Hayward gun buyback event: Saturday 10am-3pm, south Hayward BART station

[N6ATF]

Probably increased. The wolves now know there's a whole bunch more unarmed sheep to eat.

[ryang]

I live a few miles away from South Hayward BART. Last year, our house was burglarized and several firearms were among the items stolen. If the thief sold my guns to the Hayward Police, would the police be required to return them to me? The serial numbers were given in the original police report.

Assuming your contact info hasn't changed then yes, you would be notified and be able to get them back.

[ryang]

So, what would your preference be? A felon or criminal in possession of the evidence that could be used against them to ensure a conviction or a criminal using the the bogus buyback to destroy evidence linking them to any crime?

As another person mentioned, it's pretty easy to destroy the barrel or otherwise prevent a ballistic match. Or they could just sell it to someone else and let them take the heat for it. There is the possibility what you describe could happen but I think the benefits I mentioned previously outweigh that.

I believe that detering cooperation with organized efforts to remove firearms from the 'streets' will make the law-abiding reconsider taking the gun into a firearms dealer.

There was one guy who mentioned he tried several times to sell his firearms but didn't get any takers. So the buyback was the only way he could "sell" them.

These gun 'buybacks' do not make the public 'safer' no matter how you spin it.

In the case of the lady who was almost shot by her husband's ND and turned in a loaded .22 rifle she thought was unloaded, yes I would say it makes the public safer. We recognize the responsibility that comes with firearm ownership. Not everyone who owns a firearm is responsible and if they want to stop owning them I'm all for it.

So how much has crime dropped in Hayward since this event? My bet is on 0%.

I do not believe gun buybacks have a significant effect on reducing crime. I never said they did.

[Wherryj]

Originally Posted by dfletcher
Gee, there's a term out there for an operation that takes in often stolen merchendise and gives back just a few cents on the dollar. I think it's illegal. Hmm, now what's that called ......?

Fence.

Income tax?

[N6ATF]

BAHAHAHAHA

[ryang]

I consider a gun buy-back to be comparable to a book-burning. While a book-burning might be a convenient way to get rid of one's unwanted heretical texts, it fosters disrespect for a fundamental right and perpetuates ignorant ideas about objects having some inherent evil separate from the actions of their owners.

Prior to this event I had similar viewpoints. But the Hayward buyback changed my mind. I think the scenarios I described before are a real benefit.

Keep in mind I'm only talking about the Hayward buyback since that's the only one I have experience with. The book-burning analogy fails because it's focus is to say those books are bad and destroying them is good. Except for the illegal weapons (eg. sawed off stuff) that wasn't the case with the Hayward buyback. It was more like donating to Goodwill where people had stuff they didn't want any more and trying to sell it any other way was more trouble than it was worth. Easily 90% of the people fit that category. On the flip side, there were some firearms turned in that the people working the event were sorry to see destroyed. That's about as far from a book burning mentality as you can get.

One thing we complain about is the gun control folks have the attitude of, "I don't like firearms so I don't want you to have them." Our response has usually been, "If you don't like them fine, but don't infringe on my choice to own them if I want." Just as we want to have the choice to legally own firearms, we should also let people who have firearms make the choice to stop owning them. No one is forcing people to go to a buyback. No one is saying this is the only (or best) way to get rid of them. But it's an option that exists for people who want to take it. We're big on freedom of choice. Even if you personally think it's a mistake let them make their own choice.

As I said in the beginning, I used to think nothing good came out of gun buybacks. But now I think there is some good that comes out of them. If you think any of the five scenarios I described are invalid please let me know. I don't think they are.

[GOEX FFF]

I consider a gun buy-back to be comparable to a book-burning. While a book-burning might be a convenient way to get rid of one's unwanted heretical texts, it fosters disrespect for a fundamental right and perpetuates ignorant ideas about objects having some inherent evil separate from the actions of their owners.

The book-burning analogy fails because it's focus is to say those books are bad and destroying them is good. Except for the illegal weapons (eg. sawed off stuff) that wasn't the case with the Hayward buyback.

When it comes down to it, the one main purpose of these gun "buy-backs" are to get as many (illegal or not) "off the street" and destroyed.
It's the city trying to get rid of the perceived "Bad" for the perceived notion that it's for the "Good". The book burning analogy is fair in retrospect.

Aside from the book burnings in 1933 Germany using this same perception,
the burning of nearly 1 million scrolls and the Library of Alexandria in the 4th century, when Christianity perceived the written word of science as being a threat to "Religion" and their ideologies......when many did not.
The city (and most gun-grabbers for that matter) see firearms as a threat to "Public safety" and their ideologies.......when many do not.
Sure, one could argue that the scrolls at Alexandria weren't voluntarily turned in like firearms at a buy-back, but the underlying procedure of the purpose for destruction still remains.

It was more like donating to Goodwill where people had stuff they didn't want any more and trying to sell it any other way was more trouble than it was worth.

If it was just "Stuff", then it should have been called a "Consumer Household Buy-Back". And if it was like Goodwill, then the firearms that come back clean should be donated to local shooting clubs or organisations like Boy Scouts of America or Appleseed. How is it Goodwill when the majority (ALL?) of the property is being destroyed, ignoring anyone in "need" of them?

On the flip side, there were some firearms turned in that the people working the event were sorry to see destroyed.

Id put money on it that the vast majority, (aside from maybe a few volunteers taking them in) that put on these buy backs don't care and are happy to destroy as many as they can.
These aren't collectors or hobbyists taking the arms in that may be sad to see the "nice ones" go, it's ALSO about the numbers they get.

One thing we complain about is the gun control folks have the attitude of, "I don't like firearms so I don't want you to have them." Our response has usually been, "If you don't like them fine, but don't infringe on my choice RIGHT to own them if I want."

Just as we want to have the choice RIGHT to legally own firearms, we should also let people who have firearms make the choice to stop owning them. No one is forcing people to go to a buyback. No one is saying this is the only (or best) way to get rid of them. But it's an option that exists for people who want to take it. We're big on freedom of choice. Even if you personally think it's a mistake let them make their own choice.

Fixed it for you...

[dfletcher]

Prior to this event I had similar viewpoints. But the Hayward buyback changed my mind. I think the scenarios I described before are a real benefit.

Keep in mind I'm only talking about the Hayward buyback since that's the only one I have experience with. The book-burning analogy fails because it's focus is to say those books are bad and destroying them is good. Except for the illegal weapons (eg. sawed off stuff) that wasn't the case with the Hayward buyback. It was more like donating to Goodwill where people had stuff they didn't want any more and trying to sell it any other way was more trouble than it was worth. Easily 90% of the people fit that category. On the flip side, there were some firearms turned in that the people working the event were sorry to see destroyed. That's about as far from a book burning mentality as you can get.

One thing we complain about is the gun control folks have the attitude of, "I don't like firearms so I don't want you to have them." Our response has usually been, "If you don't like them fine, but don't infringe on my choice to own them if I want." Just as we want to have the choice to legally own firearms, we should also let people who have firearms make the choice to stop owning them. No one is forcing people to go to a buyback. No one is saying this is the only (or best) way to get rid of them. But it's an option that exists for people who want to take it. We're big on freedom of choice. Even if you personally think it's a mistake let them make their own choice.

As I said in the beginning, I used to think nothing good came out of gun buybacks. But now I think there is some good that comes out of them. If you think any of the five scenarios I described are invalid please let me know. I don't think they are.

There are quite a few hits regardingthe buyback, I picked the first one.

According to the Hayward Police ALL GUNS ARE DESTROYED - there is no effort made to get guns back to their legal owners. I wonder how folks would react if the police took the same position regarding cars, jewelry, watches or anything else turned in under a "no questions asked policy"?

The folks doing the work were polite. Nice but not relevent. The emphasis, as expressed in the media by the police, is to destroy guns because guns end up in the hands of criminals and gang members - that's what they said. And they mean ALL guns because obviously, the police don't know in advance which guns are going to be turned in, which guns could be used illegally. According to the police quoted in the newspaper, reducing the number of guns in the hands of private citizens reduces the number that may be used by bad people - that's their approach.

The way it is promoted to the public, deliberately by the police to the media is "guns are bad" and whether they soft soap it at the scene is not important.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2010/10/29/hayward-police-holding-gun-buy-back-event/

[charliedontsurf334]

Maybe they'll do like what Oakland did over CHristmas of 2008 and give $250 per gun. It's a good money making opportunity.

[creekside]

According to the Hayward Police ALL GUNS ARE DESTROYED - there is no effort made to get guns back to their legal owners.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...uy-back-event/

The media got it wrong. I personally spoke to a civilian property clerk with Hayward PD on the day of the event and asked him this question.

He stated that serial numbers would be checked and that an effort would be made to "eventually" reunite stolen firearms with their owners.

I was very careful to check this exact point, because I find 'buy backs' distasteful myself.

[creekside]

No objective evidence I could show you. Excluding illegal stuff, yesterday's buyback was mostly: bolt action shotguns, single shot shotguns, various old (50+ yrs) .22 rifles, true "saturday night special" .22 revolvers that would not be comfortable or accurate to shoot, etc. None of them very well maintained, quite a few sporting rust. Several bolt action rifles that required a hammer to pry open the rusted bolt. Lots of dings, gouges and other signs of abuse/neglect. It may be that I simply have higher standards but I would not want them even for free. Not just because even new they wouldn't interest me but also because I couldn't be sure they were safe to shoot.

Anyone who stayed awake in a criminology course can tell you that the vast majority of violent crime is committed with handguns.

(Interesting discussion of this and many other facts of varying quality at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States)

You are certainly welcome to visit a future buyback to see what kind of stuff comes in. It sounds like creekside was there and could chime in regarding what he saw. They had some of the more "sensational" items arranged on a tailgate for media to photograph but behind that were over a hundred longarms stuck barrel first into boxes.

So if this event was 'non-political' as a Hayward PD employee claimed, why was a photo op of 'sensational' items staged on the tailgate of a government-owned camper shell pickup truck? I wondered what they were doing over there . . .

. . . because what I saw prior to that truck pulling up was a bunch of long guns in a cardboard box in the back of a pickup truck, pretty much as you describe.

Cherry-picking the 'evil looking guns' is about as political as it gets.

[N6ATF]

He stated that serial numbers would be checked and that an effort would be made to "eventually" reunite stolen firearms with their owners.

Freudian slip. Seen more than enough threads on here about extremely delayed LEGRs and nearly needing to request a writ to get guns returned to their owners...

[dantodd]

Cherry-picking the 'evil looking guns' is about as political as it gets.

You might be making too large an assumption that they were cherry picked and not brought in by the police for display purposes.

[NightOwl]

is it frowned upon to go there and offer people more money than the cops are offering? I know many people talk about it but I havent heard of anyone doing it. So i was just wondering whether it was a fond wish or if people really do this.

It has happened before, in southern california. A few nice guns were purchased at a good price from what I heard.

[Dreaded Claymore]

I consider a gun buy-back to be comparable to a book-burning. While a book-burning might be a convenient way to get rid of one's unwanted heretical texts, it fosters disrespect for a fundamental right and perpetuates ignorant ideas about objects having some inherent evil separate from the actions of their owners.

If I was running things in Washington, these words would be rendered in mosaic and added to the decoration in the Library of Congress (by far the most beautiful building in DC, at least on the inside, if you ever go there don't miss it). They'd also be carved in stone and put on the outside of the National Shooting Range that I would build.