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

[Jonl]

They should now give us the guns since we are the ones paying for them.

[ryang]

Funds used in the Hayward buyback come from private donations made by Hayward police officers, firemen and local businessmen.

[N6ATF]

Then they should get a return on investment, pay the DOJ fees, and take possession of the non-stolen ones instead of melting them into slag as is usually the case.

[teg767]

Local KTVU Channel 2 news shows scenes of the buyback program on the evening report. An officer pulls out a double barrel shotgun from a sack brought in by an old man riding a bike to the area. Next scene shows the officer being interviewed with a truck load of long firearms stacked on three boxes full. Mostly hunting rifle stocks on the background and they look nice and new. Third scene shows a Pistols, Tec-9 and a FAL with synthetic thumb hole stock. Makes me cry and say why, why, why.....

[CalBear]

Local KTVU Channel 2 news shows scenes of the buyback program on the evening report. An officer pulls out a double barrel shotgun from a sack brought in by an old man riding a bike to the area. Next scene shows the officer being interviewed with a truck load of long firearms stacked on three boxes full. Mostly hunting rifle stocks on the background and they look nice and new. Third scene shows a Pistols, Tec-9 and a FAL with synthetic thumb hole stock. Makes me cry and say why, why, why.....

Their report stated that a wide variety of firearms were brought in, including a musket dating back to the revolutionary war. If someone gave a real musket from the 18th century to the cops for $50, they are probably the dumbest person alive today. I hope for their sake it was a replica. It wouldn't surprise me though. I've read other stories of some woman inheriting a historic LR from her father, having a ZOMG! It's a scary gun! moment, and turning it into the cops.

[ryang]

Then they should get a return on investment, pay the DOJ fees, and take possession of the non-stolen ones instead of melting them into slag as is usually the case.

I guess I shouldn't be amazed at people who know, just simply know, what should be done without bothering with facts. But I continue to think the best of people despite how many times I'm shown otherwise.

[ryang]

Their report stated that a wide variety of firearms were brought in, including a musket dating back to the revolutionary war.

Given the countless news reports you hear about "assault machine guns" and "rifle ammo that can penetrate bulletproof vests", why should you suddenly start believing them now? There were a couple of blackpowder firearms turned in but nothing made that long ago.

A previous buyback included a Dan Wesson .357 in a presentation box that contained 8", 6" and 4" barrels. It was clearly worth more than $50 and the officers working that event were sorry to see it destroyed. But part of the "no questions asked" policy includes asking "Could you please sell this to a gun dealer?"

[CitaDeL]

This is a very interesting grassroots method of potentially countering this and similar events.

Pleased you think so.

I was thinking much could be accomplished with a couple of clean cut guys set up in view of the buy back- both in button down shirts and slacks wearing vests/plate carriers perhaps with a spotting scope and a note pad or a camera with a prominantly conspicuous lens. Closer to the action there could be a spoiler/schill- deliberately asking within earshot of the participants, "Are you going to photograph everyone who brings back a gun?" as people approach.

[CalBear]

Given the countless news reports you hear about "assault machine guns" and "rifle ammo that can penetrate bulletproof vests", why should you suddenly start believing them now?

Point taken.

[ryang]

They should now give us the guns since we are the ones paying for them.

Then they should get a return on investment, pay the DOJ fees, and take possession of the non-stolen ones instead of melting them into slag as is usually the case.

I thought some more about why these posts bother me so much. Does the following sound familar?

1. Pre-formed personal opinions more important than facts.
2. Doesn't bother to learn facts--after all, you already have your opinion on the subject.
3. Doesn't let facts interfere with those opinions or twists them to suit their views.

This is what we deplore about the gun-control crowd. I find it bothers me more when we do the same. We should be better than them. Jonl assumed gov't funds were used for this buyback without even bothering to ask if that was the case. N6ATF thinks the people who did donate funds had no idea the guns would be melted for scrap and would want to keep the better ones. C'mon guys, we should be better than this.

Makes me cry and say why, why, why.....

I (think) like most people here, we hear about gun buybacks and think they're a shame. We like guns and we hate to see them destroyed. But after learning more about this particular gun buyback with an open mind, I now think they can be a good thing. Heretical I know but allow me to explain.

We like guns. We enjoy shooting them and strongly believe in responsible ownership. Most of the people turning in guns don't enjoy shooting them. A large percentage aren't responsible owners.

1. Let's say you have a sawed off weapon. You can't legally sell it and honest gunsmiths won't want to touch it to make it legal. Better to take it to a gun buyback than sell it to a gangbanger.
2. Same applies to a stolen weapon. And there's a bonus where the legal owner might get it back.
3. Weapons that you don't want and finding a buyer is too much hassle. There were lots of bolt action shotguns, shoddy pistols none of us would want to own/shoot, rusted stuff and general junk. No one wants it and even though it can't be easily traced back (a lot were made before serial numbers) you can't just throw it in the trash. Gun buybacks are a great way to dispose of them and most of the weapons turned in fit this category.
4. Irresponsible owners. There was one lady who turned in a loaded .22 rifle. She thought it was unloaded but never bothered to check. She told a story of how her husband had a ND in their house with it and almost hit her. People like this should not own firearms. I'm glad she doesn't since people like this give gun owners a bad image.
5. It's a good way to safely dispose of inoperable firearms and unwanted ammo. They don't get money for them, but Joe Average doesn't have a convenient way to properly destroy an inoperable firearm. And old ammo that's been sitting in a closet is stuff no one wants to use.

Yes you will see the occasional firearm that is a shame to destroy but they are rare in comparison to the scenarios above. In yesterday's buyback at most 3% fit that category. So overall I now think gun buybacks serve a useful purpose. By and large these are not servicable weapons that you or I would want to own. Given a choice between putting them in the hands of criminals or irresponsible owners, or melting them to slag, I choose the latter.

[ryang]

I was thinking much could be accomplished with a couple of guys set up in view of the buy back with a note pad or a camera with a prominantly conspicuous lens. Closer to the action there could be a spoiler/schill- deliberately asking within earshot of the participants, "Are you going to photograph everyone who brings back a gun?" as people approach.

Exactly who do you think this would deter? People who legally own the firearm they wish to turn in? Or people with illegal guns or are prohibited from legally owning them?

So let me get this straight: you want felons and people with stolen firearms to keep them? Bravo.

[383green]

By and large these are not servicable weapons that you or I would want to own.

Do you have evidence to support that assertion?

[N6ATF]

N6ATF thinks the people who did donate funds had no idea the guns would be melted for scrap and would want to keep the better ones. C'mon guys, we should be better than this.

Don't tell me what I think.

[ryang]

Do you have evidence to support that assertion?

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.

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.

[383green]

I'd be interested in a bolt-action shotgun. I don't have one of those yet. I collect curio and relic firearms, and I'm no stranger to determining whether an old gun is likely to be unsafe to shoot. It's not rocket science, after all. So, aside from a few rifles that were rusted shut, it sounds like lots of interesting old guns.

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.