Posted by USA, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2013 at 1:01 pm

The answer is zero.

The questions are:

Over the last year, how many people were killed by old, non-operational rifles?

How many of the people turning in guns were gang members?

How many guns will be tested to see if they match bullets used in homicides?

Posted by Nick, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Exactly -- I guarantee not a single gang member turned in a gun.

And I wonder how many people got cash for a non-working gun, so that they could go out and buy a brand new working one?

Might be a "feel good" kind of effort, but will do absolutely nothing to reduce violence.

Posted by santa clara is cheap, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2013 at 2:31 pm

They do not pay as much.

ELIGIBILITY

What is the amount of money per gun that I might receive?

Up to $100.00 CASH will be given to individuals on the spot for hand guns, shotguns, and rifles and up to $200.00 CASH for assault weapons (as classified by the State of California). However, we reserve the right to limit the amount of funds an individual can receive.

Web Link

Posted by Croc Dundee, a resident of another community, on Feb 26, 2013 at 2:40 pm

From an NPR broadcast posted at <Web Link;:

SIMON: What do you think the evidence on gun-buyback schemes is? Do they work?

VERNICK: Unfortunately, the evidence isn't very encouraging at all, if one's goal is to reduce rates of street crime.

SIMON: Well, what do they do?

VERNICK: What we've learned is that high-risk people don't tend to participate. The folks who are at highest risk for being either a victim or a perpetrator of gun violence are young males. But disproportionately, the people who participate in these buybacks tend to be older; they tend to be female.

On top of that, the guns that get turned in don't tend to be the high-risk guns. The high-risk guns for street crime tend to be newer; they tend to be high-caliber, semiautomatic pistols; they tend to be functional. The guns that disproportionately get turned in, in buybacks, tend to be older; they tend to be revolvers, lower caliber; and worst of all, often they're broken. So there isn't good reason to expect, unfortunately, that these gun-buyback programs are likely to reduce street crime.

SIMON: Professor, do you have any feeling for why cities - why they're important to cities?

VERNICK: I think the reason that cities and other localities engage in these programs, frankly, is because quite understandably people want to do something. They - there's a felt need to respond to the problem of gun violence to specific shootings. And unlike efforts to change policy or enact new laws, gun buybacks are relatively easy to do. You don't have to battle with the National Rifle Association. So the problem is - if that's all that localities and cities ultimately do, it's fine if a buyback is used as a way to heighten awareness. But it needs to be a first step towards change that's much more likely to actually affect rates of violence.

SIMON: Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, speaking from Baltimore. Thanks so much for being with us.

Posted by Mary, a resident of the Martens-Carmelita neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2013 at 3:55 pm

The gun addicts are certainly alive and well on this blog. :)) Notice how intent they are on discrediting the value of gun buybacks... same as they are toward any effort to reduce the number of guns out and about in our country. Duh?

Methinks the boys doth protest too much.

Posted by Sparty, a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2013 at 11:03 pm

"Notice how intent they are on discrediting the value of gun buybacks"

Notice you can't tell the difference between guns used in street crime and junky old long guns. If gun buy backs worked, why was there a mugging with a gun just 12 hours earlier? Once you show there are 355 less crimes commited with a gun in EPA, Paly and Menlo, in the 12 mo after the gun buy back, I'll take you seriously. In fact, i'll give you 24 months.

Come back in 2 years with stats that show 150 less gun crimes in these three cities and maybe you'll have a point

Posted by USA, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Feb 27, 2013 at 12:15 am

"What we've learned is that high-risk people don't tend to participate. " - Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research

Oh my god. Someone actually pays this person a salary.

Posted by Otto Maddox, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Feb 28, 2013 at 5:46 am
Otto Maddox is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online

@Mary: What value are you citing for gun buybacks? So far plenty of evidence they don't make any difference has been shown. Please show your sources these are valuable.

As I've said in the past. As long as non-tax payer money is used to buy these guns I'm fine with it. You still have the salaries of the police to think about though.

I think the donated funds, and the tax money spent to staff these buybacks, could be better spent. Other than a good photo op for the local police chief standing in front of a pile of old hunting rifles what are these gun buy backs really accomplishing? Please show the evidence these do anything to prevent anything.

What some people need to realize is owning a firearm is a CIVIL RIGHT. Just like voting, just like freedom of speech. If the city were to hold a book buyback and then burn all the books there would be such an outcry.