News

Bay Area mayors call for Senate action on gun safety laws

Mountain View, Palo Alto leaders among signees

More than 20 Bay Area mayors, including four on the Midpeninsula, are among 249 across the country who have signed a letter addressed to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, calling for action on gun violence legislation in the wake of recent mass shootings.

The letter dated Aug. 8 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors urges the Senate leaders to "immediately call the Senate back to Washington to take action on bipartisan gun safety legislation."

The letter notes that there have been over 250 mass shootings throughout the country so far this year, including three recent ones in Gilroy; El Paso, Texas; and Dayton, Ohio. It asks the Senate to take action on two bills passed in February by the U.S. House of Representatives to strengthen background checks for gun purchases.

The following Bay Area mayors signed the letter: Lisa Matichak, Mountain View; Marilyn Ezzy, Alameda; Rochelle Nason, Albany; Jesse Arreguin, Berkeley; David Gregory, Dublin; Lisa Yarborough-Gauthier, East Palo Alto; Sam Hindi, Foster City; Lily Mei, Fremont; Barbara Halliday, Hayward; John P. Marchland, Livermore; Ray Mueller, Menlo Park; Jill Techel, Napa; Libby Schaaf, Oakland; Eric Filseth, Palo Alto; Teresa Barrett, Petaluma; Thomas K. Butt, Richmond; London Breed, San Francisco; Sam Liccardo, San Jose; Pauline Russo Cutter, San Leandro; Michael D. Tubbs, Stockton; Carol Dutra-Vernaci, Union City; John F. Dunbar, Yountville.

Read the letter here.

Related content:

• https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2019/08/10/county-supervisors-calls-for-federal-assault-weapons-ban County supervisors call for federal assault weapons ban

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

27 people like this
Posted by Jake O.
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Aug 12, 2019 at 3:23 pm

What will more gun legislation actually do? It is already illegal to commit murder.


16 people like this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 12, 2019 at 3:57 pm

@ Jake O.

"What will more gun legislation actually do? It is already illegal to commit murder"

Well, there are two major effects, NEITHER of which has anything to do with safety! Safety will NOT be improved by any new gun-control laws.

The FIRST the effect will be:
To make politicians feel better about themselves and will get more donations to politicians on both sides of the issue.

Historically, any gun-control laws have had just about exactly the same effect as our Federal and state Marijuana laws have had. Look at the states now giving up on banning Pot, look at how the Feds have pretty much given up trying to enforce the Federal Pot laws.

Gun-control laws and Pot laws have only made guns and Pot more popular.

The SECOND and largest effect will be:
Prior to Bill Clinton running for office the first time, the style of rifle commonly referred to as the AR-15 style was a fairly rare and expensive rifle and the huge bulk of the civilian owners were either military veterans or Hollywood prop houses. Most recreational target shooters never even saw one up-close.

As a direct result of the Bill Clinton 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" the AR-15 rapidly became the top selling rifle in the USA and today, the AR-15 style rifle is by far the MOST COMMONLY owned rifle among civilians and there are more companies producing AR-15 style rifles than any other type of firearms.

OH, you might wonder about how sales increased during the 1994-2004 AW ban? Well, the 1994 AW ban did not actually ban the style, so all new companies had to do is read the AW ban law and make AR-15 style rifles that were in full compliance with the law as written. Sales surged all through the AW ban years.

Before Clinton there were less than 2 million civilian owned AR-15 style rifles, mostly relics of the Viet Nam war from military surplus sales, but directly because of the laws trying to suppress ownership of the AR-15 style rifle, the lower estimates put the numbers in civilian hands (not counting Hollywood prop houses who own literally millions of them) to at least 25 million and that only counts the ones legally purchased, it does not count the millions more smuggled into the USA from other countries.

Today, the AR-15 style is one of the most popular rifles among men and women for target shooting. All due to the 1994 AW ban.

FUN FACT:
The "AR" does NOT stand for "Assault Rifle", it stands for Armalite Rifle. The people who founded Armalite in the 1950's were designing a TARGET SHOOTING rifle for the CIVILIAN market based on some neat new ideas on how to make a rifle lighter and much LOWER POWERED than any of the other target shooting rifles out there in the 1950's.

Target shooting had mainly been the hobby for men of at least average size and strength, but anyone smaller or weaker were stuck with just child-sized .22LR rifles. Armalite designed a target shooting rifle that smaller men and women could manage and still had long enough accurate range to be a challange on medium to long shooting ranges.

The military only found out about the Armalite rifles when a military officer happened to see one in use at a shooting range and went over to see what this strange looking rifle was. Only then did the military contact Armalite and ask them for a demonstration, and the rest is history.

The AR-15 style rifle is mainly used for the recreational target shooting market, which is exactly what is was designed for in the first place!


21 people like this
Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 12, 2019 at 7:42 pm

Greg David is a registered user.

I did not vote for her and next election I just might actively campaign against her. This is not the purview of local governments. She needs to concentrate on RV’s and uncontrolled office growth.


3 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 13, 2019 at 3:47 am

Gary is a registered user.

After 9-11-2001, cameras were installed at intersections. Security cameras are needed everywhere lots of people gather - including at schools and other public buildings. Why? Consider the Gilroy shooting. With cameras, police might have seen the shooter well before he started firing. The police could have learned what was happening as shots rang out. The police might have caught an accomplice - were there one. Instead, on rumor of an on-scene accomplice, the police searched the area all night. The Gilroy shooter evidently intended to get away - if only to kill more people. He was not wearing a mask but had one in his car. Had he fled, cameras would have helped identify and locate him. Moreover, if a bad guy - other than perhaps a suicide bomber- approaches City Hall or a school and sees signs proclaiming surveillance cameras, he (or she as in San Bernardino) may well not proceed with an attack at such a protected location. Surveillance tapes at schools - like most school records - would not be public records accessible by outsiders. The schools should work with the police to see what surveillance would be most helpful. Whether school cameras would be monitored by machines or personnel might depend on the time of day and other circumstances. As it stands, most public schools are protected only by the infrequency of intruders and attackers. Not good enough.


8 people like this
Posted by psr
a resident of The Crossings
on Aug 13, 2019 at 11:51 pm

psr is a registered user.

@Liberalguns
You are 100% correct. This is all about politicians using a tragedy to garner money and votes.

The fact is, none of the laws they want to pass would have ANY effect on these mass murders. Another fact is that these attacks are done by unbalanced people - both left and right wing. We had one of each in El Paso and Dayton. We need to hold the PEOPLE responsible, not the tools they use. If we started to treat the ones that are mentally ill and punish the ones who are just plain evil, we might start to make progress. If all we do is try to find an excuse for people not to be responsible for their actions, we aren't going to get anywhere.


4 people like this
Posted by fun fact?!?!?!?!?
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Aug 14, 2019 at 12:01 am

"This is all about politicians using a tragedy"

You gun dudes are blind. Want to know what a tragedy is?

A tragedy is sending little kids to school with bullet-proof backpacks because gun nuts refuse to discuss common-sense gun safety measures.

A tragedy is, when it's pointed out that tens of thousands of Americans are killed by guns every year, the gun nuts have an automated whataboutism response - what about cars?!?! Knives!! Definitions!!

Tragic.


13 people like this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 14, 2019 at 2:19 am

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@fun fact?!?!?!?!?

Gun-haters know nothing about fact, they are about bigotry and ignorance.

"A tragedy is sending little kids to school with bullet-proof backpacks"

I would call it a waste of money for almost everyone.
The only people who might need that live in drug gang infested neighborhood where the criminal ignore both the gun laws and the drug laws and the laws against killing people. Of course, if you live in such a dangerous neighborhood, you probably can't afford a bulletproof backpack.

"because gun nuts refuse to discuss common-sense gun safety measures."

I would be happy to, explain any "common-sense" gun-control law you like.

While you're at it, explain any drug-control law that has worked at all?

"A tragedy is, when it's pointed out that tens of thousands of Americans are killed by guns every year,"

No, tens of thousands of Americans KILL THEMSELVES with guns and suicidal people without guns handy just find another method, just like people all over the world.

Unlawful homicides have usually been below 10,000 and some years below 7,000. The vast majority of those cases are committed by known criminals who could not legally possess guns anyway.

"the gun nuts have an automated whataboutism response - what about cars?!?! Knives!! Definitions!!

A typical deflection to avoid learning anything that threatens your bigoted beliefs.
Ignorance kills more people than bullets or cars combined.


3 people like this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 14, 2019 at 2:32 am

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@psr

"@Liberalguns
You are 100% correct. This is all about politicians using a tragedy to garner money and votes."

Well, I would call it a 50%-50% between the politicians and the news media that exploits anything bloody or sensational to sell advertising.

"The fact is, none of the laws they want to pass would have ANY effect on these mass murders."

Correct, there are only 2 ways to stop these fame-obsessed mass killers, the news media needs to stop making them famous and the laws creating soft-targets, gun-free-zones, need to be changed to make sure bad guys cannot know they wont have any opposition.

Society is safer when criminals cannot know who is armed.

Mass killer are nobody's who desire to become famous and they are also all cowards. They all give up or kill themselves at the first sign of armed opposition, no matter who it is opposing them.

"Another fact is that these attacks are done by unbalanced people"

Sure, but that does not help the effort to stop them. The Constitution and the ACLU have made sure that the government cannot just lock up people because we think they might be a threat. There has to be proof and judged by a court.

"We need to hold the PEOPLE responsible, not the tools they use."

Ah, but the gun-haters don't care about anything but their bigotry and hate, they don't want to accept the idea of personal responsibility, they want the government to care for them like babies.

"If we started to treat the ones that are mentally ill and punish the ones who are just plain evil, we might start to make progress."

Again, it's all about the fame for these mass killers, only taking away that incentive will we deter them.

The media created this monster, only the media can fix it.


3 people like this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 14, 2019 at 2:59 am

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@Gary

Gary, you should really study more details of the Columbine killings.
Cameras were there and an armed uniformed police officer too, neither made any difference.

The reasons were that the killers wanted to get caught to become famous AND because the killers were able to know that the uniformed cop was the only armed person on campus. They simply watched his routine to know exactly when and where to attack to make him useless.

ONLY when potential attackers KNOW they will not be made famous and that they know that someone they cannot identify is armed, then these fame-seeking cowards will stop.

In Gilroy, El Paso and Dayton, it was basically over in under 1 min.
I think for Dayton it was over in 32 seconds and Gilroy was 56 seconds.

"After 9-11-2001, cameras were installed at intersections."

None of which could have done anything to prevent 9-11, nor Oklahoma City bombing, nor Columbine, nor etc.

"Security cameras are needed everywhere lots of people gather -"

That's a very British attitude, are you from the UK?

"including at schools and other public buildings."

OK, but again, not really of any use to prevent these mass killings, just to document what happened.

"Consider the Gilroy shooting. With cameras, police might have seen the shooter well before he started firing."

No time to make any difference.
The ONLY meaningful response has to be on the scene already.

If we learned anything from Columbine, it was that only someone already near the killer(s) and who ACTS instantly to oppose the killer can possibly stop the killing.

"The police might have caught an accomplice - were there one."

At best, the police might have been able to review the videos and figure out if they need to be hunting for an accomplice AFTER the event was over. Certainly not during.

"Instead, on rumor of an on-scene accomplice, the police searched the area all night."

As is standard procedure in every crime scene, the police continue to assume there are other suspects until they are pretty sure they have found everyone they can. Cameras would not change that.

"Had he fled, cameras would have helped identify and locate him."

Perhaps, but you're assuming a huge number of cameras, really really good cameras!

"Moreover, if a bad guy - other than perhaps a suicide bomber- approaches City Hall or a school and sees signs proclaiming surveillance cameras, he (or she as in San Bernardino) may well not proceed with an attack at such a protected location."

Cameras do NOT make a place "protected" from attacks, they only help law-enforcement investigate what happened and perhaps trying to identify who got away.

Virtually 100% of these mass killers do not care one bit about getting caught, in fact then NEED to get caught to get fame!

"The schools should work with the police to see what surveillance would be most helpful."

Against attacks? None, against many other types of crime, sure.

"As it stands, most public schools are protected only by the infrequency of intruders and attackers. Not good enough."

Correct, what we need is to make sure any potential attackers are worried that someone at the school may be armed and they cannot know who that might be or where they are.


Like this comment
Posted by fun fact?!?!?!?!?
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Aug 14, 2019 at 9:28 am

"because gun nuts refuse to discuss common-sense gun safety measures."

"I would be happy to, explain any "common-sense" gun-control law you like."

Israel's gun law.


2 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 14, 2019 at 10:45 am

Gary is a registered user.

@Liberalguns. Arming teachers or administrators? Maybe. But they would need to be well trained. It is not easy to stop a shooter - especially one with an assault rifle. As to surveillance, here is my thinking: First off, most attackers do not want to be encountered before they start shooting and some even plan to live to talk or kill another day. The Gilroy shooter had a list of more targets to hit. The Dayton shooter worn a mask and body armor. The El Paso shooter surrendered when encountered. He did not mind the cameras perhaps because he seems to have wanted to get caught and have his manifesto published. Cameras will not stop suicide bombers or all lunatics who want to get caught. But others may well think twice about attacking on camera. Second, cameras can help police see an attack before it begins and have a shot at stopping the assailant or hiding children until the shooter is stopped. Third, cameras can identify shooters and accomplices. Police need to know if the bad guys are disguised as students or employees and to identify on-scene accomplices. Fourth, the San Bernardino terrorists got away. There were tracked with the help of cameras. Surveillance will not stop all intruders - but it should help deter, forestall, monitor, end and investigate shootings. And, as you indicate, cameras could also scare off others lurking near schools. What is the downside? Video feeds and footage would not be a public record accessible by outsiders. And cameras are cheap.


1 person likes this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 14, 2019 at 8:52 pm

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@Gary

Wow, Gary, if you think cameras are cheap you have no clue about the real costs, especially about how you pay all those eyes constantly watching and operating all those cameras. The NSA and FBI combined don't have the resources to do that in the manner you assume to stop crime during the act.
The UK manages to cover specific areas of specific cities at a massive cost and even they only occasionally stop a crime in progress. You got to stop getting your opinions of things from TV shows!

"@Liberalguns. Arming teachers or administrators?"

Or just a janitor with a military background?
Or a guidance counselor?

The point is not even to assure that all schools have one UNKNOWN armed trustworthy adult, the issue is to advertise the fact that ANY given school might have one (or two for larger schools) armed person who is secretly armed and only the top administrators know who it is or which schools have one. You could even make it a traveling employee, or even a parent volunteer.

"But they would need to be well trained."

Of course, they would need to be properly trained and understand the law and with the type of situational training like cops get these days.
Don't for get that many many such people already exist. Former cops, military, armed guards, etc. Lots of already qualified people available.

"It is not easy to stop a shooter - especially one with an assault rifle."

That's not really true in the cases we are talking about.
I think we have only seen one or two trained shooters out of all these mass shooting events.

In virtually every case, these fame-seeking cowardly killers surrender or commit suicide the moment they are confronted by an armed person.

The type of firearms these killers use is utterly irrelevant to the actual event, only the gun-haters and media care.

"As to surveillance, here is my thinking: First off, most attackers do not want to be encountered before they start shooting"

Well, duh, they can't get famous if they fail to kill anyone and they can't get the greatest fame unless they use an AR-15.

"and some even plan to live to talk or kill another day."

That is exceedingly rare, only a few I can think of actually intended to get away to attack some other place. NONE of them managed to do so.

"The Gilroy shooter had a list of more targets to hit."

He had a list of other choices and he chose the Garlic festival, there was zero chance he was going to go anywhere. He killed himself when he was confronted.

Many of these killers have a list of soft targets to choose from and they make their choice and try to get famous.

"The Dayton shooter worn a mask and body armor."

Mask => more fear, body armor assumes that will allow him to stand up to armed cops, which also turned out NOT to be true. Cops know how to deal with body armor, as do I if it ever came to that.

"The El Paso shooter surrendered when encountered."

Most kill themselves, almost all the rest give up the moment they are confronted, only a few even had plans to escape.

"He did not mind the cameras perhaps because he seems to have wanted to get caught and have his manifesto published."

To get FAME< which is what these attacks are all about!

"Cameras will not stop suicide bombers or all lunatics who want to get caught."

Cameras will NOT stop ANY of these mass shooters any more than cameras will stop bombers, suicidal or otherwise.

"But others may well think twice about attacking on camera."

NOT ONE mass killer shied away from his target because of cameras, in fact, MOST WANT cameras to help make them MORE FAMOUS!

"Second, cameras can help police see an attack before it begins and have a shot at stopping the assailant or hiding children until the shooter is stopped."

Not a chance, most of the killing takes place in the first minute, no time for police to even realize what's going on and dispatch an officer to the scene. The armed person needs to already be there.

"Third, cameras can identify shooters"

Which is just great with virtually all of these mass killers.

" and accomplices."

NEVER happened yet.

"Police need to know if the bad guys are disguised as students or employees and to identify on-scene accomplices."

NEVER happened, not once.

"Fourth, the San Bernardino terrorists got away."

They are the oddball case, NOT a mass-killer, a terrorist pair, they are entirely different and don't fit the profile of any of the other mass attacks we are talking about.

"There were tracked with the help of cameras."

Cameras were a bit helpful, but they were caught mainly because they drew attention to themselves during their effort to escape.

"Surveillance will not stop all intruders"

It wont stop ANY of the 99% of mass killers, for most of them cameras ADD to the incentive because those cameras will make them MORE FAMOUS!

"but it should help deter, forestall, monitor, end and investigate shootings."

Cameras only deter professional criminals, not mass killers.

"And, as you indicate, cameras could also scare off others lurking near schools."

Correct, normal criminals, not mass killers.

"What is the downside?"

The false sense of security they create, the massive costs, a lot of people don't like the government having such cameras, etc...

"Video feeds and footage would not be a public record accessible by outsiders"

Not really an issue one way or other.

" And cameras are cheap. "

WOW, that's clueless, cameras, useful cameras, monitored in a manner that could maybe be of some use, that's all insanely expensive!


3 people like this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 14, 2019 at 9:04 pm

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@fun fact?!?!?!?!?

""I would be happy to, explain any "common-sense" gun-control law you like.""

I said explain, not just toss out a name. I want to know exactly what DETAILS you feel actually work to reduce the criminal mis-use of guns, NOT just point to a totally different nation which has no relevance.

"Israel's gun law."

A nation on an endless war footing filled with non-citizens who want to kill the citizens and are quite happy to kill anyone to steal their gun?
Oh and almost every citizen is required to get fully military training and serve in the armed forces and the guns they have are often fully-automatic machine guns.

Hardly applicable to the USA, they don't even have a community of recreational target-shooters, they are at war all the time.

Why not go for the old gun-hater wish, to make gun laws just like car laws?

How about that "common-sense" set of gun laws?
The gun-haters have pushed that idea for decades, even both of the Clintons pushed for that.

So, now, again, I asked:
"explain any "common-sense" gun-control law you like."


1 person likes this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 14, 2019 at 9:20 pm

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@fun fact?!?!?!?!?

Hey, fun, please explain how any gun-control laws could possibly "work" any better than our drug-control laws have?

Drug-control laws should work BETTER because drugs are a consumable product that gets used up by the user, while guns are durable goods that can and usually will last fully functional for decades or centuries. Ammo is re-loadable and easy to produce in volume. Ammo also will last decades and properly stored, a century or more.

One good re-loader could produce all of the ammo used up by criminals during crimes. The number of shots illegally fired by criminals is microscopic compared to the legal use of firearms. Criminals could get all the ammo and guns they need simply by stealing them from cops or military.

The government (at all levels combined) spends over 100 BILLION per year trying to suppress drugs and yet for all their efforts they have really accomplished nothing.

And remember, there is NO LEGAL source for these street drugs anywhere in the world and every government of the world is also trying to suppress drugs.

For guns, many nations, like China, are only too happy to make all sorts of guns to smuggle into the USA and sell on the black market.

American target shooters lawfully fire 8 BILLION rounds of ammo each year.

How exactly do you propose to prevent criminals from getting all the ammo and guns they want, given that they already are banned form guns and they have no trouble getting drugs all they want?

Well?


Like this comment
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 14, 2019 at 9:40 pm

Liberalguns is a registered user.

Bill Clinton made me do it!!!!

Just a little confession here, before my wife and I voted for Bill Clinton (both times), neither myself nor my wife had ever owned a firearm of any sort. Never really thought about the idea before Bill started going on TV to lie about guns and gun-owners. We liked most of what Bill was about, but we don't like being lied to. (yeah, I know, let's not pull Trump into this)

We have always been Liberals and we only have 2 actual Conservative friends, pretty much everyone we know are Liberals, as you would expect living in the Bay Area.

It was directly because of the political rhetoric and lies of Bill Clinton about guns and gun-owners that prompted my wife and I to go to a gun range and do a little target shooting. After a few visits and the escalating garbage of the gun-haters we each bout our first firearm. Hers was way bigger, mine was more practical.

We were quite open with our friends, virtually all of whom are and were Liberals and most Democrats, some independents.

We were surprised how popular we suddenly were with our Liberal friends and then with their Liberal friends who all wanted to go to the range and try out target shooting.

We were also surprised to find out how many of our Liberal friends already had guns from before Clinton, but were buying more because of Clinton and California.

After all these years since Bill Clinton was elected, at least 50-60% of our Liberal friends own at least 2 guns and consider it a social event to go with a group to the range.

You would be shocked to learn the names of some of the people we have introduced to target shooting. Some of them were or are elected officials, some have jobs you would assume would never think they would go anywhere near a firearm.


Like this comment
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 14, 2019 at 9:44 pm

Liberalguns is a registered user.

Bill Clinton made me do it!!!!

Just a little confession here, before my wife and I voted for Bill Clinton (both times), neither myself nor my wife had ever owned a firearm of any sort. Never really thought about the idea before Bill started going on TV to lie about guns and gun-owners. We liked most of what Bill was about, but we don't like being lied to. (yeah, I know, let's not pull that jerk Trump into this)

We have always been Liberals and we only have 2 actual Conservative friends, pretty much everyone we know are Liberals, as you would expect living in the Bay Area.

It was directly because of the political rhetoric and lies of Bill Clinton about guns and gun-owners that prompted my wife and I to go to a gun range and do a little target shooting. After a few visits and the escalating garbage of the gun-haters we each bought our first firearm.

Hers was way bigger, mine was more practical, those were not our last firearms purchases.

We were quite open with our friends, virtually all of whom are and were Liberals and most Democrats, some independents.

We were surprised how popular we suddenly were with our Liberal friends and then with their Liberal friends who all wanted to go to the range and try out target shooting.

We were also surprised to find out how many of our Liberal friends already had guns from before Clinton, but were buying more because of Clinton and California.

After all these years since Bill Clinton was elected, at least 50-60% of our Liberal friends own at least 2 guns and consider it a social event to go with a group to the range.

You would be shocked to learn the names of some of the people we have introduced to target shooting. Some of them were or are elected officials, some have jobs you would assume would never think they would go anywhere near a firearm.


Like this comment
Posted by fun fact?!?!?!?!?
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Aug 15, 2019 at 7:56 am

Master of Deflection, who seems to think he gets paid by the word.

The Israeli gun laws work, as do laws in the rest of the civilized world: Germany, France, Japan, etc..

Then comes the word salad:

> I want to know exactly what DETAILS
> Hardly applicable to the USA
> car laws
> drug laws

And of course, the holy grail for the fringe:

> Bill Clinton!




Like this comment
Posted by fun fact?!?!?!?!?
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Aug 15, 2019 at 7:56 am

Israeli Gun Safety:

- must pass a background check - criminal/health/mental
- severe age restrictions
- have a truthful, valid reason
- pass a training course
- almost half are rejected

- licenses must renew every 3 years
- ongoing training required
- prove they have a safe in their home
- generally limited to 1 handgun
- severely limited ammo (not counting what is bought and used at a well-regulated range)


4 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 15, 2019 at 1:31 pm

Gary is a registered user.

Mr. LiberalGun: You make some good points. There already are more guns in private circulation than people in America. And it is true that bad guys and lunatics out-of-custody can always get guns. And I suppose some gun owners want an assault rifle to potentially counter an attack on their home by a person with an assault rifle. I missed the stories about such attacks on homes - but it could happen. As to cameras, many homes have cheap cameras monitored only when there is a breach. Schools would not need a monitor - even during school hours. I suggest cameras would help in the ways I stated. But cameras are not enough. It may be that schools should decentralize so they are less appealing targets. But frankly, most people see mass shootings as too rare - too unlikely - and too difficult and unpleasant - to address. As to the Gilroy shooting, I don't know if he planned to get away. The police claim he had been shot "multiple times" before shooting himself. I'd like to see the videotape. Oh yeah. No cameras. And no accomplice was caught. Maybe he had no accomplice on-scene. Let's check the videotape. Oh yeah. There is no tape. But police could search all-night for any accomplices just in case. Police are free. They have nothing else to do and never are paid overtime. Most school shootings have been conducted by current or former students. Without cameras, police cannot see where a shooter is and cannnot readily distinguish between shooters (who dropped their guns) and others. So students and staff are let out slowly and remain vulnerable and in fear longer. And the bad guy(s) could walk out and get away. If only the school had CAMERAS, the tape could be checked.


Like this comment
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 15, 2019 at 10:04 pm

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@Gary

Hey Gary, maybe it would be educational to look up the old news reports about the Los Angles riots. The news media really screwed up back then by allowing a live feed that showed store owners driving off looters by standing their ground with AR-15's and AK style rifles with 40-round magazines. None of the attackers got shot, but none of the stores being protected got looted either. See, you don't need to actually fire a gun to protect yourself or others from attack.

"Mr. LiberalGun: You make some good points."

Thanks, that is always my main goal.

"There already are more guns in private circulation than people in America."

Indeed, we are well past 350 million privately owned firearms.

And if you combine all types of "long guns" together the percentage of deaths from all long-guns is less than 2% compared to handguns.
Oh and 2/3rds of gunshot deaths are suicides.

The AR-15 is by far the most commonly civilian-owned rifles in USA history.
This popularity and huge increase in sales is the direct result of Bill & Hillary and Obama and people like Diane Fienstien.

Before Bill Clinton, there were less than 2 million AR-15's in civilian hands, thanks to the AW ban, we have well past 25 million AR-15s today.

"And it is true that bad guys and lunatics out-of-custody can always get guns."

Just as anyone can get illegal drugs, gun-control laws don't work any better than drug control laws do.

"And I suppose some gun owners want an assault rifle to potentially counter an attack on their home by a person with an assault rifle."

It's not at all like that.
Almost all civilians who own AR-15 rifles are recreational target shooters and once you understand how to properly operate an AR-15 for accuracy (and customize it just the way you want it), the AR-15 is a great choice. I don't own one myself, but I have used some at ranges in the past.

However, when a person finds themselves being attacked by multiple attackers, then it's really nice to have an AR-15, even if you don't end up shooting it.

"I missed the stories about such attacks on homes - but it could happen."

The main-stream media suppress news about any sort of self-defense use of any type of a firearm and they are utterly loathe to allow the public to learn of anyone using an AR-15 in a lawful defensive manner.

"As to cameras, many homes have cheap cameras monitored only when there is a breach."

Correct, the costs and the monitoring is up to the private party.
I have no problem with people who agree to list their private cameras with the police so that the police will know who to REQUEST footage from if there is a known crime in that area.

"I suggest cameras would help in the ways I stated."

Again, to accomplish what you assume is possible would require so many high-quality cameras and operators no city could afford such a system.

"It may be that schools should decentralize so they are less appealing targets."

Not even logical.

"But frankly, most people see mass shootings as too rare - too unlikely -"

Which is accurate.

"and too difficult and unpleasant - to address."

Mainly to the media and politicians who have made their carers on stirring up fear of law-abiding gun-owners.

"The police claim he had been shot "multiple times" before shooting himself. I'd like to see the videotape."

The video tape would not answer that question.

"Let's check the videotape."

Again, cameras at best help police investigate, (often for irrelevant details) AFTER the crime, not preventing it.

"But police could search all-night for any accomplices just in case."

That's ALWAYS what police do in any case.
The cops at Columbine searched that school all night and the next day too.
They had video cameras.

"Most school shootings have been conducted by current or former students."

Your point?

"Without cameras, police cannot see where a shooter is and cannnot readily distinguish between shooters (who dropped their guns) and others."

Again, these situations are too fluid and rapid so no way to direct cops to the correct spots. The cameras would have to be seriously high quality to accomplish what you assume.

"If only the school had CAMERAS, the tape could be checked. "

Wont change anything about these events.

I assume you're either a camera salesperson or maybe you work for a motion-picture studio?

You have a high opinion of cameras.


3 people like this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 15, 2019 at 10:18 pm

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@fun fact?!?!?!?!?

Even car drivers would scream bloody murder to have to comply with laws like that and none of those laws would reduce violent crimes, nor would Americans comply with such laws. A massive black market would spring up overnight to serve the demand for un-tracked guns.

I would guess you're from Europe or some nation that considers the people to be the property of the government, because clearly you don't believe in the concept of rights.

You don't need permission to exercise a right.
If you need a permit, it's a privilege and thus can be revoked at any time for no reason.

Israeli Gun Safety:

"- must pass a background check - criminal/health/mental"

That only helps if all the law-enforcement agencies actually REPORT the required information to the FBI. According to the audit by the Obama Administration, well over half of the require info is NOT being reported.

"- severe age restrictions"

So, you got to be 40 to own a gun?
You can go to war at 18, why wouldn't we trust legal adults old enough to be sent to war or fly an airplane or drive a car with a firearm?

When I was a kid, anyone 16 could walk into a store and buy firearms without any problem.

"- have a truthful, valid reason"

Well, no rights then and the government can just declare nobody has a valid reason.

Here in California the local sheriffs give out CCW permits only to people they like and no other reason is "valid". Which is why the totally UNTRAINED Diane Fienstien has always had a permit to carry.

"- pass a training course"

For CCW, sure, for hunting, sure, not for simple ownership and self-defense or target-shooting.

"- almost half are rejected"

Again, no rights, just arbitrary.

- licenses must renew every 3 years
- ongoing training required
- prove they have a safe in their home
- generally limited to 1 handgun
- severely limited ammo (not counting what is bought and used at a well-regulated range)


Like this comment
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 15, 2019 at 10:24 pm

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@fun fact?!?!?!?!?

"The Israeli gun laws work,"

No, Isreal never had a problem with random violent crimes, except for terrorism.

The one thing Isreal did that in fact "worked" was to put armed undercover officers on every single airplane and at every single school and all the other places they felt terrorists would attack.

That worked!

Their civilian gun-control laws are not about ordinary crimes and made no difference to their crime rates.

"as do laws in the rest of the civilized world: Germany, France, Japan, etc.."

Again, none of those nations EVER had a serious problem with violent crimes and their gun-control laws changed nothing about such crimes.

In the UK and almost all of Europe the criminals can get all the guns they want from smugglers selling guns from the former Soviet states.


Like this comment
Posted by fun fact?!?!?!?!?
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Aug 15, 2019 at 11:16 pm

All the countries with sensible gun laws have much fewer deaths:

@Liberalguns - "they're just not violent"

Uh-huh. Ever been to a socccer match in Europe? (search: football hooliganism)


Countries with sensible gun laws = few gun deaths.
Countries with lots of guns = lots of gun deaths.


2 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 15, 2019 at 11:29 pm

Gary is a registered user.

Mr. LiberalGun: How long before shooting began did the Gilroy shooter cut through the fence? Was he openly carrying an assault rifle or was it concealed until moments before he started shooting? Did he enter alone or with an accomplice? These are questions cameras could answer. No doubt you could also answer them - but without any supporting evidemce. So, still using the Gilroy example, what if the shooter had entered with a displayed or bulging gun 5 minutes before he started shooting? For that to matter, someone would have had to notice. But if the police did shoot him a minute after he started shooting, a earlier opportunity to shoot him might have prevented all deaths and injuries - except to the attacker. So, sure, intercepting a shooter before he starts shooting will not be easy, but seeing what is happening and later what did happen is useful. Let's take your house as an example. Suppose you are at work but your wife or children are home. Suppose you have home security - posted. A prowler with a gun steps on your grass (I don't mean marijuana). A sensor reports a possible intruder. You turn on the cameras on your computer. What could you then do to reduce the likelihood of harm to your family? It would matter what the intruder intended. An alarm might scare off a burglar but maybe not a terrorist or crazy person. Suppose you get lucky and the intruder walks away. Maybe it was the NRA sticker on each window on your house facing the street. Perhaps the barking pitbulls played a role. You are part of a NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH program - at least according to the sign on your front door. What good is the videotape of this incursion into your frontyard? (1) you know there was an intruder who could be back, (2) you can tell your neighborbors about the guy, and (3) you have his photograph. The police might identify him by records or when he is caught roaming into someone else's yard or the school your children attend. Cameras. Useless? Not at all.


1 person likes this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 16, 2019 at 4:29 pm

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@ Gary

Maybe I should mention that I am an electronics engineer with decades of experience. I know full well what cameras, motion detectors and alarm systems can and cannot do. Cameras are the least reliable and slowest means of electronic security.

"Mr. LiberalGun: How long before shooting began did the Gilroy shooter"

Again, all pointless.

"Let's take your house as an example."

Not really a target with anything to draw any sort of attack, but we'll follow your example.

"Suppose you are at work but your wife or children are home."

Highly unlikely, but OK I'll play.
They both know what to do in case of potential criminal attack.

"Suppose you have home security - posted."

According to every study on the issue, the "posted" part is by far the most effective deterrent to criminals than any type of security system. Visible fake cameras work the same way. Neighborhood watch signs work better than an actual watch program does.

"A prowler with a gun steps on your grass."

Now you assume a camera is also a metal detector?
And is a pressure sensor to detect a footstep on my lawn?
WOW, you really have a high opinion of cameras.

FYI, my front yard lawn is NOT a no-go area for visitors, like the delivery people.

FYI, motion-detector cameras go off all the time from false positives.
Even ultrasonic motion detectors go off from false positives all the time.

So, let's say you get packages delivered from time to time and there have been porch thefts in your area. A set of cameras pointed in the right directions, if they are really good quality cameras, might be able to help police identify the thief, but wont prevent the crime and better than posting a sign does.

"A sensor reports a possible intruder."

OK, lets say that I have an ordinary cheap and hidden "electronic eye", meaning a simple invisible laser/reflector set-up that beeps in the house when anyone crosses the boundary of my property. That sensor actually works and can be placed so that pets wont set it off. They rarely have false positives and they rarely fail.

"You turn on the cameras on your computer."

NO, my wife would react to the signal by looking out the window to see who is in our yard. If she sees a suspicious person, she can get her handgun and if needed, stop any attacker. My child would be calling 911 already. All taken care of long before I could possibly react from work.

In fact, anything I could do remotely would simply slow down her response to the threat.

"What could you then do to reduce the likelihood of harm to your family?"

Really, nothing in time to matter.
Which is one reason why my wife has a handgun of her own.

"It would matter what the intruder intended."

Not at all. How many times have we heard a criminal say they were just looking to rob the place and things went sideways and they killed.

"An alarm might scare off a burglar"

Sure, but that alarm would be sounded if/when my wife decided there was a real threat from what she could see with her eyes. No camera would provide such a good evaluation. 95% of all automated home alarms turn out to be false.

"but maybe not a terrorist or crazy person.

Which is yet another reason why people have guns at home.

"Suppose you get lucky and the intruder walks away."

Faced by an armed person, 99.9% of the time, that's exactly what they do.

"Maybe it was the NRA sticker on each window on your house facing the street."

That would be counter-productive, since criminals love to steal guns, so you don't do something that stupid unless you want to attract criminals.

"What good is the videotape of this incursion into your frontyard?"

Normally, not much. We see these videos on TV all the time asking the public to identify the person on the video and virtually none of them are good enough to recognize anyone.

"Cameras. Useless? Not at all."

NOT for the magical purposes you assume.


3 people like this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 16, 2019 at 4:49 pm

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@ fun fact?!?!?!?!?

"All the countries with sensible gun laws have much fewer deaths:"

Utterly false. For example:
"Mexico has extremely restrictive laws regarding gun possession. There is only one gun store in the entire country, and it takes months of paperwork to have a chance at purchasing one legally." Credit Wikipedia

And yet Mexico has a vastly higher homicide rate than the USA does or even has had. Criminals in Mexico have all the guns and ammo they want. Lawful gun-owners cannot use their guns for self-defense without the government revoking their permit and confiscating their gun.

But what actually matters is what CHANGED in gun crimes as a result of a new gun-control law. In no case has a new gun-control law actually reduced gun crimes.

One and only one law could reduce gun crimes, but the government rarely enforces that law.

@Liberalguns - "they're just not violent"

"Uh-huh. Ever been to a socccer match in Europe? (search: football hooliganism)"

That's not relevant to the criminal mis-use of firearms.

"Countries with sensible gun laws = few gun deaths.
Countries with lots of guns = lots of gun deaths."

Not at all true.


4 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 16, 2019 at 6:49 pm

Gary is a registered user.

LiberalGun skipped over my points about how cameras could have enabled police to stop the Gilroy shooter before he had fired a round - asserting the points were somehow "pointless." But LiberalGun now has me interested in the "arms" he contends are protected for private use under the Second Amendment. Assault rifles for sure. There is an editorial in today's MV Voice (this newspaper) about outlawing the private ownership of assault weapons. But how about a machine gun? Lasers? Flamethrowers? Nukes? Would Second Amendment-protected "arms" include any weapon a terrorist might get - or a policeman or American soldier might use to (wrongly) attack LiberalGun in his home?


4 people like this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 18, 2019 at 1:00 am

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@Gary

Where do you think rights come from?
(hint, I'm atheist, so it's not a 3-letter word)

Gary, FYI, the killer in Dayton Ohio didn't have a rifle, he used a handgun, just like the vast majority have in the past BEFORE the news media decided to bestow ultimate fame on killers who choose to use an AR-15.

It might help if you did more research before talking about types of weapons. Are you really worried about perfectly LEGAL flame-throwers and lasers? Seriously?

"the Gilroy"

Just beating a dead horse.

"But LiberalGun now has me interested in the "arms" he contends are protected for private use under the Second Amendment."

Sigh, you don't understand how and why rights exist, do you?
Not your fault, the media continually misinforms the public.

Our rights are NOT a result of the US Constitution, our Constitution is the RESULT OF OUR RIGHTS.

And in fact, what became the Second Amendment was already written law decades BEFORE the US Constitution was written. It was then copied word for word into what later became know as our Bill of Rights. Most states prior to the Continental Congress already had various versions of "the right to keep and bear arms" written into their state Constitutions.

You falsely ASSUME, just as the media wants you to believe, that our "right to keep and bear arms" was somehow created and/or a granted TO USA citizens by the US Constitution's Second Amendment.

Would you equally assume that our right to the freedoms of speech, religion, press, associations, etc... only exist because of our Bill of Rights? Go read the Constitution, it neither creates or grants anything to WE THE PEOPLE.

The right to choose to be armed is a fundamental human right.

The ONLY legitimate reason to restrict the right to possess arms is if the individual person. by their own actions, has proven they are not capable of exercising that right without harming the rights of other people.

"Assault rifles for sure."

Under long-standing Federal law, the term "Assault Rifle" is defined as a FULLY-AUTOMATIC machine gun rifle. The AR-15 is NOT legally an Assault Rifle.

"There is an editorial in today's MV Voice (this newspaper) about outlawing the private ownership of assault weapons."

They tried that in 1994 and all they managed to do was to make the AR-15 the single most popular style of rifle in USA history.

"But how about a machine gun?"

According to the Clinton Administration, there are only about 200,000 lawfully owned machine guns of all types, but there are at least 5-10 million illegal machine guns in the USA. Mostly stolen from the military/police or smuggled into the USA from all over the world, especially, China.

Actual machine guns, legal or not, are almost never used in a violent crime anywhere in the USA. The last significant major crime with machine guns was a bank robbery many years ago in Northridge Ca.

"Lasers?"

Lasers are perfectly legal and the most likely way one might cause a death with a laser is to bling a driver or pilot, but I'm not aware of any such case of such a death.

"Flamethrowers?"

Again, perfectly legal, even Elon Musk was famously selling them for a while. They are normal equipment for farmers.

"Nukes?"

Ah, the ultimate refuge of the desperate.
A nuke is exceedingly dangerous just existing sitting there with no human contact of any sort. Most types of explosives are highly dangerous even in the hands of experts and most are dangerous just sitting there in storage.

A firearm is just an inanimate object that wont do anything by itself until someone pulls the trigger.

Weapons of mass destruction are NOT "arms" in the context of self-defense.
It's perfectly reasonable to make sure the people who handle any sorts of explosives have the proper training. Even the best trained experts fail to keep explosives safe from time to time. Look at fireworks accidents for example.

"Would Second Amendment-protected "arms" include any weapon a terrorist might get - or a policeman or American soldier might use to (wrongly) attack LiberalGun in his home?"

Again, it's not the tool, it's how it's used that matters.


2 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 18, 2019 at 2:03 am

Gary is a registered user.

Thanks LiberalGuns for explaining more about the arms individuals have the right to possess and, I infer, carry places. The right is to defend oneself and would extend to any weapon needed to counter whatever weapon might be used to attavk you. Is that it?


2 people like this
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 19, 2019 at 12:52 am

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@Gary

"Thanks LiberalGuns for explaining more about the arms individuals have the right to possess and, I infer, carry places."

I somehow get the feeling you missed the point, again.

"The right is to defend oneself and would extend to any weapon needed to counter whatever weapon might be used to attavk you. Is that it?"

Not quite, because you still fail to understand the origin of rights and how they may or may not be exercised.

Our rights extend to the point BEFORE where we would intrude upon the rights of another innocent person. An attacker has forfeit the right to have their right to life respected. A defender may do as NEEDED to defend the life of innocent people, but ONLY as NEEDED.

For example: If an armed robber comes into a store and threatens to kill people, the store owner has every right to use a gun to stop the attack.
However, once the robber runs away, the store owner may NOT try to chase the robber down the street trying to capture or kill him. Once the immediate threat is over, the immediate right to exercise self-defense is also over.

Worse yet, you certainly do NOT have the right to fire off shots that may endanger others after the threat is ended. You cannot set off a bomb or release a toxic chemical or a biological weapon, or a nuke, precisely because those things will also harm innocent parties and you have no control over who is harmed.

Our nation, like ourselves, also has the right to defend itself and it's friends. Some types of weapons are of no use by individuals for defensive purposes, but they may well be of proper use to defend a nation under threat.

The primary value of Nukes is to prevent other nations from using their Nukes.

The main problem with detonating Nukes in national defense is all the unintended damage they WILL do.
The main problem with firing machine guns in personal defense is all the unintended damage they might do.


Like this comment
Posted by fun fact?!?!?!?!?
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Aug 19, 2019 at 8:35 am

Just like the NRA, gun nuts like to use a truncated version of the 2nd amendment: "right to keep and bear arms"

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.


8 people like this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 19, 2019 at 10:55 am

Gary is a registered user.

Well actually. Mr. LiberalGun is contending that he believes there is a right of self-defense that extends to having arms to potentially counter the illegitimate use of force against him. That is not what the Second Amendment states. The Second Amendment is part of the United States Constitution which provides for the empowerment of a federal government and limitations on that power. The United States Supreme Court considered the meaning of the Second Amendment in a case in 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller) and determined (in a 5-4 vote) that it applied to limitations on the private possession of a pistol in one's own residence. The Court majority reasoned the the Second Amendment did stem from a regard for a natural right to self-defense. The majority agreed that a law could require gun regislation or licensing but that registration or licensing could not be used as a bar to possession in one's own residence absent some separate good reason - such as a serious criminal history. The precise dimensions of the Second Amendment were not determined in the case - but the Court majority did opine that "arms" did not include weapons generally but - at the same time - were not limited to muskets in use in 1776-1779. And the majority rejected the government's contention that the right in the Second Amendment to "keep and bear arms" only extended to persons in a milicia. Two years later in another case, the Supreme Court majority held that the Second Amendment applies to - not just federal laws - but state laws by virtue of a later amendment to the United States Constitution (i.e. the 14th Amendment). Just what federal and state laws would go to far and violate the right of individuals to "keep and bear arms" has not been decided and awaits new cases. But Mr. LiberalGun seems to go beyond what the Constitution protects and assert as a political proposition that he has a human or thinking creature "right" to self defense by possessing arms (and surely by carrying arms outside his residence). And he seems to contend that he has a "right" to carry most any kind of gun. Maybe Mr. LiberalGun will elaborate further. Even if a law could restrict access to "arms" consistent with the limitation in the Second Amendment, the question is always whether doing so would be the correct course of action - a good law - in light of the "rights" and other interests at stake.


2 people like this
Posted by disingenuous
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Aug 19, 2019 at 11:03 am

I just find it odd that gun lovers (a small part of the population) are so emotional about their needs. It's mostly men and their desire for guns. They pontificate on and on, with great blather, trying to show the world something, almost as if it's a compensation of some sort.

Hmmmm, can't quite put my finger on it.


2 people like this
Posted by disingenuous
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Aug 19, 2019 at 11:05 am

All the countries with sensible gun laws have much fewer deaths:

Countries with sensible gun laws = few gun deaths.
Countries with lots of guns = lots of gun deaths.

Why must some be so emotional about it when the facts are clear?


9 people like this
Posted by Some thoughts
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2019 at 11:08 am

Gary just cited: "the [2008 Supreme-Court] majority rejected the government's contention that the right in the Second Amendment to "keep and bear arms" only extended to persons in a militia."

"fun fact?!?!?!?!?," please take note. Modern court precedents have repeatedly held that the right-to-bear applies to individuals and is not dependent specifically on militia membership (as so many armchair constitutional scholars are so eager to assume).


17 people like this
Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 19, 2019 at 12:11 pm

Jim Neal is a registered user.

I keep seeing people talking about "Common Sense Gun Laws" but no one ever says what those laws are that will keep people from being able to illegally buy illegal weapons. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, yet averages 50 shootings EVERY WEEKEND! It is not about gun control, it's about self-control. In a country where people are encouraged to attack and get in the face of anyone who does not toe the politically correct line, where people are encouraged to give in to their emotions instead of reason, where people who are told that anyone who disagrees with them is a racist nazi white supremacist, and the press pours fuel on the fire; there will always be violence.

By the way, I have never owned a gun, but that was a personal choice. I never sought to impose my personal choice on someone else as so many people seem eager to do. As many have already stated here, murder is already against the law an no law will prevent someone who is sick and or determined from killing someone. The fact i that when people used to be taught civics and moral standards, there were far fewer shootings and mass killings, even when children were taught to shoot as part of their public education, no one ever thought about turning the guns on their fellow students ( Web Link )

Today some schools are making gun safety a requirement (Web Link ) and no shootings in those schools so far.

Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
(Formerly Old Mountain View)


1 person likes this
Posted by Gary
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Aug 19, 2019 at 12:30 pm

Gary is a registered user.

Hey Jim. Good to see your posting a comment. Don't forget I will owe you lunch if President Trump finishes his current term. I would need to go back to read the precise terms of our bet if Trump merely resigns to make VP Pence the President in time to issue a last-minute pardon of Trump (before the new President takes over) in January 2021.


Like this comment
Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 19, 2019 at 12:39 pm

Jim Neal is a registered user.

Good to see you too Gary! We should set something up for next November (2020). It'll give me at least one good excuse to make the long drive back to MV! :D


Jim


2 people like this
Posted by fun fact?!?!?!?!?
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Aug 19, 2019 at 1:21 pm

> Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, yet averages 50 shootings EVERY WEEKEND!

And how many of those guns come from Indiana? (well over half of the guns come from outside Chicago)


9 people like this
Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 19, 2019 at 2:49 pm

Jim Neal is a registered user.

Even more fun fact - Even if what you are saying is true about most of the guns coming from Indiana, why isn't Indiana a mass shooting leader? When was the last mass shooting in Indiana? Could it be that the people of Indiana place a higher value on human life? People who want to murder people or get guns illegally, have NEVER been stopped by laws or legislation. Just something to think about.



Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
(Formerly Old Mountain View)


2 people like this
Posted by fun fact?!?!?!?!?
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Aug 19, 2019 at 3:26 pm

Jim: Indiana has had at least half a dozen mass shootings this year alone.

---

> Could it be that the people of Indiana place a higher value on human life?

You really going there? C'mon out and say it.

"Just something to think about."


7 people like this
Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Aug 20, 2019 at 11:40 am

Jim Neal is a registered user.

@Fun Fact - Where are you getting your facts? You just throw out statistics with no links to back them up. Here is the list of "mass shootings" in the United States ( Web Link ).

It lists 8 of what it calls "mass shootings" in Indiana, where a total of 6 people were killed. In five of the "mass shootings" NO ONE was killed. One "mass shooting" killed three people (including the shooter) , another killed two, and a third killed 1 person. Considering that in Chicago, they kill an average of 6 people every 8 days and that 1692 people have been shot in Chicago so far this year ( Web Link ), I'd have to say "Yeah, the people of Indiana place a MUCH higher value on human life".


Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
(Formerly Old Mountain View)


6 people like this
Posted by body parts ripped up, torn off
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Aug 20, 2019 at 12:02 pm

funfact: Indiana has had at least half a dozen mass shootings this year alone.
Jim says: Indiana had 8 mass shootings

Jim - isn't 8 roughly the same as "at least half a dozen"? Is there a New Math class I missed?

Jim says: "Where are you getting your facts?"

Jim - isn't obvious your 'facts' come from roughly the same place, and essentially agree?

**********************


Jim: "In five of the "mass shootings" NO ONE was killed."

Are you somehow offended that the Indiana mass shooters only wounded and maimed their victims, that they need to make more kill shots? Know anyone who has had their body ripped apart from gunfire who agrees with your disappointment in less deaths?

Given your comments, I question your qualifications on being the arbiter of just who places a "higher value on human life".


Like this comment
Posted by Liberalguns
a resident of Rex Manor
on Aug 22, 2019 at 2:13 am

Liberalguns is a registered user.

@disingenuous

"It's mostly men and their desire for guns."

Ah, yet another gun-ban type speaking in bumper-sticker slogans.

Actually, since the Clinton Admin, the fastest growing demographic for first-time gun-owners is women and among women, the fastest growing first-time gun-owners are black women. Today, most first-time gun-owners are women or minorities, not white men.

As for my wife (thanks to Bill Clinton) her first gun was a huge revolver that fires .44magnums, while my first gun was a more practical 9mm.

The old cliche' that only white men can participate in target shooting or use a gun for lawful defense, was obsolete decades ago.

Gun makers in the 1990s even started making pink handguns and rifles for women and for AR-15s they made special modifications for women and made AR-15s in all sorts of colors that appeal to women.

High-end target-shooting rifles started being made with all sorts of fancy stocks and other things that women were demanding.

The funny thing is that the gun-ban people never think past what they can put on a bumper-sticker as a slogan and never learn anything new.


Like this comment
Posted by body parts ripped up, torn off
a resident of Bailey Park
on Aug 22, 2019 at 11:18 am

> "It's mostly men and their desire for guns."
> I just find it odd that gun lovers (a small part of the population) are so emotional about their needs.

Well, that struck a nerve of our local filibusterer, didn't it? Quickly diverted to "but da wimenz own guns too!" deflection.



Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


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


All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Round Table Pizza bites the dust in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 19 comments | 6,275 views

Local Transit to the Rescue?
By Sherry Listgarten | 32 comments | 3,467 views

Eating Green on the Green – August 25
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,411 views

"The 5 Love Languages" by Gary Chapman
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 940 views

 

Register now!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

More Info