Town Square

Post a New Topic

Supervisors won't let Sheriff's Office sell old guns

Original post made on Sep 18, 2013

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors rejected part of a proposed ordinance amendment today that would have allowed the Sheriff's Office to sell more than 700 guns.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, September 18, 2013, 9:50 AM

Comments (17)

Posted by Elizabeth, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm

I only have to read the first paragraph to breathe a sigh of relief in the knowledge that there is still common sense somewhere in government.

Thanks you San Mateo County Board of Supervisors for exercising intelligence on the job!


Posted by Josh, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 18, 2013 at 1:30 pm

I have no problem with only a sworn officer buying his old service gun. Hopefully they will rewrite the proposal.


Posted by ML, a resident of Menlo Park
on Sep 18, 2013 at 2:22 pm

Thank you, Board of Supervisors.
Have them all destroyed.
If the officers want to buy guns, let them buy them at the stores.

I can't help suspecting that if sold to the officers, it would be done at ridiculous prices, and sooner than later, many of those guns would end up in the wrong hands.




Posted by Joe, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 18, 2013 at 3:31 pm

While people may be fawning all over themselves about this SMC Supervisors' decision, they really ought to understand that police officers are often involved in crimes--as the criminals, as well as being involved in cases of police brutality.

The CATO Institute has published a number of reports on police misconduct:

Web Link

Murders in SMC have been as low as zero during the past few years. So, concerns about these guns somehow being involved with violent crimes would seem unwarranted.

Moreover, assuming that the police followed the law when disposing of the guns: background checks, and any other CA/Fed. guidelines followed--then they would know where the guns were.

Destroying them is one option. Selling them another. In the long run--guns don't kill people, people kill people.


Posted by "responsible gun owner", a resident of Atherton
on Sep 18, 2013 at 4:33 pm

Officers are the most responsible of "responsible gun owners", aren't they?

"A grand jury charged W**** K***, 46, Training Supervisor, with misdemeanor counts of second-degree assault and reckless endangerment stemming from the accidental shooting of a police recruit."

"The Baltimore Police commissioner shut down police training indefinitely after a University of Maryland police officer was shot in the head during an exercise at a closed psychiatric hospital."

This week, 9/15: "A North Carolina police officer was charged with voluntary manslaughter on Saturday after police say he fatally shot an unarmed man who had apparently just survived a car crash in Charlotte and was looking for help."

"Missouri Officer... was killed when another officer's gun accidentally discharged during a break from a training session."

"The incident occurred while an officer was clearing a round from a .40-caliber handgun. The gun went off, sending the round into a concrete table. The bullet broke apart, sending fragments into a second officer's leg, hand, and face."

"Melissa H**, 35, and Dexter C****, 28, were terminated for their involvement in an April training accident that led to the shooting of a recruit in the wrist..."

"Tiffany Danielle Bishop, Kelley Chase, Dan De Kraai, and John Kohn. All four of these officers or law enforcement recruits were killed in training accidents since 2010. Two were shot accidentally by fellow officers."

And on and on. I would laugh anytime someone mentions the phrase "responsible gun owner", but it's too tragic.


Posted by SP, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Sep 19, 2013 at 6:27 am

@Joe,

Murders have not been anywhere close to zero in San Mateo County, at least, not in the last 30 years. At a minimum, East Palo Alto is in San Mateo County, and it hasn't been murder free for quite some time.


Posted by Joe, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2013 at 8:02 am

> Murders have not been anywhere close to zero in
> San Mateo County, at least, not in the last 30 years

That's not what this article from the Peninsula Press claims:

Web Link

While homicide rates in San Mateo County have been relatively stable in recent years, government and law enforcement officials in the county are concerned about pockets of violence and the influence of youth gangs. In South San Francisco, shootings involving teenagers and young adults are "definitely on the high side, with gang involvement going up in recent years," said city police Detective Ken Chetcuti.
"We had gone through a couple years with zero homicides," he said, and then in December 2010, "there was a triple homicide. And we have had two more since then," each involving youths.
---

Please keep in mind that East Palo Alto is an incorporated City, and as such, does not come under the jurisdiction of the County law enforcement agency. This may lead to confusion, from time-to-time, since clearly murders in East Palo Alto do occur in San Mateo Country. These violent acts are not tracked by the County Sheriff, however. Generally this tracking can be found at the State/Federal level.

If one were to look at the FBI/UCR data (Uniform Crime Reporting) for San Mateo County, one would see that for the most part, violent crime is low--with the exception of a hotspots like East Palo Alto, and Redwood City.



Posted by Which amendment you talking about Willis?, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 19, 2013 at 10:12 am

Why would they want more guns in homes? Just leads to more mayhem.

"a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that "every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." Pistol owners' fantasy of blowing away home-invading bad guys or street toughs holding up liquor stores is a myth debunked by the data showing that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for selfdefense."


Posted by CrescentParkAnon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 21, 2013 at 8:06 pm

Whenever I hear of another shooting in the surrounding area it galls me, but still we have to remember:

1. It is a Constitutional right to own guns.
2. It is a right and sometimes a necessity to protect one's self.
3. Because guns "backfire" on some of us does not change anything.
4. It is legal to buy and sell guns in the US, California and the Bay Area.
5. It is a loss to the Police Department not to be able to sell these guns.

I know I'll get jumped on over this, but I think this is a bad decision that will cost money and will perhaps cost lives. There is a chance that some of these guns will fall into the wrong hands I suppose, but they do have to undergo background checks currently. correct?

The skewed statistics mentioned do not change any of what should be the relevant facts.


Posted by Which amendment you talking about Willis?, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 21, 2013 at 9:42 pm

CPA: Skewed statistics by the the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery?

Must be some commie leftest organization!

Your points:

1 - yes, within set rules, of course

2 - "to protect one's self" of course, except guns in the home CAUSE more mayhem than they actually protect anyone - in the study, for every instance of protection, there are 22 tragedies

3. "Because guns "backfire" on some of us does not change anything."

Not "some". They cause tragedies 22 times more often than they help someone.

That's not a random "backfire". That's 22 people shot or killed for every instance of protection.

4. yes, within the rules, of course

5. eh, we disagree on the sale. We definitely disagree on the part about costing lives. More guns = more lives taken than protected.

22 to 1. Would you bet those odds in Vegas?


Posted by James Cox, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Sep 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm

My question is, Who is Supervisor Don Horsley to be the interpreter of what the law was meant to be, or who should be able to legally buy a gun in the county? Setting himself up as the authority who interprets the meaning of the law is quite a step, even for a one time County Sheriff. The sale of the guns to persons who are not Felons or Mentally Unstable is a viable way for the county to make extra money!


Posted by Bang, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 22, 2013 at 4:23 pm

@James Cox: That's part of his job as a supervisor, elected by the people.


Posted by Jim Swain, a resident of Walter Hays School
on Sep 22, 2013 at 9:09 pm

@JAmes: you may call it viable. Some of us don't want more guns in our neighbors homes. As demonstrated above, too many bad things happen when guns go into homes.

For every legitimate use of a gun in a home, my neighbor will possibly have any one of 22 tragic events happen. And that doesn't even count the chance of the gun being stolen.

"every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."

An eligible person may go to a gun shop. They, and we, don't need the County contributing to more tragedies. Thank you, Mr Supervisor.


Posted by Marvin, a resident of Portola Valley
on Sep 23, 2013 at 8:01 am

A friend of mine just open a gun store in his bayarea city. He has more business than he can handle. He stated he could sell another 7-9 guns per day if he could get more from the gun companies. And ammo...he has to limited everyone to 2 boxes per day in order to have ammo for all his customers. I was just in Scheels in OR and they are doing the same with ammo. The guy behind the counter there stated that they could sell 20-25 more guns per day if they could get them too. Oh and both said that the female gun ownership is sharply on the rise. Crazy!


Posted by "Crazy!", a resident of Portola Valley
on Sep 23, 2013 at 11:05 am

Any facts to share, Marvin? Or just anecdotal noise? How about "female gun ownership is sharply on the rise. Crazy!"

Female gun ownership in 2003=39%, in 2013=43%...... 4% in a decade. That's "sharply on the rise"????????

You said it Marv: "Crazy!"

While I do agree with your single word self-assessment, perhaps you should leave the urban myths, anecdotes and the promotion of gun falsehoods by the NRA, to the experts. You and I will stick to facts, okey-dokie? "Crazy!"


Posted by Marvin, a resident of Portola Valley
on Sep 23, 2013 at 6:17 pm

Female gun ownership from 2005 to now has increase 23%. A 77% increase in 7 years. Google female gun ownership.


Posted by Which amendment you talking about Willis?, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 23, 2013 at 7:52 pm

thanks, marvin, I did google it and looked at the Gallup poll, but first: your numbers make ZERO sense: "from 2005 to now has increase 23%. A 77% increase in 7 years." Huh?!? A 23% increase over 7 years is roughly 3% a year. Hardly can that be called a sharp rise.

So look at facts: Self reported female gun ownership was 39% in 2003. You cherrypicked 2005 as a low point, when it dropped to 32%.

[Portion removed.]

Web Link


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Indian street food and ... bitcoins?
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,034 views

Most Seniors do not Need Senior Housing But Could Benefit from other Choice to Remain in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 26 comments | 1,084 views

"The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden"
By Anita Felicelli | 0 comments | 1,079 views

I Spy
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 925 views

The Cinderella ride
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 759 views