Town Square

Post a New Topic

Protest highlights mayor's stance on gun control

Original post made on Oct 18, 2013

Nearly 40 people gathered at the downtown Caltrain Station on Thursday evening to protest Mayor John Inks' refusal to join a large coalition of mayors calling for "common sense" gun control measures.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, October 18, 2013, 1:27 PM

Comments (96)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by A talking cat
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 1:46 pm

Neal said, adding that passing new laws wouldn't help because "Criminals don't obey the law, that's why they're criminals."

Wow, by that logic we should just get rid of the legal system entirely because what's the point?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 1:52 pm

Unfortunately, the gun nuts refuse to listen to reason. The gun manufacturers lobby (through their funding and manipulation of the NRA) have these ignorant folks convinced that any action to enforce gun regulations will someday result in the ban of all weapons. You can't really argue with people like this--the more you try, the more they refuse to think. In fact, they take pride in this and will call you part of the 'intellectual elite' if you become too persuasive.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jamesp
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2013 at 2:21 pm

Hurray for Mayor Inks standing up for his convictions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 2 the 2 commenters above
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 18, 2013 at 2:23 pm

Do you want all guns band or just some?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rob
a resident of Shoreline West
on Oct 18, 2013 at 2:40 pm

I do not own any guns.
MAIG is a Nanny Bloomberg effort to subvert the 2nd amendment .
The group protesting last evening are probably well meaning but they are falling into the same trap that has happened before. Take away the rights of the law abiding citizen to punish those that do not obey these laws.
The bad guys will not comply with new laws any more than they comply with existing laws.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm

Good for Mayor Ink for supporting common sense gun rights.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Concerned
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 18, 2013 at 2:47 pm

As a long time resident of Mountain View, I am embarrassed by our Mayor. He should sit down with his colleague in Sunnyvale and understand what this is - not make a radical idealistic decision.
Mayor Inks - you represent Mountain View citizens - not the NRA


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jeff
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 18, 2013 at 2:56 pm

If I am ordered to take guns away from citizens than those who have no guns will lose more!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Just to clarify an often cited but erroneous point: the NRA is not a "gun lobby". The NRA is an organization of PEOPLE. Their enormous membership numbers confirm the importance of the second ammendment to the American people.
I'm still trying to find 'talking cat's' logic in abolishing our justice system, but when that system is unable to provide for my safety, I'm relieved that I'm still allowed to care for myself.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jeff
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 18, 2013 at 3:07 pm

If the people can't defend themselves then what's stopping others from invading your home and taking your precious stuff. People have fought hard to stop the death penalty and now the prisons have released murderers all over California because of overcrowding. No firearms to protect yourself?? The criminals are spreading like wildfire and the victims will be defenseless. Good Luck!! Of course its not your fault, its the fault of our forefathers and their Constitution.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by concerned 2
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Oct 18, 2013 at 3:10 pm

I'm proud to have Mayor Inks as our mayor.

A true Patriot will always stand up for and defend the 2nd ammendment, that our constitutional founders put in place. They knew what they were doing and put it in for a very good reason.

@ Jeff, totally agree!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 3:11 pm

The right to adequate self-defense outweighs ill-conceived perceptions of safety. Our founders gave us a Constitutional Republic to help protect our rights as opposed the mob-rule that is inherent to pure Democracy. The purpose of government is to ensure our rights are not infringed by others, not to limit our rights. There have been many court rulings that it is NOT the duty of law enforcement to protect us and cannot be punished for failure to do so even if they have the capability to protect us and events leading up to an injury or loss of life is unfolding before the eyes of law enforcement. Criminals will not obey any law or ordinance, and limiting law-abiding citizens to weapons that are inferior to those criminals is an outright infringement on my right to adequate self-defense. All citizens face the same criminal element that law enforcement does and should therefor never be limited to weapons less effective than what a LEO could possess.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by LM
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Oct 18, 2013 at 3:25 pm

We thank Mayor Inks for his his service to the city. A thankless job! However, where his personal views depart from the views of his constituents, he needs to represent his constituents, the people of MV, and not himself.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Political Insider
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 3:27 pm

At best 40 people showed up to support this silliness. There are 75,000 residents in Mountain View. Mayor Inks has more supporters than this group. In fact he would get way more than 40 women to show up and ballroom dance with him on any evening.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Had nothing to with Newtown
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2013 at 3:36 pm

Concerned and others, would you lobby for the tracking of Muslims because of 9/11? Would you have supported the internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor?

I understand the inclination to fear and prejudge people you don't understand, but the reality is that gun owners are just as outraged about Newtown as you, and we had nothing to do with that event.

Why is it that if some one burns down a house and kills several people it is because he's a bad person. However, if he uses a gun, it becomes the fault of all gun owners?

It is already illegal to buy magazines with greater that 10 round capacity. How will tracking ammo make any difference in crime? If someone is away on a two week trip and some one breaks into their house and steals their gun they are now a criminal for not reporting it in time?

This is about politicians wanting to put something on their resumes and using your fear to get that.

If you wouldn't blame the average Muslim for 9/11, why are you blaming me and people like me for Newtown?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A talking cat
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 3:53 pm

A) Literally no one is saying all guns should be banned. That is a nice, convenient straw man to argue against.

B) Equating your property ownership with the persecution of muslims is incredibly insensitive and unbelievably out of touch with individuals who actually face the persecution that you're imagining. Your self-imposed victim mentality is sickening.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 4:21 pm

The comment above: "Just to clarify an often cited but erroneous point: the NRA is not a "gun lobby". The NRA is an organization of PEOPLE."

Here are the top donors to the NRA in their own 2012 report. Notice all of these companies either manufacture or sell guns and ammo.

Harlon Carter Giving Level:
($5 Million to $9.9 Million)
MidwayUSA

Joe Foss Giving Level:
($1 Million to $4.9 Million)
Brownells
Beretta USA Corporation
Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc.
Springfield Armory, Inc.

George Washington Giving Level:
($500,000 to $999,000)
Cabela's
Benelli USA Corporation
Winchester Division – Olin Corporation
American Legacy Firearms

Samuel Adams Giving Level:
($250,000 to $499,000)
Davidson's, Inc.
Natchez Shooters Supply
Glock, Inc.
Blaser USA, Inc.
Nosler, Inc.
Doug Turnbull Restoration, Inc.

Alexander Hamilton Giving Level:
($100,000 to $249,000)
Smith & Wesson Corporation
Numrich Gun Parts Corporation
Collectors Firearms, Inc.
Arsenal, Inc.
Cheaper Than Dirt
ParaUSA
CDNN Investments, Inc.

George Mason Giving Level:
($50,000 to $99,000)
Auctionarms.com, Inc.
FNH USA
Krieghoff International, Inc.
Colt's Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Widener's Reloading & Shooting Supply, Inc.
Graf & Sons, Inc.
Browning
AcuSport Corporation
DPMS
Turner's Operations, Inc.
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing
Remington Arms Co., Inc.

James Madison Giving Level:
($25,000 to $49,000)
Hornady Manufacturing Co.
Marlin Firearms Co.
Ellett Brothers, Inc.
John Rigby & Co.
Sinclair International, Inc.
H & R 1871, LLC
SIGARMS, Inc.
Freedom Group, Inc.
Henry Repeating Arms Co.
Montana Gold Bullet, Inc.
McMillan Group International
J & G Sales, Ltd.
RSR Group, Inc.

Web Link
-------------------

It is also interesting to see how they donate millions to Republican politicians:

Independent Expenditures: $18,607,356
For Democrats: $41,506
Against Democrats: $13,286,513
For Republicans: $6,218,455
Against Republicans: $220,569

Not a "gun lobby"??? Pleeeaaaassseeee!!! :)

Web Link



 +   Like this comment
Posted by konrad M. Sosnow
a resident of Bailey Park
on Oct 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm

The NRA, as More regulation has pointed out, is funded by and is the political arm of gun manufacturers, not gun enthusiasts.

We are not against guns for target shooting, hunting, and defense.

However, we are against assault weapons with large, interchangeable magazines, whose sole purpose is killing or maiming as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.

Do you need an AR-14 to protect your home?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by serrano
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Oct 18, 2013 at 4:47 pm

The protesters are dumb and stupid. I challenge these cowards to go to one of the crime filled city or a city where there are lot of gangs nd protest there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gordon
a resident of Gemello
on Oct 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm

Mayor Inks continues to impress me. Unfortunately the rest of city council often fails to follow his lead. His refusal to join a group of fanatical anti-gun nuts further demonstrates his integrity.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Brennan
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2013 at 5:15 pm

I applaud the effort made by this group to enact sensible gun legislation. Mayor Ink has unfortunately hitched his wagon to the extremists, and as we are seeing in congress, theirs is a sinking ship. In the meantime the rest of us are busy trying to keep Americans safe from the embarrassingly large number of gun deaths experienced in this country. It's shameful.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 5:54 pm

I bet most of these 40 people have never picked up a gun because their mommy and/or daddy told them that guns kill people.
just saying


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 6:26 pm

Greg David is a registered user.

"However, we are against assault weapons with large, interchangeable magazines, whose sole purpose is killing or maiming as many people as possible in as short a time as possible."

Sole purpose?

Web Link

Just one of thousands of examples of competitive rifle shooting done with military style weapons. It's mind boggling how people keep missing the most important point. It's not the tool, its the user.....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 6:53 pm

"However, we are against assault weapons with large, interchangeable magazines, whose sole purpose is killing or maiming as many people as possible in as short a time as possible."

Your claim that AR15 style weapon's sole purpose is to maim or kill could be applied to any weapon. A weapons purpose(s) is solely defined by it's owner. If you polled gun owners to ask what purpose they own their gun for they would say: 1) Sport Shooting; 2) Hunting; 3) Self Defense, in no particular order. AR15's are great for small game, while the AR10 is excellent for feral hog and deer in areas where the typical shooting distance is around 100 yards or less.

1) There's an estimated 4 million AR15 style rifles in America.
2) According to Gunpolicy.org, there are ~110 Million rifles in America.
3) According to FBI's 2011 "Expanded Homicide Data Table 11", rifles accounted for 323 murders.
4) AR15 style guns only account for 3.63% of rifles based on estimates found.
5) There were 12,664 murders in 2011 and 8,583 of them were by a gun. All Rifles account for 3.76% of gun murders and only 2.55% of all murders.
6) There were 1,694 murders with knives.
7) There were 496 murders by hammers and other blunt instruments.
8) There were 726 murders by hands, fists, and feet.
9) You are more likely to be murdered with a knife than a rifle.
10) You are more likely to be murdered with hammers or blunt instruments than a rifle.
11) You are more likely to be murdered with hands, fists, and feet than a rifle.
12) Once again AR15's only account for 3.63% of all rifles.

Search YouTube for AR15, AR10 or AK47 and take a look at the videos to see if people are using them to kill and maim, or if they're using them for target practice and sport shooting and then report back.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 7:08 pm

"I applaud the effort made by this group to enact sensible gun legislation. Mayor Ink has unfortunately hitched his wagon to the extremists, and as we are seeing in congress, theirs is a sinking ship. In the meantime the rest of us are busy trying to keep Americans safe from the embarrassingly large number of gun deaths experienced in this country. It's shameful. "

What I find shameful is that this group of 40 and others like them that want to reduce violence are lobbying against a tool, used in fewer murders than hands and feet, instead of proposing ideas address the reason people commit the murders. Gun owners are done giving up their rights.

Gun control folks will not stop until ALL GUNS ARE BANNED. It is a simple fact even if you currently don't believe it yourself right now and just want magazines limited, you will want all guns banned when the MSM you watch starts spreading that propaganda as well. Case in point, if you are going to try to ban guns that look scary but kill very few people, what the hell is your plans for guns that kill the most people? Oh, that's right you don't want those banned yet because they're not calling for it in the news.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 7:44 pm

If anyone would like to engage in discussion that doesn't include infringing my rights, feel free to give your thoughts.

Mass shootings:
1) Possible causes
a.) Incurable Crazy People™
b.) Normal people that suffer from depression having side effects or withdraws from pharmaceutical drugs.
i) Prozac, Zoloft, and other antidepressants
2) Possible remedies
a.) Add crazy people to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
i) This will need major oversight to ensure it is not abused by those that simply want to restrict everyone's access to guns. It should probably require a jury trial to determine if person should be added to NICS if said person does not wish to voluntarily waive rights.
b.) Armed guards/staff? The principal could have stopped Adam Lanza. They had time to "lunge" at Adam Lanza, so they had time to pull a trigger.
c.) Double set of locked doors.
i) Monitor doors with camera and have button in office that when pressed, will quickly flood area between sets of doors with pepper spray before intruder makes it past second set of doors.
d.) Do serious research into side effects caused by prescription drugs and their withdraws.
i) In addition to research, FBI statistics should start including what drugs people are on or have taken in the past 6 months in all crime stats.
ii) Create more public awareness that there is a casual connection between antidepressants and mass shootings but studies are limited. This would at least make more gun owning parents aware that they may want to take extra steps to ensure their child will not have access to guns while on antidepressants or a few months after stopping, until more studies can be conducted.


Visit ssristories.com for many cases that show a correlation between antidepressants and mass shootings.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Drake_Burrwood
a resident of another community
on Oct 18, 2013 at 8:22 pm

"The NRA, as More regulation has pointed out, is funded by and is the political arm of gun manufacturers, not gun enthusiasts."

Which NRA the NRA, NRA-ILA, or NRA-PVF; since each not allowed to use the others money.

"We are not against guns for target shooting, hunting, and defense."; defence against what? Killers, Rapests, those threatening lethal force "for"; how do you want your vision of the purpose of guns enforced, must I fire for a killing or maiming shot; head, heart, major joint, rather then the current snap focus on center mass covering most of the chest area allowing to consentrate on taking your opponent out of combat. Will we be charged if our shot doesn't kill or immeadiatly permanently cripple the combatants ability to fight(the meaning of maim, for those of you who don't know ancient law). Or should the gun manufaturers be sued since their guns lethality only averages on of three unless one actually stops long enough to execute them.

"However, we are against assault weapons with large, interchangeable magazines, whose sole purpose is killing or maiming as many people as possible in as short a time as possible."

So since shotguns don't have large interchangeable magazines then that means it is alright to have a weapon that with standard combat grade buckshot, will spray a cone of as few as nine projictiles which will allow from one to all nine depending on range to strike in one shot.
my only problem with this is now that taking a combatant out of the fight is no longer the purpose, as the locations struck is random even with that many projectiles there is no garrentee that a killing or maiming strike will be made. once again will we be required to make a close enough shot to...
If they run away will we be required to hunt them down and maim or kill them.

"Do you need an AR-14 to protect your home?"
Yes; unless I am as obsessed with death and crippling as most gun control advocates.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 10:45 pm

Again, Mayors Against Illegal Guns is not about bans, but about strengthening laws and procedures to keep guns away from criminals and others that should not be owning them. Anyone who says otherwise is either pretending to be dumb, or is just not pretending.

It's funny to hear all the 2nd Amendment gun nuts complaining about the protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights.. :)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 18, 2013 at 11:45 pm

"Again, Mayors Against Illegal Guns is not about bans, but about strengthening laws and procedures to keep guns away from criminals and others that should not be owning them."

Are you sure? This is one of their statements:

"Keep lethal, military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines off our streets."

Please let us all us idiots know how they're going to keep them off the streets without banning them.



"Each mayor in this coalition has signed a statement of principles committing us to this fight."

Statement of principles: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mvpeace
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 19, 2013 at 2:09 am

All these comments, saying any type of gun control is counter-productive. You should be able to smell smoke, prior to being engulfed in flames. Do you really want to be responsible for the Police being outgunned? The shortsightedness of your position, will never make a safer community. Impeach Inks. He no longer represents the true interest of the citizens of Mountain View.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by borecrazy
a resident of another community
on Oct 19, 2013 at 3:03 am

"Do you need an AR-14 to protect your home"?

If you are ever in the position where you must protect your home and family, you would probably wish you did have one! By the way, it is an AR15.

And as far as contributions to the NRA, Midway USA is the largest. Midway is a mail order house that allows a customer to "round up" their purchase to the next dollar, and that money is presented to the NRA to support all of us in legal battles eroding the Second Amendment. It is also used for their Gun Safety program in schools (who else has a safety program in schools? Anyone?)and a program that monitors dangerous felons who used firearms that are up for parole and fights to keep them incarcerated!(Again, can you think of anyone else with such a program?). So it is law-abiding Americans who are the NRA's biggest supporters! We've committed no crimes, nor misused our firearms. Yet we find ourselves paying for the legal battles and safety education. As for the other contributors being gun manufacturers, duh! What would you expect? They make an entirely legal product and business is good! They cannot keep up with the demand, wouldn't YOU fight to ensure that continued? They would probably contribute more if they hadn't spent so much of their own money fighting frivolous lawsuits! By the way, not ONE of which was won!
One more thing-to MOREREGULATION- Your use of the term "Gun Nuts" is offensive and juvenile. And when you thought it cute to point out how the gun nuts complain about those exercising their first amendment rights, did you give any thought to that? The Second Amendment was put in our Constitution so that no one could ever take away the First!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Drake_Burrwood
a resident of another community
on Oct 19, 2013 at 5:35 am

"All these comments, saying any type of gun control is counter-productive. You should be able to smell smoke, prior to being engulfed in flames."

Do you understand what counter productive means in this situation, death, injury, suffering and fear. I would bet everyone of those persons at the protest IS a good person. Do you know why the percent of armed households dropped, the crime rate dropped, the death rate due to firearms dropped. The NRA all of them has been fighting the idea of gun control. the NRA safety program teaches you are responsable for what your gun does and it is your responsibility to follow safe rules so what gets shot is is what you want shot. The NRA-ILA is teaching polititians, basic gun and 2nd amendment history, glossary, safety, as well as how to read and understand a study. The NRA-PVF spends money directly to support politicals who are underthreat by Gun control forces, due to their work to help lower the death by firearm rate even farther. The NRA smells the smoke every day since they are In a large part responsible for fighting it day in and day out. Rogue Predators are using the unwitting assistance of GOOD People to make their chosen vocation or avocation easier, and safer, and their preys worse.

"Do you really want to be responsible for the Police being outgunned?"

They already are out gunned, and always have been, one quarter of all households have the guns and there are enough to arm every person in the USA. That of course was before gun control was pushed and gunsales rocketed due to fear that the law abiding would be made more defensless.

"The shortsightedness of your position, will never make a safer community."

It already has.

"Impeach Inks. He no longer represents the true interest of the citizens of Mountain View."

He is saving lives, cutting the crime rate; not repesenting the intrests?
* "It happened because I wasn't there; I Am The NRA."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rich
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 19, 2013 at 10:13 am

Wow, Moreregulation, you had me fooled. In the other Town Square discussion about MAIG and Inks I thought you wanted to pursue a reasoned and rational consideration of the issue, but here are you jumping right into name calling lying, which is a sad way to try to support your position.

You wrote: "Anyone who says otherwise is either pretending to be dumb, or is just not pretending." This name-calling seems to suggest that you are so attached to your opinion that you are completely unwilling to consider that a rational and thoughtful person might have come to a different conclusion. I hope you will reconsider.

You also wrote, "It's funny to hear all the 2nd Amendment gun nuts complaining about the protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights.. :)" Are you truly so unsure of your position that you must misrepresent the opposition this way? I looked back over the posts, and I didn't find one single post suggesting that the protesters should have in any way been prevented from having their event.

A lot of people have accused gun-rights advocates of being "nuts" and "extremists" and various forms of crazy or stupid. I hope people reading this will examine the tone and content of posts from both sides before deciding which side is more emotionally driven and overtly aggressive.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Maher
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Oct 19, 2013 at 11:42 am

Maher is a registered user.

I wish I had known about this gathering to protest vs. Inks' stance re guns. I would have participated.

No sense trying to talk sense to gun addicts; they simply can't see reason anymore than any other addict can.

So public action to demand gun controls is the best course.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 19, 2013 at 2:23 pm

Your idea of gun control got two democrats recalled in Colorado and another recall is in the works. Mayors Inks would be wise to keep that in mind.

"No sense trying to talk sense to gun addicts; they simply can't see reason anymore than any other addict can."

The reason you don't want to discuss is because you have no factual evidence to support your opinion. When people do not have facts to support their position they resort to the rhetoric and name calling which we've seen exhibited here by gun control activists.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Danny
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 19, 2013 at 3:22 pm

"The reason you don't want to discuss is because you have no factual evidence to support your opinion. When people do not have facts to support their position they resort to the rhetoric and name calling which we've seen exhibited here by gun control activists."

The NRA has done everything in its power to hide or silence facts, including trying to silence its own members. Here are some informational links that you won't click on since they threaten your worldview:
* Web Link
* Web Link
* Web Link

And as someone said, no one at MAIG is trying to ban guns outright, or anything close to that. That is rhetoric and misinformation that people use to support their position when they don't have facts to back theirs up. ;)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 19, 2013 at 4:34 pm

Give me a moment to look at the links. In the mean time, do you care to defend this position:

"And as someone said, no one at MAIG is trying to ban guns outright, or anything close to that."

How can you say MAIG doesn't want to ban guns if they want to ban AR15 style weapons?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm

"The NRA has done everything in its power to hide or silence facts"

You're links are to articles that: The NRA lobbies against funding studies that will cost taxpayers millions of dollars when the statistics are already available through the FBI; an article of the NRA told its members not to take polls that can be taken out of context to support an agenda; and finally the last article which is very long and that starts off with a negativity towards the NRA.

Let's look at some of the points the last article has to say about gun control...

"Among criminologists, Gary Kleck's encyclopedic Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991) is universally recognized as the starting point for further research. Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State University, was initially a strong believer that gun ownership increased the incidence of homicide, but his research made him a skeptic. His book assembles strong evidence against the notion that reducing gun ownership is a good way to reduce violence. That may be why Point Blank is never cited in the CDC's own firearm publications or in articles reporting the results of CDC-funded gun studies"

So after researching gun violence, he is very skeptical about gun control as an effective means to reduce violence.


"Three Kleck studies, the first published in 1987, have found that guns are used in self- defense up to three times as often as they are used to commit crimes. These studies are so convincing that the doyen of American criminologists, Marvin Wolfgang, conceded in the Fall 1995 issue of The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology that they pose a serious challenge to his own anti-gun views. "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun against a criminal perpetrator.""

And after a strong gun-control advocate reads the study that he himself claims to be "clear-cut case of methodologically sound research" This is the advocate: Web Link



"Yet Rosenberg and his CDC colleague James Mercy, writing in Health Affairs in 1993, present the question "How frequently are guns used to successfully ward off potentially violent attacks?" as not just open but completely unresearched. They cite neither Kleck nor the various works on which he drew.

When CDC sources do cite adverse studies, they often get them wrong. In 1987 the National Institute of Justice hired two sociologists, James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi, to assess the scholarly literature and produce an agenda for gun control. Wright and Rossi found the literature so biased and shoddy that it provided no basis for concluding anything positive about gun laws. Like Kleck, they were forced to give up their own prior faith in gun control as they researched the issue."

Wow, it seems the more you do actual research, the more likely you are to stop advocating for more gun control. Maybe the bias from the CDC mentioned by the sociologists is a good basis for the NRA to be against the CDC doing "research".



"As the English gun control analyst Colin Greenwood has noted, in any society there are always enough guns available, legally or illegally, to arm the violent. The true determinant of violence is the number of violent people, not the availability of a particular weapon. Guns contribute to murder in the trivial sense that they help violent people kill. But owning guns does not turn responsible, law-abiding people into killers. If the general availability of guns were as important a factor in violence as the CDC implies, the vast increase in firearm ownership during the past two decades should have led to a vast increase in homicide. The CDC suggested just that in a 1989 report to Congress, where it asserted that "[s]ince the early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the numbers of homicides."

But this correlation was a fabrication: While the number of handguns rose 69 percent from 1974 to 1988, handgun murders actually dropped by 27 percent. Moreover, as U.S. handgun ownership more than doubled from the early 1970s through the 1990s, homicides held constant or declined for every major population group except young urban black men. The CDC can blame the homicide surge in this group on guns only by ignoring a crucial point: Gun ownership is far less common among urban blacks than among whites or rural blacks.

The CDC's reports and studies never give long-term trend data linking gun sales to murder rates, citing only carefully selected partial or short-term correlations. If murder went down in the first and second years, then back up in the third and fourth years, only the rise is mentioned. CDC publications focus on fluctuations and other unrepresentative phenomena to exaggerate the incidence of gun deaths and to conceal declines. Thus, in its Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics (1994), the CDC melodramatically announces that gun deaths now "rival" driving fatalities, as if gun murders were increasing. But this trend simply reflects the fact that driving fatalities are declining more rapidly than murders."

I've never given money to the NRA. But after reading the article you linked I found that the CDC does biased studies to further a gun control agenda, and the NRA lobbied against those biased studies even if such lobbying could be taken out of context and used against them. After finding out the efforts the NRA makes to secure my rights today, I am going to make make more efforts to support the NRA and make my first donation very soon.


"While the CDC shows a selective interest in homicide trends, it tends to ignore trends in accidental gun deaths -- with good reason. In the 25 years from 1968 to 1992, American gun ownership increased almost 135 percent (from 97 million to 222 million), with handgun ownership rising more than 300 percent. These huge increases coincided with a two-thirds decline in accidental gun fatalities. The CDC and the researchers it funds do not like to talk about this dramatic development, since it flies in the face of the assumption that more guns mean more deaths. They are especially reluctant to acknowledge the drop in accidental gun deaths because of the two most plausible explanations for it: the replacement of rifles and shotguns with the much safer handgun as the main weapon kept loaded for self-defense, and the NRA's impressive efforts in gun safety training."

More evidence of CDC bias, the article is huge and I suggest you read it all like I did.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 19, 2013 at 5:28 pm

"You're links are to articles that: "

I realize I used "You're" instead of "Your".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 19, 2013 at 5:42 pm

"Here are some informational links that you won't click on since they threaten your worldview:"

No Danny, I doubt you will read the 3rd article you posted because it threatens your worldview.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Danny
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 19, 2013 at 6:09 pm

The ENTIRE premise of your defensive post is predicated on the idea of reducing gun ownership rates. Which, I have to say yet AGAIN, is not the goal of MAIG. It's called "Mayor Against ILLEGAL Guns"; the goal is more effectively targeting those firearms that are already illegal and should not be in circulation. Their website lays out a series of measures that seem very common-sense, which amount to better enforcement of--or in some cases actually enforcing--current laws.

No one is trying to take your guns away, and no one is saying all guns should be illegal. In fact, aside from "pen guns", I can find no reference to any MAIG material that mentions banning ANYTHING that's not already banned under federal law, including AR15 style weapons. Do you have a source for that?

"You're links are to articles that: The NRA lobbies against funding studies that will cost taxpayers millions of dollars when the statistics are already available through the FBI;"
This is a false statement; the studies weren't just an excel spreadsheet of existing numbers. I mean, c'mon, stop knocking down these silly strawmen.

"an article of the NRA told its members not to take polls that can be taken out of context to support an agenda;"
Ahh, so if there is even a chance that a quote can be taken out of context, a study is inherently "bad"? Sounds like literally every study ever done, doesn't it? Why not allow the study to be done with all information if the data is on their side?

" and finally the last article which is very long and that starts off with a negativity towards the NRA."
The author and article are anti-NRA, yes, but the point was that the NRA is using its huge amount of money and influence to stifle dissent and opposing views through quiet, subversive--as opposed to honest, open--means.

Just to wrap up, I guess I should say it one more time: MAIG IS NOT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY GUNS FROM ANYONE WHO LEGALLY OWNS THEM.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 19, 2013 at 7:19 pm

"I can find no reference to any MAIG material that mentions banning ANYTHING that's not already banned under federal law, including AR15 style weapons."

Here is one of MAIG's statements of principle: "Keep lethal, military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines off our streets."

How do you suppose a mayor would keep AR15 style weapons off the street?


"The author and article are anti-NRA, yes, but the point was that the NRA is using its huge amount of money and influence to stifle dissent and opposing views through quiet, subversive--as opposed to honest, open--means."

You totally failed address any of my comments I made after each quote from the 3rd article. The article clearly gives good reason to NRA's opposition of funding biased CDC studies whether they did it intentionally or unintentionally. The article lists may reasons whey CDC funded studies are clearly biased and dishonest. Here's the 3rd article YOU posted, read the whole thing this time: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MRB
a resident of Shoreline West
on Oct 19, 2013 at 10:09 pm

Why are we still discussing this? 1000 mayors signed something while 50,000 did not.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 19, 2013 at 11:32 pm

"Why are we still discussing this?"

Because these protesters don't even know that they're asking their mayor to support banning AR15 style rifles as one of the group's principals.

MAIG also wants those that are on the no-fly list to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. The problem with that is that it does not require probable cause that a crime has been committed to be added to the no fly list. This restricts our 2nd amendment right without due process.

"The mayors group is trying to gather support in Congress to: Add those placed on the terrorist no-fly list to the list of people prohibited from purchasing a firearm." - Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 20, 2013 at 11:21 am

I think we can all agree that the NRA is channeling some of the gun manufacturer's profits into intense lobbying efforts to support candidates that will help maintain their revenue streams and fight against candidates that want to tighten regulations on gun ownership and use. They also help create speaking points for their 'membership' to use on community forums. Without these speaking points, most of the gun nuts wouldn't have anything articulate to say at all.

One of the NRA's campaigns is against MAIG, so that is why we see such resistance to it. All of the links that I've seen above attacking the usefulness of regulating guns to make a more safe environment were most likely directly or indirectly funded by the NRA or an associated lobby organization.

Personally, I did not care that our Mayor chose not to sign on to the organization, but that is because what our city council does has almost no impact on the world. On reflection, it seems silly that he did not. Why wouldn't you want to do something about the proliferation of illegal guns in our society? Does that mean he is FOR illegal guns? It seems some of the gun nuts on this thread may actually be for completely unrestricted ownership of any gun by anyone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 20, 2013 at 12:11 pm

Greg David is a registered user.

What is with the obsession that there is an NRA/gun mfg. conspiracy?

NRA has over five million members that fund NRA efforts to protect the second amendment. Yes, there are several large donations from corporate members, but they pale in comparison to the funding provided en masse by individual members.

As was also pointed out, companies such as Midway and Brownells, both collect funds for NRA via their web stores. Brownells has a check box at checkout that says " send a buck to NRA". This is money directly from consumers, NRA members or not, that is collected on behalf of the NRA by corporations.


Through all this discussion and NRA bashing and MAIG bashing, we've forgotten how all this got started.

Should Mayor Inks join MAIG?

The answer is obviously no. This is not an issue that is handled by local governments. Regardless of his personal views,it would be inappropriate for any Mayor to use their title to promote an organization that does not reflect the views of their constituents. The status quo for this situation is to simply not join. Doing so would violate the council code of conduct and put the mayor at risk of potential recall.

I'm not worried about Mayor Inks. He will obviously not cave and will not join.

As for our expected next Mayor, Mr.Clark, I would suggest that he follow in Ink's footsteps and not risk the embarrassment of recall in his first hard fought term on city council.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 20, 2013 at 1:22 pm

Greg, you said: "NRA has over five million members that fund NRA efforts to protect the second amendment. Yes, there are several large donations from corporate members, but they pale in comparison to the funding provided en masse by individual members."

That is a talking point put out by the gun lobby to counter the *fact* that the NRA is being controlled and *primarily funded* by gun/ammo manufacturers & retailers. The fact that the retailers have implemented marketing programs to get extra funding channeled to the NRA lobby organization does not take away from this. Why is this important? Because it helps understand why there seems to be such organized resistance to implementing life saving gun regulation. It's not coming from a grass-roots effort, but is being funded and coordinated by companies who have a vested interest in fighting the truth.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 20, 2013 at 1:28 pm

Greg, you also said: "Regardless of his personal views,it would be inappropriate for any Mayor to use their title to promote an organization that does not reflect the views of their constituents."

So, if most residents of Mountain View would like stricter gun regulations, then you would be in favor of the mayor joining MAIG. I'm certain if you polled the residents of our fair city, you would find that most residents would support the crackdown of illegal guns.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 20, 2013 at 7:45 pm

Greg David is a registered user.

"So, if most residents of Mountain View would like stricter gun regulations, then you would be in favor of the mayor joining MAIG. I'm certain if you polled the residents of our fair city, you would find that most residents would support the crackdown of illegal guns."

No. Because firearms regulations are the task of state and federal lawmakers. Any time spent on this subject by a mayor is squandering their resources on a subject that is irrelevant to the job for which they were elected.


"That is a talking point put out by the gun lobby to counter the *fact* that the NRA is being controlled and *primarily funded* by gun/ammo manufacturers & retailers. The fact that the retailers have implemented marketing programs to get extra funding channeled to the NRA lobby organization does not take away from this."

There you go again.... spouting facts with no references to support those supposed facts. NRA has an operating budget of $231M. The Five million members pay on average $30/yr for membership to the tune of $150M. This does not include any additional contributions made by those individuals. How you can possibly figure that the NRA is controlled by corporations is absolutely ludicrous.

The more you spout your "facts", the more the readers here will realize what a fraud you are.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rich
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Oct 21, 2013 at 7:38 am

Based on this discussion, it appears that the gun-control advocate's "How To" guide talks a lot about attacking the messenger and ignoring any data which does not (or cannot be twisted to) support the cause.

All the chatter about the NRA, for instance, is a distraction from real discussion. Of course they are an advocate group, and so of course they have to collect and spend money, just like the anti-gun side does. The anti-gun side uses everything from private (individual and corporate) donations to union dues and taxpayer money (see the data about the CDC above, as well as MAIG), as well as a complicit media (you think a pro-gun rally would be promoted and covered on the front page of the Voice???) to promote their agenda.

An observation: in our local schools, students writing on-line about other students using terms like "nut" and "addict" without basis would be in trouble for bullying.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 21, 2013 at 11:05 am

The picture says it all -- the standard collection of middle aged white liberals with pre-printed signs hopped up on free-trade organic lattes with an unquestioned belief that their views are the correct one.

These are the same people that are against the death penalty for murderers, want to reduce mandatory sentencing, strike down three-strikes, and are unable to understand the meaning of "illegal" in illegal immigration, yet they blame an inanimate object for crime.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 21, 2013 at 11:40 am

Engaging in debate with free-thinking individuals in our community is a wonderful thing, but when one side is simply quoting NRA speaking points rather than engaging their own brain, then I think it is useful to understand the level of manipulation by the gun lobbies that is occurring.

For example, Greg, you said:
"The Five million members pay on average $30/yr for membership to the tune of $150M. This does not include any additional contributions made by those individuals. "

Let's use our brain and analyze this statement. I'll take it as fact that the NRA has 5 million individual members. Greg says that each and every member is paying a membership fee that averages out to 30/year. But, how is this possible?

A 1 year membership costs $35 and if most people are paying this membership, then I agree it *could* be $30/year on average. However, for a 2 year membership, it costs $30/year. 5 years costs $20/year. There are also discount codes to get that will bring even the most expensive down to $25. Also, there are many Lifetime members, which currently costs $1,000. Not sure how they recognize that revenue, but if amortized over 10 years, is about $8.33/month in today's dollars..


Finally, the NRA has a number of major discount options for young people ,disabled, seniors, etc...

So, we can see how Greg's math can't possibly be correct, which is a common theme on these forums.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 21, 2013 at 11:57 am

Greg has asked for references to understand better why the NRA is primarily a gun lobbyist working for gun/ammo manufacturers & retailers. Here are some choice quotes, but you can read the article for yourself. (Business Insider is a high quality and independent news organization that does not take contributions from the great Leftist Conspiracy, like apparently most media outlets do.)

"In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.
While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.
The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources."

"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."

Again, I wish the gun nuts on this thread would engage their brains and understand that the proliferation of guns to people that should not happen is the responsibility of our entire community, including all levels of government. Unfortunately, they have been swayed by the massive amounts of PR put out by the gun lobby, which has programmed them to fight any attempt to make our streets safer if it reduces the sales of arms in this country.

References:

Web Link

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 21, 2013 at 1:39 pm

Greg David is a registered user.

My math was simply a back of the envelope calculation. Yes there are discounted memberships and life memberships, of which I am one of, but this did not take into account that life members are also the ones that contribute above and beyond just membership.

As for quotes from the violence policy coalition, why would I place faith in another gun grabber. He makes things up just like you do,

The NRA is not a perfect organization and I am often not happy with how they handle certain things, but when it comes to the most bang for the buck, The NRA has performed well in protecting my second amendment rights.

But all this moot. The discussion is, was, and still should about mayors joining MAIG under MAIG's false pretenses. You can't defend your point since you have no FACTS to support why any mayor should take and resources from his mayoral duties to falsely represent their constituency on what is a state and federal issue.

It's like beating my head against the wall. You will never understand it. I'm done here. You can have your last word..

Suffice that Mayor Inks will never join MAIG, and any subsequent mayor that does can expect some serious fallout.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of another community
on Oct 21, 2013 at 2:42 pm

No one can discount the sheer number of NRA members... the actual people that the NRA is lobbying for.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 21, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Funny how this turned into an attack on the NRA. Are you gun control activists so hard pressed to find facts that support your demands that you have to change the subject?

Let's not forget that this article is about activists demanding their mayor to support MAIG which states they want to make AR15 style weapons and standard capacity magazines illegal.

Is MAIG's true goal really against illegally obtained guns or for more gun control? Apparently many mayors agree that it's more about stricter gun control than illegal guns and have left the group.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 21, 2013 at 4:53 pm

Daniel--the reason why the NRA is being discussed is that they launched a smear campaign against MAIG that has resulted in a handful of Mayors backing out of their membership. ("Largely in response to a recent NRA organized letter writing campaign, dozens of mayors have resigned from or distanced themselves from the MAIG while still in office.") However, there are almost a thousand Mayors that are backing this.

You can point fingers at the AR15/magazine issue all you want, but if you look at the bulk of what MAIG is championing, you will see that it is about making our existing laws enforceable. For example:

1) Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment:

Best said: "At a time when bloodshed on our streets is on the rise, making sure that our law enforcement officers have all the tools they need to fight crime should be our top priority. But instead of providing those tools, the Tiahrt Amendment ties the hands of police in their effort to halt illegal gun trafficking and sales.

2) Close the "Gun Show Loophole"

3) Close the "Fire Sale Loophole": This loophole is huge. A gun dealer can just close his business, transfer his entire stock to himself and then sell them on the street. No background checks for buyers. And then, they can re-open their business, reacquire stock and start it all again.

4) Close the "Terrorist Watch List Loophole". Another lovely. Currently, a terror watch suspect may be detained or prohibited from their flight, but can just go out and buy guns without raising a flag. Huh??

5) Require Background Checks for All Employees of Licensed Gun Dealers. Yep--that's right! The gun dealer's employees don't need to be vetted.

6) Oppose the "Thune Amendment". It would allow people traveling from states that will give concealed carry permits to *anyone* to travel to our state and carry a gun concealed. Even if our requirements are much stricter. Huh??? Thank goodness this was successfully blocked, but will keep coming up again and again.

7) Require the Reporting of Lost and Stolen Guns. In MAIG's words, "In most states, gun owners are not required to tell police when a gun is lost or stolen. That puts law enforcement at a disadvantage in tracking down those guns and the criminals who use them."

(Source: Wikipedia and others)

Wow. How can this be construed against an attack on the US Constitution? These are all quite reasonable asks to help keep illegal guns off our streets. The NRA is similar to the cigarette lobby. They swore for decades that tobacco was not addictive, nor was it a health risk. We all know that is BS. The NRA shilling for the gun companies is doing the same thing. They lie, lie and lie again...until their 'membership' will close their minds to the obvious truth.
(BTW, the 5 million inflated number is still less than two percent of the US population--a tiny minority.)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 21, 2013 at 5:14 pm

Moreregulation, how many people have to die for you to consider an event a mass-shooting?

Moreregulation, do you have any ideas that if implemented, would immediately reduce mass-shootings? If so, can you guarantee the effectiveness of your idea without violating the 4th amendment by doing door to door searches or terry stops without reasonable suspicion?

Will criminals be able to bypass your idea through the black market which currently thrives transporting bulky marijuana into our urban cities?

Moreregulation, do you have any ideas that if implemented, would show an immediate decline in urban violence and reduce deaths?

If so, can you guarantee the effectiveness of your idea without violating the 4th amendment by doing door to door searches or terry stops without reasonable suspicion?

Will criminals be able to bypass your idea through the black market which currently thrives transporting bulky marijuana into our urban cities?

Moreregulation, should people be allowed to carry a weapon in public with a state issued permit? How much should a permit and classes cost to ensure the poor can afford the same protection as those better off?

Moreregulation, should people be allowed to carry a weapon in states other than which issued their permit?

Moreregulation, should law-abiding people be allowed to have a gun in their home? Should it require a permit? Should it require registration? How many rounds in a magazine should you be limited to in your own home? Should magazine limits be determined by: rural vs urban; the time it takes law enforcement to arrive; or the number of rounds needed to incapacitate a group of home invaders?

Moreregulation, do you know how many rounds a cop typically uses to incapacitate a person? Surely if multiple cops need to shoot a knife weilding person 46 times (Web Link), we shouldn't be limited to less than what is currently standard capacity.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Political Insider
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 21, 2013 at 5:42 pm

@ MRB, who wrote

"Why are we still discussing this? 1000 mayors signed something while 50,000 did not."

Great point MRB. Its a small element that is pushing this idea. Most people are just not interested in political propaganda being spun by Bloomberg and his group. Being against illegal guns is silly. Why not start a group called Mayors against illegal cars. The problem is they are pushing for more than being against illegal guns.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 21, 2013 at 7:47 pm

Moreregulation, who's stating talking points?

1) Show us how the "Tiahrt Amendment" is tying the hands of law enforcement. It does not stop investigators from asking for trace data on a specific weapon used in a crime. How is it even helpful without REGISTRATION?

2) This isn't a gun show loophole they want to get rid of. They want to get rid of the right for a person like me to sell my gun to another person or even handing down my gun to my son without additional regulations. Both of these would require gun REGSITRATION to enforce which most people are against.

3) Interesting, what does MAIG propose to do to restrict this lawful action?

4) Terrorist watch-list loophole: Tell me, how is it a loophole, what law are they getting around? How many suspected terrorists would this stop from buying guns each year? Don't terrorists prefer using car bombs and planes over rifles and handguns? This will only add to the number of false positives such as Web Link

5) Sounds fine with me if the background checks are just an NICS check.

6) Sounds stupid to me. How does opposing this benefit the public?

7) Glad to see you support state rights even if it is southern states having more restrictions on voting, marriage, abortion, and marijuana.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rodger
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Oct 21, 2013 at 10:10 pm

John Inks does not believe in laws, he seems to think anything is OK. I am not sure if this is his last term but if it's not do not vote for him.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 21, 2013 at 11:47 pm

The protesters remind me of people that signed petitions to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide. You can learn about it here: Web Link and read about the petition here: Web Link. While on youtube, check out Penn and Teller's thoughts on 2nd amendment here: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2013 at 1:55 am

Daniel--thanks for engaging on this topic. While I think you are completely incorrect on almost every point you have raised, I do appreciate your enthusiasm.

Regarding your comment on the Tiahrt Amendment... since it's initial passing, it looks like they finally restored the ability of local law enforcement to work with the ATF records. However, they are prevented by the amendment from shutting a gun dealer down (because they can't use the data to make a civil case!), regardless of how many of their guns end up in the hands of criminals. This is obvious NRA Pork legislation. The gun manufacturers sell to both sides (law abiding & criminals). Obviously, without criminals, there would be little reason for anyone to own many weapons that are out there today. And, without gun dealers selling directly or indirectly to criminals, that would hurt sales BIG TIME!

I love this important part of the amendment: "NICS background check records are destroyed by the DOJ within 24 hours." Absolutely ridiculous. Again, this is shielding gun dealers from any responsibility for who they sell to. They can help forge the paperwork, but unless the DOJ has a team of investigators ready to do a massively expensive audit, they won't catch it in this ridiculous deadline.

Wow--the more I look into this, the sadder I get that our mayor made this decision!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2013 at 10:49 am

Greg David is a registered user.

Why do you guys keep feeding the troll?

It is obvious who the nut is here.

He actually believes there is a conspiracy of manufacturers and dealers forging paperwork and supplying criminals with guns!

The only ones doing this was the BATFE themselves.....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2013 at 5:04 pm

Moreregulation, the Tiahrt Amendment was to stop bulk transfers of data to cities that could use it as a gun registration database. Gun owners oppose gun registration and if you want to give NRA credit for the amendment, then kudos to the NRA for protecting our privacy rights.

When you're done attempting to drum up support for MAIG and throwing around insults I'd love to hear your own ideas on how you would stop inner-city deaths and mass shootings. Is your primary goal to ban certain weapons and/or components of weapons, or to make a positive impact to reduce murders and mass shootings?

After the Colorado recalls, I don't foresee many politicians wanting to support more gun control at this present time. With that in mind, wouldn't you want to discuss what you feel is the cause for mass murder? Wouldn't you want to discuss what you feel is the root cause of the inner-city murders? Wouldn't you want to discuss your ideas for protecting kids in school long enough for cops to arrive to prevent murders as opposed to drawing chalk lines? We both agree one murder in a school from an intruder is too many, so shouldn't the majority of discussions be geared towards the cause of the act instead of the tools used in the act? Surely you don't believe you will vastly reduce acts of mass murder by reducing the size of a magazine, which means it is solely an effort to reduce how many die in each case. Wouldn't it be better if we found a way to eliminate mass murders at schools instead of reducing the number of victims?

I have a feeling you won't provide any ideas, I feel those for gun control are all about adding restrictions on guns, whereas gun owners are all about stopping the act. It would be a pleasant surprise if you proved me wrong and wanted to discuss actions that would actually reduce crime without further restricting arms.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Whisman Station
on Oct 22, 2013 at 6:33 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

This thread is relevant here, so I will repost it:

About the ILLEGAL GUN ISSUE: The Sullivan act took care of the " Chicago Typewriter " problem of the days of Al Capone. Drum magazines were loaded with 50 cartridges and that was pretty excessive for urban use..

Now some people want to claim violating our SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS by pushing ILLEGAL GUN LEGISLATION instead of PUNISHING THE ILLEGAL USE AND ILLEGAL USERS OF GUNS.

Like knives, machetes, hatchets and even baseball bats, GUNS ARE JUST TOOLS!!

The people who think that guns are the problem are the ignorant and stupid ones, because they cannot understand the end argument that the TOOLS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM,THE PEOPLE THAT USE THE TOOL IMPROPERLY ARE THE PROBLEM!

Colorado allows OPEN CARRY. They also have the Castle Doctrine ( erroneously called the " Make My Day " Law ).

In rural and other Colorado Cities, burglars and other people who use tools improperly make the news...as EX burglars and felons.

The one shining example of typical CALIFORNIA behavior is the Denver area. THEY have the GUN GRABBER LAWS and your "improper tool user " has a field day among the sheeple, with MANY lawbreakers roaming the streets.

BTW, the AURORA Theater Killings happened BECAUSE THEATER PATRONS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO BE ARMED! That is the subject of MANY lawsuits that M$M refuse to talk about even now!

I ask: " Why are so many so-called " intellectuals " SO STUPID??? "

P.S. I OPEN CARRY


 +   Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Whisman Station
on Oct 22, 2013 at 7:15 pm

the_punnisher is a registered user.

Another point I will add to the Police " protection " issue:

The SCOTUS Ruling in Castle Rock vs Gonzales MAKES IT CLEAR:

THE LEOs ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SAFETY!!

Read the Wiki article about the sickening details, then tell your gun grabbers to shut up. PERIOD.

The REAL IRONY is that Castle Rock is almost located halfway between the californicated City of Denver and the home of the AFA and MANY ARMED EX-MILITARY RESIDENTS OF COLORADO SPRINGS!!

Yes, even a 70 year old grandmother has had to use the Castle Doctrine to remove a " habitch " ( police slang for an extensive repeat offender ) and the local LEOs in C.S. just wrote the report as THAT IS THE ONLY THING THEY MUST DO!!!

It will be interesting how many of you gun grabbers will still be alive after " The Big One " hits your ( not so ) Golden State. I'll bte most will be dead and the LEOs will only defend each other when mob rule ( a REAL DEMOCRACY ) takes control. Read " Lucifer's Hammer " to see a similar future that awaits the West Coast Areas..
Your SURVIVAL will take on a different priority instead of the small minded bickering about who has all the facts.
If you are able to get out of the broken Left Coast, I suggest you remove anything that says CALIFORNIA on your transportation. Just driving a BMW could get you killed....

I remind you that the AURORA THEATER WAS A GUN FREE ZONE and several patrons were active MILITARY from nearby Buckley Field..

Another FACT that M$M left out.

That is a reality that M$M will not speculate on...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2013 at 11:06 pm

People that think there's no lawful use for an AR15 need look no further than these LEOs that often have semi-auto, full-auto, or select fire weapons for personal defense: Police; Sheriffs; SWAT; ATF; FBI; DHS; Secret Service.

What about non-LEO use? Besides for personal defense from the same criminals faced by the LEOs above, we currently use them for sport/target shooting, and hunting of the following game:
Deer: Web Link
Hog: Web Link
Coyote: Web Link
Elk, Groundhog, Rabbit, Fox, Squirrel, Turtle, Frog, etc..

Basically, guns that look like an AR15 come in many calibers. The .22 rimfire is for small game, .223/5.56mm for medium to some large game, and the .308 for medium to most large game in North America.

The most important thing to remember is we don't need a reason to own small arms that are in common use. And the more LEOs ramp up with full-auto rifles, the sooner they will be "common use" and lawful for public ownership.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Realist
a resident of another community
on Oct 22, 2013 at 11:10 pm

"Stand your Ground" and the Castle Doctrine have been the law in California for over 100 years and has been re-affirmed time and time again as you can read at these URLs:

SFGate/SanFranciscoChronicle: Web Link

Wikipedia, Stand Your Ground: Web Link

Wikipedia, Castle Doctrine: Web Link

There's an old saying that is truer now than ever before due to the major reductions in police departments throughout all California: "When seconds count, the police are minutes away."

I doubt all the folks advocating additional gun control laws would keep that stance when their own lives and the lives of their family members are at risk as they are now as we see with the rampant crime increases in the major cities of Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego which, by the way, are all also approaching filing bankruptcy as we read in this article from July 2013: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 22, 2013 at 11:37 pm

Realist, that's too much information for a liberal to read. Hell, one gun control activist posted a link to prove the NRA were bad for blocking CDC studies. I read the whole article and it turned out that the first 15% talked about people bashing on the NRA... Then on the 5th paragraph, the article did an about-face and listed reason after reason that the NRA was right to oppose CDC studies based on prior bias. - Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Realist
a resident of another community
on Oct 23, 2013 at 12:37 am

Excellent link, Daniel!

Paraphrasing what you wrote in your first sentence responding to my posting, many folks are simply NOT using their brains and thinking about the issue clearly and are seriously misled by massive misinformation campaigns fostered by people with many hidden agendas none of which are beneficial to the USA as a whole.

We're seeing today chipping off and erosion of Constitutional rights and that MUST come to a stop before the USA follows the paths of historically failed other counries (e.g., NAZI Germany, etc.).

I received my gun training before age 10 in the Cub Scouts and continued to the Boy Scouts and worked up to a Distinguished Expert smallbore rating and that medal was worn proudly on my Boy Scout uniform and the patches are still on my shooting jacket today nearly 60 years later.

I'm also been a Life Member of both the National Rifle Association and its California affiliate the California Rifle and Pistol Association; URLs here:

National Rifle Association: Web Link

California Rifle and Pistol Association: Web Link

since 1966.

Interestingly, though he's normally reviled for his gun stance, California Governor Jerry Brown recently vetoed some really misguided gun legislation proposed by the "liberals who don't read" realizing that failing to do so would open California to an eventual US Supreme Court case and likely a recall for him -- he's intelligent and he does read though I still don't like him especially for his pushing the HSR (off-topic for this thread).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2013 at 4:31 am

The gun lobby misinformation keeps on coming from their army of trolls...

Why are we talking about assault-type (or assault-looking) weapons? The primary goals behind MAIG is to enable law enforcement to do their jobs. That is why MAIG is supported by the Chief of Police in most if not all major metropolitan areas. Claiming that MAIG is some secret conspiracy to get rid of all guns is ridiculous and certainly unfounded. It is simply an NRA tactic to oppose anything that might negatively effect their sponsor's profit margins. Selling guns and ammo to both law abiding and criminals is certainly a great business model!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2013 at 4:36 am

Before the gun nut trolls took this thread over, we seem to have forgotten that Mountain View's mayor stands virtually alone on this issue.

Here is a list of current Bay Area mayors that are lending their support fighting the gun dealers from arming criminals illegally. Meaning, they are MAIG members. This is truly embarrassing that Mountain View is not on this list. I'm sure the next mayor will not be a NRA pawn and will do what is right for our residents.

Look at the length of this list!!!! It's not even all of California... If you look at the full list, there are quite a few *conservative* cities who have signed on via their mayor. Read the list and wake up!

Mayor Marie Gilmore
Alameda, CA
Mayor Timothy Knox
Antioch, CA
Mayor Elizabeth Patterson
Benicia, CA
Mayor Tom Bates
Berkeley, CA
Mayor Sherman Schapiro
Brisbane, CA
Mayor Dave Golonski
Campbell, CA
Mayor Cheryl Cox
Corte Madera, CA
Mayor Joseph Krovoza
Emeryville, CA
Mayor Teresa Arballo Barth
Fairfax, CA
Mayor Bill Harrison
Fremont, CA
Mayor Maria Orozco
Hayward, CA
Mayor Susan Jones
Larkspur, CA
Mayor John Marchand
Livermore, CA
Mayor Bob Foster
Martinez, CA
Mayor Mary Ann Lutz
Morgan Hill, CA
Mayor Alan L. Nagy
Newark, CA
Mayor Pat Eklund
Novato, CA
Mayor Jean Quan
Oakland, CA
Mayor Gabriel Jimenez
Palo Alto, CA
Mayor Bill Bogaard
Piedmont, CA
Mayor Michael G. Harris
Portola Valley, CA
Mayor Pete Aguilar
Richmond, CA
Mayor Daniel O. Clark
San Anselmo, CA
Mayor Patrick J. Morris
San Bruno, CA
Mayor Edwin M. Lee
San Francisco, CA
Mayor Mark Bartel
San Jose, CA
Mayor Stephen H. Cassidy
San Rafael, CA
Mayor Miguel Pulido
Saratoga, CA
Mayor Larry Forester
Stockton, CA
Mayor Anthony Spitaleri
Sunnyvale, CA
Mayor Emmett O'Donnell
Tiburon, CA
Mayor Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Vallejo, CA


 +   Like this comment
Posted by NotALemming
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2013 at 7:13 am

It is my inaliable right and my responsibility to protect my home and family and no one is going to take that away from me. When will the gun grabbers realize there are millions of gun owners in this country and thousands of gun owners in Mountain View? YOU CANNOT HAVE OUR GUNS... EVER!!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Political Insider
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2013 at 10:56 am

@ Moreregulation,

Whats your point. Because some cities have signed up so should our Mayor without thinking carefully about the issue? Most Mayors have not signed up for the group. Published reports about the PA and Sunnyvale Mayors stated they joined on the spot without considering the issue carefully. Your name calling is silly and shows that you are not interested in a reasoned debate on the merits of your group. Maybe the next Mayor will sign up but it will be his decision and not the decision of the council representing the city. This is all about political posturing of some Mayor and will led to nothing constructive.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2013 at 11:57 am

* "Why are we talking about assault-type (or assault-looking) weapons?"
They said they want AR15 style weapons and standard capacity magazines off the street, the only way to do this is bans.

* "The primary goals behind MAIG is to enable law enforcement to do their jobs."
Nobody is against goals that do good without infringing rights to privacy and to bear arms.

* "That is why MAIG is supported by the Chief of Police in most if not all major metropolitan areas."
Most subordinates support the decision of their superior, at least in the open.

* "Claiming that MAIG is some secret conspiracy to get rid of all guns is ridiculous and certainly unfounded."
Who made that claim? They do want to ban guns, maybe not all but more than one model makes it plural. There are quite a few guns that look like AR15s and there are quite a few standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. If you say MAIG does not want to ban AR15 style weapons and standard capacity magazines, tell us how they can legally take get them off the streets as their statement of principals state.


* "It is simply an NRA tactic to oppose anything that might negatively effect their sponsor's profit margins. Selling guns and ammo to both law abiding and criminals is certainly a great business model!"
The NRA doesn't pay me, nor does it determine how I feel about guns. So just because the NRA happens to have a similar positions as most gun owners, you feel you need to bring them up? Can you point out the NRA representative here or are you building up a straw man to defeat?

* "Before the gun nut trolls took this thread over"
Funny, all this time I thought the name calling and spewing of opinions that cannot be backed up with fact were coming from you.

When are you going to explain how the MAIG is going to get standard capacity magazines and legally owned AR15 style rifles off the street as their goals state, in a fashion that does no ban them as you state is not a goal of MAIG?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of another community
on Oct 23, 2013 at 2:30 pm

It's refreshing! Even here, in the heart of Sally Lieber land, There were only 40 or so people rabid enough to join the protest.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2013 at 2:39 pm

"When are you going to explain how the MAIG is going to get standard capacity magazines and legally owned AR15 style rifles off the street as their goals state, in a fashion that does no ban them as you state is not a goal of MAIG?"

The AR15 issue uses both red herring and a straw man argument techniques that are common with the gun lobby.

The fact is that I challenge you to find one organization on this planet where you agree completely with all of their goals and their actions 100 percent of the time. Someone said in this thread (I think) that they don't agree with every position or action that the NRA has taken...does that mean they dropped their membership and will completely oppose them at every turn??

Political Insider says most mayors have not signed up for MAIG. Well, guess what...most Americans have not signed up for the NRA...so I guess it is not a strong organization, right??? Oh, is that reasoning not consistent to your world view? Better ignore it then...

By the way, I don't appreciate people calling me a name caller. "Gun Nut" is a term of endearment. Unless you are saying that gun owners who troll these boards to recite their daily NRA talking points are *nuts* as in actually mentally ill? Perish the thought!!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by PeaceLove
a resident of Shoreline West
on Oct 23, 2013 at 3:24 pm

Apparently, for some commenters a "troll" is just someone who disagrees with you.

I have never owned a gun and don't think I would necessarily be safer if I did. This guy's a Marine weapons expert and he makes a convincing case against having a gun at home. Web Link So I have no dog in this fight except for one: NO ONE should be allowed to take away existing rights without passing a very high burden of proof bar. That's true whether the issue is banning gay marriage in CA or banning (or restricting) guns.

Gun-control advocates hardly every point to any evidence that specific policies work. Liberal media figures like Rachel Maddow (who is frequently excellent) seem to lose all sense of journalism when addressing the gun-control issue. Every mass shooting is an excuse to push for more gun control, but neither Maddow nor anyone else actually cites evidence (that pesky science thing) to support new laws.

"If he hadn't had a gun, he couldn't have committed this horrible mass shooting of defenseless children" is not a scientific argument.

As someone above mentioned, a much better case can be made for stronger regulation of anti-depressants and other psych meds, which seem to be linked to a huge percentage of mass shootings. Web Link Of course, correlation doesn't prove causality with SSRIs, any more than it does with guns.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Moreregulation, How many times are you going to ignore the question:

How is the MAIG going to keep standard capacity magazines and legally owned AR15 style rifles off the street as their goals state, and in a fashion that does no ban sale, possession, lawful transfer, or lawful use which YOU state is not a goal of MAIG?

YOU claim MAIG has not goals to ban any guns. YOU and are the one that is refusing to back up your position with a logical way that MAIG can have the goal stated above without a banning multiple models of rifles that resemble an AR15.

I'm not asking you to solve world peace here, just defend your position by stating a logical way MAIG can obtain their goal to get AR15 style weapons and standard capacity magazines off the streets without any bans, or abandon your position by admitting you're no longer sure if they want to enact any gun bans.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 23, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Moreregulation, most people can see the use of "gun nut" here is an unwanted label:

In the second post on this article you said:
> "Unfortunately, the gun nuts refuse to listen to reason. The gun manufacturers lobby (through their funding and manipulation of the NRA) have these ignorant folks convinced that any action to enforce gun regulations will someday result in the ban of all weapons. You can't really argue with people like this--the more you try, the more they refuse to think."

By labeling a group of people "gun nuts" and then referring back to the same group of people as "ignorant folks" you clearly knew that you were name calling. Then after defining "gun nuts" as "ignorant folks", you continued to use the term "gun nuts" in latter posts. I'm not saying others didn't resort to name calling, but you were the first offender and set the tone for everyone else.

And your most recent post:
> "By the way, I don't appreciate people calling me a name caller. "Gun Nut" is a term of endearment. Unless you are saying that gun owners who troll these boards to recite their daily NRA talking points are *nuts* as in actually mentally ill? Perish the thought!!!!"

Isn't it ironic that you don't like being labeled a "name caller" then go on to refer to gun owners that voice their opinion as trolls that cannot think for themselves and are mentally ill?

Isn't it ironic you call gun owners trolls, yet you started the name calling in your first post which was the 2nd post of the article?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cuesta Neighbor
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 23, 2013 at 10:25 pm

I'm a progressive liberal and I support gun rights. We have plenty of laws controlling gun ownership and the illegal use of guns. Mayor Inks is correct to resist endorsing this organization whose goal is to make gun ownership more and more difficult for regular citizens while doing little to get guns out of the hands of criminals.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 24, 2013 at 12:19 am

Daniel--my posting from earlier today was eaten by Town Square, so I'll try to summarize:

I really want to respond to your red-herring question about MAIG and the AR15's. Can you please forward me a link from the MAIG site that confirms your accusation that they want them banned? I was unable to find anything close to that.

I did a google site search on MAIG's site: (hopefully this link will work)
Web Link

and it only found two references to AR15's. Here are the relevant excerpts.

Closing the Gun Show Loophole: "Gun Shows Linked to Terrorists: In 2001 in Michigan, Ali Boumelhem was caught attempting to ship to Hezbollah a shipment containing ammunition, shotguns, parts of AR-15 assault rifles, flash suppressors, and speed loaders.[iv] He and his brother Mohamed had purchased the arsenal of weapons from Michigan gun shows.[v] Other investigations have linked gun shows to potential terrorists in Florida and Texas."

and

Fighting the passage of HR 1093 back in 2011:
"Most recently, ATF has proposed using these letters to gather information on bulk sales of AK-47 and AR-15 type assault weapons near the Mexican border – sales that are likely to be supplying drug cartels. This change would handicap police by preventing them from getting the information they need to track crime guns to their suppliers, solve violent crimes and detect illegal gun traffickers."

It really seems that MAIG is simply wanting to give law enforcement the legislative tools it needs to enforce the laws. As they stand now, there are so many pork loopholes put in place, that it's incredibly difficult to make a case against the gun dealers that are constantly selling to criminals.

I know it is difficult to find something that doesn't exist, so if you absolutely have to, you can provide a link to a LEGITIMATE NEWS SOURCE. Please don't bother with FoxNews, The Blaze, NRA website. It doesn't need to be Huffington Post, but there are still several "conservative" news sources that have not lost credibility by manufacturing stories.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 24, 2013 at 12:46 am

Cuesta--what is a 'progressive liberal'???

"We have plenty of laws controlling gun ownership and the illegal use of guns."

I'm not sure what plenty means? It could be a dozen or a hundred. But, our law enforcement officials are telling us that the current legislative framework is insufficient in regulating the gun trade. The gun "enthusiasts" say that we can't have a registry of gun ownership, because then when the "gov'mnt" bans guns, then they will know exactly who to target.

I'm fine to have it be a constitutional right to possess guns--I accept that. But why can't you have a gun ownership, sales/transfers database? Where does it say or imply in the Constitution that the right to "bear arms" means that gun ownership and sales has to be a secret from the government? (Even the conservative supreme court (scalia) agreed with this in Heller.) The gun "enthusiasts" are so certain that blanket gun bans are unconstitutional, then they shouldn't be worried. And even if they are worried, why should the rest of Americans suffer?

Cuesta: If "Progressive Liberal" means that you are willing to read an article that is not on FoxNews or the NRA website, then I invite you to read this:

Web Link

I'll quote some choice highlights for the regressive conservatives who refuse to click on anything that isn't under the Koch Brother's control:

"An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," "

"Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales"..."many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities."

"The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. [(FFL's)] "

"According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."

This is also a great educational story into the ridiculous world of "illegal" gun sales:

Web Link

Greg David--how many handguns has your store sold that ended up being used in a crime? Do you agree that the strawman sales are a big problem? And if so, do you have a suggestion for fixing it?



 +   Like this comment
Posted by Otto Maddox
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 24, 2013 at 7:59 am

Buying a firearm with the intent to sell it to someone else is already illegal.

Again I ask, do you want to make it double illegal?

We are talking about a CIVIL RIGHT here people. You can't just take it away from everyone because some people are doing bad things.

The state exists to keep us free (by protecting our rights). It's not their job to keep us safe. That responsibility falls on each of us individually.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 24, 2013 at 9:54 am

I have never owned any type of firearm in my life (although I have handled various types of firearms, shot skeet and gone to firing ranges and practiced target shooting) but this petition and the discussion that has followed here in the forum has inspired me to seriously consider purchasing a firearm, a firearm safe and take a gun safety course.

Thank you.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 24, 2013 at 10:01 am

Moreregulation, you said:
> "I really want to respond to your red-herring question about MAIG and the AR15's. Can you please forward me a link from the MAIG site that confirms your accusation that they want them banned? I was unable to find anything close to that."

The link is Web Link

The goal is: > "Keep lethal, military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines off our streets."

Gun control activists and legislators that are pro gun control often refer to AR15 style weapons as "military style" and "assault weapons", they also refer to the magazine that is standard in AR15 style weapons as "high capacity".

You've stated many times that MAIG does not want to ban any guns but refuse to give a logical answer how MAIG can achieve the goal to get the AR15 style weapons and their standard capacity magazines "off the streets" without banning AR15 style weapons and the magazines that are standard capacity for an AR15 style weapon.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 24, 2013 at 11:24 am

"I have never owned any type of firearm in my life (although I have handled various types of firearms, shot skeet and gone to firing ranges and practiced target shooting) but this petition and the discussion that has followed here in the forum has inspired me to seriously consider purchasing a firearm, a firearm safe and take a gun safety course."

This seems to be a common theme :)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 24, 2013 at 3:59 pm

Daniel--thanks for clarifying and providing the link.

The excerpt you found:
"Keep lethal, military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines off our streets."

It seems there are terms like "military grade", "military style" and "assault weapons" that mean different things to different people and groups. I mean, a bazooka is an "arm" and it seems that the gun "enthusiasts" on this thread want to interpret the 2nd Amendment to shut down any licensing or regulation of arms--stating that those laws are unconstitutional. Can we all agree that private citizens should not have unregulated access to weapons like tank destroying bazookas and their ammo? Because if we can't agree on that, then we're coming from fundamentally different realities and it's pointless to discuss further.

All I read in that quote is that they "want them off the streets", which I take to mean that they don't want them to fall into the hands of people that would do harm. Now, I expect that if MAIG really wanted a ban on weapons like the AR15, they would not be shy about it.

In one of the articles I posted, you can read a story about how an investigative reporter was able to purchase a .50 cal sniper rifle very quickly and easily--within a few hours of searching on craigslist and making some calls. The article explained that this rifle is capable of going through steel & brick walls to kill people on the other side. In fact, they provided an anecdotal story about a military organization that instructed their snipers to "line up" their victims, so they kill more than one person per bullet! To me, it doesn't make sense to have a weapon like this floating around--it seems it should be restricted to military purposes only. It should not be easily acquired "on the street", which is what I take MAIG to mean in the quote you provided.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 24, 2013 at 4:04 pm

"Buying a firearm with the intent to sell it to someone else is already illegal."

Otto--it might be illegal, but it is nigh impossible to enforce, because the gun "enthusiasts" have waved the 2nd Amendment flag to "protect the privacy rights" of gun dealers to prevent storage of background checks and most registration details. The idea is to tweak our laws to allow the ability of law enforcement to actually do their job. That is why most law enforcement is in favor of this.

If a gun dealer sells a gun to a "straw man" buyer, who sells the gun privately to a gang member..and that gun is used in a crime, how do they trace it back to the original dealer? In fact, how do they even trace it back to the "straw man"? Ridiculous that they can't.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Realist
a resident of another community
on Oct 24, 2013 at 4:48 pm

To "moregulation", I can only write that your continuously posted uninformed statements only hurts your position.

For just one for-example, you just wrote "... how do they trace it back to the original dealer? In fact, how do they even trace it back to the "straw man"? Ridiculous that they can't."

A simple Google search provides the answers. We're limited here to only 4 URLs in a single posting, so I'll list the first four on the first page of my Google results:

Wikipedia, National Tracing Center: Web Link

NPR (National Public Radio) How guns are traced: Web Link

ProPublica, not well known Federal policies: Web Link

The HighRoad: how a pistol is traced: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 24, 2013 at 8:00 pm

Greg David is a registered user.

"Greg David--how many handguns has your store sold that ended up being used in a crime?"

ZERO, NADA, ZILCH...

Nearly 3000 firearms sold in just over two years and the only BATFE trace request I have received was for a handgun that was taken from my girlfriend's apartment by Hayward PD during an illegal search and seizure. She wasn't even home and her adult son was falsely accused of being involved in some sort of criminal activity. When asked if there was a gun in the house, he affirmed that his mother had one locked near her bed. While was cuffed, on his knees, held at gunpoint, they subsequently searched and seized the firearm with no due process. No crime was committed, no charges were filed, and it took nearly six months to get the gun returned.

At my family's former business, from 1950 to 2002, we likely sold over 50K firearms. During the nearly 20 years working for my father, I can count on my hands how many firearms traces were done by BATF. Less than half of those were used in crimes. In those years perhaps 2 or 3 were used in suicides. Several dozen were stolen during burglaries, most found and returned.

As you can see, only a tiny tiny fraction of firearms sold by myself and my family have ever been used for nefarious purposes.

Of the few guns used in crimes, one was stolen from us before we even received it. Huey Newton of the Black Panthers had a relative that stole a rifle in transit from the Oakland postal center and it was used by the Black Panthers in a crime. Point is, criminals steal guns, they don't buy them from dealers. Especially not in CA where the purchase process is much more complex.

"Do you agree that the strawman sales are a big problem?"

They are a problem if the dealer is not properly trained to identify and deny them. I have done this my whole life and I can smell a strawman sale a mile away. For those newer to the industry, the BATFE has an extensive education program and campaign to train employees about how to recognize potential strawman sales. The NSSF, NRA, and the entire industry laud the BATFE for providing this resource. Fact is, I have only had to refuse a few sales due to suspicion they might be a straw purchase. They don't really happen that much.



"And if so, do you have a suggestion for fixing it?"

Stay the course. Educate. Enforce.


Please do not ask me any more questions. I am no longer interested in any discussion with you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Moreregulation
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 24, 2013 at 10:32 pm

Realist—Thank you for providing those informative links. If you click into the first one from Wikipedia, you will learn that by grinding off the serial #, there is no trace to be had. Also, apparently there are categories of firearms that have duplicate serial #'s! Again, this is where organizations like MAGI can help drive legislation that would require better to track these back to the source.

Also, Greg David's posting was most educational. In his answer to the question:
"Greg David--how many handguns has your store sold that ended up being used in a crime?", he responded with a resounding: "ZERO, NADA, ZILCH…"

He goes on to say: "Nearly 3000 firearms sold in just over two years and the only BATFE trace request I have received was for a handgun that was taken from my girlfriend's apartment…."

He then goes on with a description of his family business where he said he only received a handful of trace requests.

His big conclusion is: "As you can see, only a tiny tiny fraction of firearms sold by myself and my family have ever been used for nefarious purposes."

Sorry Greg. What the conclusion is that you have only received a small # of trace requests. To assume that every other gun you and your family sold was never used in a crime is a big stretch!

He also goes on to say: "Point is, criminals steal guns, they don't buy them from dealers."

That is clearly not true. According to the experts, "…stolen guns account for only about 10-15% of guns used in crimes." The leading source is private sales and straw man purchases.

This is really startling:

"According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. This rapid `time to crime' of a gun purchased from an FFL is a strong indicator that the initial seller or purchaser may have been engaged in unlawful activity."

What else have I been "informed" about by Realist's links:

The ATF says: "For about a third of the traces, it turns out the gun dealer, the wholesaler or manufacturer has gone out of business. By law, when they close up shop, they have to ship all their gun purchase documents here to the ATF tracing center in West Virginia. "

But guess what?

"The idea that we have a computer database and you just type in a serial number and it pops out some purchaser's name is a myth,". - ATF Special Agent Charles Houser

"They don't have that searchable, central database because the National Rifle Association and the gun lobby have successfully blocked that through Congress. They argue that a database of gun transactions would be a dangerous step toward a national gun registry."

Don't you gun "enthusiasts" understand the problem? Even if the serial # is intact and even if the serial # is correct and unique, then there's a 1 in 3 chance that the agents will have to *hand search* for the information! All because of the paranoia spread by the NRA on behalf of the gun manufacturers to protect their profits. And then, even if you can trace it, there's a high probability that you will only trace it to the straw man purchaser, who may not even know the true identify of the person he sold it to!

The example I provided on a previous posting spoke of a reporter who bought a sniper rifle from a stranger and did not have to show any ID. How will a trace help there?

And it doesn't help, when you have gun merchants like Greg who confidently says that he can spot a straw purchaser a mile away. How would he know???? Obviously he can't with any certainty, but he certainly won't let it affect his profits.

In one of the articles I posted, you can read a story about how an investigative reporter was able to purchase a .50 cal sniper rifle very quickly and easily--within a few hours of searching on craigslist and making some calls. The purchaser could have set-up somewhere, shot a bunch of folks and just walked away from the weapon. How would they trace it to them? They would put in a trace request on the serial # (if it is there, which would be unlikely) and then they would get the manufacturer, distributor and first retailer. From there, let's say that the first buyer was our craigslist seller and let's say that he did not forge his NCIS background check info. (BTW, all you need to hand over is a person's name, address and birthdate. it doesn't even need to be your own.) So, the police drag in the seller and he says he sold it to Joe Smith in a Taco Bell parking lot, but doesn't know or recall anything about them.

So, see how useful this trace is????

Did the seller commit a crime? Nope! So, what is to stop him from doing this again and again?

Did you know that the original retailer is protected by legislation? He can't be prosecuted or sued! Even if he didn't ask for ID for the NCIS info….

Thanks Realist for the useful links. Every time I dig, I am amazed at how our Mayor has turned his back on the electorate. That explains why MAIG has accelerating growth while NRA #'s have pretty much flatlined.

There are about 8,000 mayors in the US and about 900 of them have signed onto MAIG so far, which gives us 11.25%.

NRA's exaggerated marketing statistic for # of "members" is 5,000,000. That is only about 9.6% of the estimated 50,000,000 firearm owners in the US. Given that the NRA was founded in 1871 and MAIG hasn't even been around for 8 years, I hope you can all see that this is just the beginning. Get another billionaire to help fund the organization, and maybe it can even start to offset the Koch Brothers & Gun Lobby $ that is poisoning our country.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 25, 2013 at 11:15 am

Moregulation,
> "The time has come to review and improve the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Congress should pass the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (S. 150), which would create a clear and enforceable standard for taking these weapons out of our communities." - Web Link

Do you still defend your position that MAIG does not want to ban guns?


P.S. Every hunting rifle in America resembles a rifle that is or was used in the military, and could thus be called "military style weapon".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Thanks moreregulation
a resident of Monta Loma
on Oct 29, 2013 at 3:54 pm

Thanks moreregulations for your arguments, because of it, I will be joining the NRA.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by True American
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 3, 2014 at 1:53 pm

Folks, "lethal, military style assault weapons"???? Really, and which firearms aren't lethal? I don't want to shoot an inferior firearm for self-defense, I want what the military and cops can afford so I can have the same advantage against the bad guys.


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

I Told My Mom She's Dying
By Chandrama Anderson | 10 comments | 2,350 views

Grab a Bowl of Heaven soon in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,567 views

Quick Check List for UC Applications
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 981 views

Fancy Fast and Fun!
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 863 views

Palo Alto and Bay Area Election Facts and Thoughts on the Implications
By Steve Levy | 2 comments | 472 views