safer from other individuals, the government inevitably abuses its power.

If you feel protected by the government, you won't feel a need for a gun. But if you live in a rural area with sheriff's office tens of miles away, you have the right to keep a gun for personal protection. If you're a wife separated from a violently abusive husband who does not comply with keeping away from you despite a restraining order, you have that right. If you're gay or black in the deep South, you have that right if you feel the police can't or won't protect you.

When the police can't or won't protect you, that's what the second amendment is for. As an Atherton resident, you have access to premium police service. I can understand why you feel you don't need a gun. Unfortunately, not everyone in America can afford such quality service. Most poor communities have lousy police protection.

@better: all those words just to say you're happy with the status quo: tens of thousands of Americans dying every year... oh, and more gun locks.

I genuinely hoped you had more.

"I genuinely hoped you had more."

No, you didn't.

The politician's syllogism, also known as the politician's logic or the politician's fallacy, is a logical fallacy of the form:

We must do something
This is something
Therefore, we must do this.

The gun buy back program is nothing more than do something politics. It is not good policy.

Web Link

The money would have been better spent on mental health.

Yes, I did. If you had any ideas beyondgun locks and a couple thousand dollars for mental health, which would be less than a drop in the bucket,we might have something upon which we could agree.

Alas, no.

Too late for last call. Down 'em.

@2am

That's the price we all pay for living in a free country in which the PEOPLE hold constitutionally guaranteed personal freedoms and rights. The government protects the rights of the people as a whole *and* the majority from taking away those same rights from the minority.

If the majority decides which rights are acceptable and which groups can retain those rights, then the country will always be a land of unequal opportunity and freedom.

The US has a history of limiting which minorities have access to constitutional rights. Slavery is the most prominent example. The WWII internment of Japanese Americans is another. Non-Protestants were regularly denied the vote and other rights in this country's early history.

Denial of Second Amendment rights was a way for the majority to suppress minorities. After the Civil War, state governments passed Black Codes to suppress numerous rights, especially gun rights. Why gun rights? You can't subdue a minority population if that minority population has a way to defend itself.

Living in Atherton, you may not realize the limited extent police serve communities that are poor, minority, or rural. Most elites that call for gun control have good quality police services. Police in poorer communities tend to trample on the rights of the individual because that community lacks the money and community standing for the political elites to notice.

About a century after the end of slavery, Nation of Islam and Black Panthers started asserting their constitutional right to possess firearms. They gained credibility within the black community because they were able to provide real public safety to a community that the police either underserved or intimidated.

If you're looking for other ways to use the gun buyback money to improve safety, use the money for free gun safety and handling classes.

...constitutionally guaranteed personal freedoms and rights...

To form a well regulated militia.

You left out the rest of the sentence:

"the right of *THE PEOPLE* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The right belongs to the people, not to the government to regulate as it wishes. The only way to limit the right is to find it in direct conflict with another part of the Constitution.

Amusing. You neglected the entire amendment after chastising me for the same.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From a different thread:

American military war deaths since 1776 = 1.2 million

American civilian killed by guns since 1968 = 1.5 million

Source: CDC, US VA, Web Link

American civilian killed by guns since 1968 = 1.5 million

Nothing to see here.

But gun locks. And knives and cars and pools. I'm done with all these gun lovers obsfucating.

It is inappropriate for local governments to give tax dollars to gun buy back events, especially when those events are are meant to feather the political re-election campaigns of the organizers (Bolanos and Speier). The Councils feel pressured to support the effort for fear that the organizers might be re-elected and withhold support from the city if they don't give money. The programs are ineffective when the participants are free to purchase a replacement gun with the proceeds. They buy backs create a value for an item where none exists. The taxpayer gets ripped-off.

The buy back events are an example of do-something politics. They feel good, but do not help abate the problem of gun violence.

It is up to two-thirds of the States for fix this problem by repealing the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has already rules that it will not do so. (Substitute in "assault rifle" for "handgun"): "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

With respect to the history and meaning of the Second Amendment, specifically militia, the United States Supreme Court examined it in detail in a modern decision. Saturday's history lesson: Web Link

"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution."

@Dubs

I was chastising you for leaving out the most important part of the amendment, not for leaving the complete amendment text incomplete. The most important part is the right being established and who is endowed with that right.

You're welcome to believe firearm ownership only extends to militia participation. The Supreme Court disagrees however.

- American civilian killed by guns since 1968 = 1.5 million

Dat cra-cra.

"American civilian killed by guns since 1968 = 1.5 million"

Whenever someone puts this statistic up they always conveniently forget the additional information. 67% of those 1.5 million deaths are suicides. Of the remaining 33% I'd hazard the guess that the majority of them are criminal vs criminal or gang banger vs gang banger. But we'll never know for sure because congress passed law that will not allow the CDC to collect that kind of information on those deaths.

That's the problem with raw data without context. Using the 1.5 million figure above, 33% is 495,000 deaths that were not suicides. Across 53 years that's 9340 deaths per year. For context there are about 35,000 people killed every year in car crashes. So in that same 53 years 1.8 million people+ were killed in cars. VS 495,000 deaths that were homicides. Which is the bigger problem?

England clearly has a more evolved way of thinking about guns. There are virtually none, as they have now taken them all away. Yet, the killings continue ... with knives. British "do something" politicians are now discussing what to do about knives:

"Dr. John Crichton, the new chairman of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland, wants the sale of pointed kitchen knives to be banned to help reduce the number of fatal stabbings.

He first suggested the move three years ago, but his proposal did not win enough support from policy-makers. Since then dozens of people, including schoolchildren, have lost their lives as a result of attacks involving bladed instruments.

Dr. Crichton, who took on the role of chairman in June this year, is championing a switch to so-called ‘R’-bladed knives, which have rounded points and are far less effective as weapons…. ‘We are very quick to be critical of our American cousins and the prevalence of guns but this is an issue which doesn’t even occur to us."

Perhaps it is true. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

According to the press, 427 guns were purchased by us at this event. We paid $100 for each of them, or about $42,700 total for all (perhaps more if assault weapons were turned in).

Atherton's Council will vote this week whether to take away $5,000 from their police department to fund this feel good event. Here's their staff report which recommends a YES vote: Web Link

It was a Great Photo op for Kevin Mullins, Jackie Speier, and Carlos Bolanos two days before the ballots were mailed out.
Great Endorsement.