I'm proud that Inks has the courage to stand by principle and not get carried away on a wave of emotional response that will not fix the problems at hand.

I'd be interested in reading comments from others who are interested in recalling Mayor Inks as a result of his decision. I'd like to think that Mountain View needs to make a statement to the nation (and to the Libertarians) that strong, government-supervised gun control is needed.

Shame on you, Mayor Inks, that you are more concerned about being "anti-gun" than you are about being "pro-people." There is nothing in this initiative that prevents law-abiding gun owners from purchasing and owning appropriate weapons. Unless, of course, you think that high-powered automatic weapons are appropriate for, say, target shooting? Deer hunting? Their only purpose is to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible. Shame, shame, shame.

It is when there is a gun in the house and it is loaded and not locked up that kids get shot. I cannot understand this mayor's lack of care for the community by not supporting these principles.

I see my just finished "Pro-Inks" comment was censored and not printed... let's see if this one flies.
"Strong government supervised gun control" was a mainstay of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and ever despot in the lands.
Put a sign on your front door that sez "This house does NOT have any guns."
Would MtnView's endorsement prevent gang bangers from doing a home invasion?

george

Thank you and congratulations to our mayor for standing behind our second amendment rights !!!! Finally someone who is worthy of the job of mayor has it. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns !!!

Once again, John Inks places the values of outsiders - Gun Manufacturers over Mountain view Residents. John is founder of the group "Mayors Who Don't Care."

Well done John Inks.
Lets enforce the laws already on the books.
Lets NOT penalize law abiding citizens.
Criminals do NOT follow the law now,how will more laws change that?

It's not the guns that kills people, it's the psychos that use them to kill people.

A psycho will use anything at his means to do what he will do. A gun is a object, it's the person that is behind it that we need to fear.

3 cheers for Tom Inks

Well done Mayor John Inks.
You can NOT buy a gun in Ca. without a background check or training.
Criminals do NOT follow existing laws,how will new laws change that?

Stout Fellow!
All of the anti-gun rhetoric plays on fears and false information. You haven't been able to buy any gun at any gunshow in CA for decades.
Criminals, by definition are not going to follow any number of laws that get thrown together.

He doesn't want to join "Mayors against ILLEGAL Guns?" Why on earth not?????

I don't think we should have any laws because criminals break them anyway.

Time to close the Gun Show Loophole, which allows gun sales without background checks, and is flooding our cities with illegal firearms.

John Inks is clearly out of step with Mountain View voters on this issue.

California already prohibits private gun sales at gun shows. Sales must be through a dealer following a background check. See <Web Link

Congrats to Mayor Inks for standing up for the 2nd Amendment. Let Bloomberg & NY practice the Nanny State politics. Bloomberg Stop & Frisk is illegal. Bloomberg Sodas are illegal. Now he wants to make the 2nd Amendment illegal too.

Not sure why there are two different town square threads on the same subject. I guess the other thread wasn't anti-gun enough for the Voice.

Even if Inks agreed with MAIG's anti-2nd amendment agenda, it is not his place to join such an organization that exploits his position as mayor. The status quo is to not join. His personal beliefs are irrelevant.

I think any mayor that joins an organization like this, that has a hidden agenda to undermine the constitution, is being irresponsible in their position as mayor and should be censured or recalled. The City of Mountain View City Council Code of Conduct states the following in chapter 3.2.1 and 3.2.2:

3.2.1 Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, Councilmembers shall work for the common good of the people of Mountain View and not for any private or personal interest. Councilmembers must endeavor to treat all members of the public and issues before them in a fair and equitable manner.

3.2.2 Councilmembers shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California, and the City in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: the United States and California constitutions; the Mountain View City Charter; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities, and open processes of government; and City ordinances and policies.

John Inks has acted appropriately as Mayor and hope that all future Mayors do so as well.

Greg David

This is what you get when you elect a Republican, nothing
you can be proud of for the community: takes side of gun lobby,
not the welfare of the people of the city. I bet he is also
a climate-change denier.

Another 13 people killed today.

If you truly believe the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good buy with a gun then let's have universal background checks so we can tell the difference.

@no surprise

John is a Libertarian, not a Republican.

You should be informed before engaging.

@Carol

We already do in California.

I'm strongly pro-gun - provided that the guns are the type of guns that the drafters of the Second Amendment had in mind, and that persisted as the only type of guns available for the following 50 years - muzzle loading weapons. Muzzle loading rifles that could fire one shot a minute in the hands of an expert, amd muzzle-loading muskets that in the hands of the best trained professional armies could fire 3 shots a minute.

I can't believe that the Founders had a crystal ball that let them envision weapons with the firing rate and power for mindless slaughter that we have today, and thus I find it impossible to consider these weapons as the arms meant by the Second Amendment. Every other right in the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been judged to have limits, and so must the Second Amendment. I'm in favor of restricting the unconditional right to bear arms to muzzle-loaders, but I'll settle for a ban on weapons with high rates of fire.

Mr. Inks may not be in favor of gun violence, but by refusing to join, he is nevertheless encouraging it.

Thank you Mayor Inks for having the courage to stand up for those of us who still believe that the Constitution means what it says. Thank you for standing up to Mayor Bloomberg and his bully pulpit.

@Oldabelincoln

So, if what you say is true, then the 1st amendment if the Constitution would only apply to technology in use at the time of its adoption. This would mean that television, radio, Internet, etc., would not be protected by the Constitution.

A very weak notion my friend.

Greg,

Maybe you don't fully understand Carol, and others who feel the "universal" background check needs to be nationwide, not just "in California". This is what the story is about (please re-read the first paragraph regarding this "coalition of over 1,000 mayors across the country").

This is the Gun Show Loophole that is a problem nationwide that allows guns to be sold without checks in one state that make their way into others, like NYC, L.A., etc.

Wow. Hysteria from the non-gun owners. I support John Inks. The criminals who get hold of guns illegally are the ones every one should be going after. Besides that, what does all this have to do with the city council and the city of Mountain View?

If I understand Tom correctly, if 1000 mayors think the moon is made of green cheese, then our mayor should too? Mayor Bloomberg is nothing more than a bully, spending millions to move his anti-gun agenda forward. This is the camel's nose under the tent.

WE, the people, have the right to keep and bear arms. And it has NOTHING to with sporting purposes. The 2nd Amendment wasn't written to protect sport shooting and hunters.

And to anyone who sees an AR-15 as a "killing machine" please explain to me why you are OK with every cop in the city of Mountain View having one in their patrol car? I want one for the same reason the police officer wants one, to protect himself and others.

I am sure the Mayor has other issues to be concerned with than joining some whiny, pointless group funded by a NY billionaire.

The council has no business wasting time on this and other federal or state issues. While individual council members are free to endorse whatever cause they want, I applaud Mayor Inks for passing on this issue. I took a look at the web site and most of the points are useless since all they require is the enforcement of current laws. However one of the points takes aim at law biding citizens and their right to bear arms, so the group is also against legal ownership of guns. I also found a web site that lists Mayors who have taken their names off

Calm down boys, no one is coming to take away your toys. We are well aware of you phony 2A rights arguments. You and Inks simply don't represent Mountaian View. Get used to being a minority, or move to Texas.

Good Job Mayor Inks!

The idea that a pro-bill of rights mayor doesnt represent MV is phony in itself. Are you advocating for the oppression of minorities based on your desire for a given lifestyle Tom? Very telling of how "accepting" you are that you want minorities to move out of your neighborhood.

@Tom

Is is common knowledge that MAIG is an advocate for total elimination of private gun ownership. Bloomberg has advocated this for years and spent millions of his fortunes to advance the anti-2nd amendment movement. He has give MAIG the appearance of a "reasonable" organization that only wants to stop gun violence, but when you read a bit deeper, the truth starts to shine through. MAIG in fundamentally anti-gun, anti 2A, and is misleading the public and mayors of America with their supposed moderate agenda.

We will not be fooled.

Bottom line here and the real point that needs to be made, is that it is NOT THE POSITION OF THE MAYOR OF ANY CITY TO JOIN AN ORGANIZATION ON BEHALF OF THAT CITY BASED ON THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS.

Period.

.

Anon: we live in a democracy, please feel free to live where you want, and be represented by officials elected by a majority of the vote. The majority of the people of Mountain View support background checks for all gun sales/transactions, and a closure of the Gun Show Loophole.

try addressing the question; do you believe that minorities need to move out of your neighborhood for their rights to be respected?

Which California gun laws does he want to repeal so that illegal guns become legal? Or is he a member of "Mayors For Illegal Guns"? What a lunatic. I'm glad I don't live in Mountain View, although I'm tempted to move there to be able to vote him out of office.

@Tom

You said, "The majority of the people of Mountain View support background checks for all gun sales/transactions"

Although this may be a safe assumption, do you have data to support this claim?

Otherwise its just an assumption.

I learned a saying a long time ago that still rings true every day...

Figures don't lie but liars can figure.....

(no, I'm not calling you a liar, just an assumer)

Lets also ban cars while we're at it. Better yet let's ban drunk driving all together. That should stop those bad guys from ever killing someone when under the influence.

After a very unscientific tally, making the best effort to eliminate repeat opinions, neutral statements, and trolls, I show about 17 people in favor of Inks decision and about 10 against in this thread...

Too bad we couldn't get a bigger sample......

@Otto Maddox:

I am perfectly "OK" with an MVPD officer having an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle, since each officer has passed written, oral and physical testing. And before becoming an officer, each candidate goes through an extensive background check, to determine financial, emotional, and mental stability; this also includes drug testing and a polygraph.

When selected, the new officer then goes through extensive gun handling and safety training. Please note, the MVPD is also insured for accidental mishandling of its weapons. For further precautions, assault weapons are "well regulated", and checked out of and into a gun locker for each shift.

So, yes, I am "OK" with an MVPD in possession of an AR-15.

I applaud the mayor for being smart enought to read past the hype and not fall for Bloomberg's posturing. Many other mayors are dropping out of the group once they find out how anti-constitutional the agenda really is. It's a breath of fresh air to see such a bold statement here in Mountain View, a city that normally celebrates diversity.

The so-called "gun show loophole" doesn't exist here in California. Stop reacting with your gut and read up on it more so you know what you're talking about. Clearly the mayor read up on the real agenda of MAIG and didn't fall for their cute little naming tactic, which many anti-gun commenters here would've obviously fallen for since they don't read past a headline. Those of you who vote with your gut and not your head need to remove yourself from the voting pool until you can take the time to do some research.

@ Tom - Does being a 'minority' mean that our rights and viewpoints are invalid? Do you feel comfortable making the same grandiose claim about other minority groups? I'm sure you feel you're an open-minded individual when it comes to gays and other cultures, but that doesn't apply/matter when it comes to a right specifically called out in the constitution? Shame on you and your laughable position. Did your first response include the usual "is the about the day worker center?" type of comment.

I'm very disappointed in Mayor Inks' refusal to take a stand against illegal guns. Mayor Inks certainly doesn't represent me.

@Sara

By NOT joining, he does represent you. It is NOT is assignment as mayor to represent the city by joining an organization that is clearly not representative of the majority of Mountain View residents. Gun regulation is tasked to the state and federal government. By joining he would be violating his oath taken to abide by the City Council Code of Conduct.

Read the ENTIRE thread and then come back and revisit your blanket statement.

Also, I encourage you to do some research on how Mayor Inks has voted in regards to major council decision that directly affect every Mountain View resident on a daily basis.

I think you might be pleasantly surprised that Mayor Inks may, in fact, actually represent your views in regards to issues PERTINENT TO THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW.

MAIG is simply Bloombergs latest attempt to undermine the constitution and has NOTHING to do with city politics and the mayors that lead those city councils.

First, thank you mayor for sticking to your oath of office and not caving to the pressure of and lies of MAIG.

Second, I just have to correct some blatant ignorance when I see it:

@ Tom: You are clearly part of the problem. By that I do not wish to call you any names. I could care less what your political or ideological views are. You are, however, extremely incorrect when you state "we live in a democracy." The united states and its' member states are a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy.

Democracy is one of the worst forms of government (which is why I cringe when the catch phrase 'Bringing Democracy to ____' is uttered.) Democracy is MOB RULE. Whatever the majority wants to be the truth, is. That is why our founding fathers specifically formed a republic.

A republic is Rule of Law. Its' government comprised of democratically elected representatives which are CONSTRAINED by law. This means a majority can not decide to oppress the minority. (Ideally at least. In reality even our republic has been rife with minority attacks, jim crow laws, etc.)

We are only where we are today with regards to guns because the second amendment hasn't been dragged through the courts nearly as long as the first amendment. The 1st is pretty well settled in case law, and even that one has been trampled a bit. Case law for the 2nd is still in its' infancy, and yet we are already at a point where it has been unequivocally stated that each person has an individual right to weapons in common use, including 'military' weapons.

Therefore, if you feel strongly that you don't want your law abiding neighbor to have a particular gun. perhaps you should find a country with a true democracy. Better pray the majority never decides that something you do, have, or enjoy is illegal.

Thank you, Mayor Inks!!!
It's refreshing to have someone on the Council (and as our Mayor) who thinks rationally, and focuses on local issues for our City.

I am a: AR-15 owner, Democrat, Mt. View Business owner, Resident

Good job Mayor Inks !!

A Local official to be proud of.

The NRA is known to aggressively troll message boards over news like this, and they are doing an effective job here.

Mayor Inks' decision to take a pass on a smart initiative in favor of rational gun control looks even more foolish in light of the days events. Mr. Inks, you are an embarrassment to our city. Your tea-party tone deaf views have no place in a highly educated city as ours.

Shame on you.

It pains me to say this, but just today we had a terrible shooting spree at Washington Naval Yard. 13 people died. Some of those servicepeople had been to Iraq and Afghanistan. They carried weapons there. But in their own country it was illegal. Result: they died. The death toll might have been higher had not the police killed the gunman. Which brings to mind this adage: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

But it does make me think, "Perhaps the shooter wasn't aware that guns are illegal in the Washington Naval Yard. If he had known, he would have realized that what he was about to do was against the law, and he wouldn't have done it."

Or perhaps he would have thought, "Gosh, all those people are unarmed and defenseless, so I can do what I want without fear of getting stopped or hurt myself".

Comments on the above are welcomed, especially by those who think gun control laws work.

Whether or not you want to have a gun is up to you. But don't try to take away my means of defending my family.

Criminals don't follow laws, MAIG is a useless group that spreads fear uncertainty and doubt, and you Mayor Inks... are a patriot.

Where have I heard the name Josh Wolf before? Wasn't he involved with the Occupy Mountain View movement? I guess one needs to stay busy, and run freely, unencumbered by facts. On the contrary and as a tax payer, I would expect our city elected officials to focus on matters for which they have jurisdiction.

Hey, Eric,

I was typing my own post and didn't see yours until just now. Please be the first to point out the fallacy in my post.

@Eric

you freely admit that you aren't even a Mountain View resident...

Who's the troll here?

GREG DAVID

REGISTERED USER

To all of you that think that the Mayor is not against illegal guns just because he wouldn't join an organization with a deceptive name, you are wrong! It is very clear to me that none of you bothered to talk to him or to read his comments on the matter. He clearly stated that he IS against illegal guns, but there is no point in joining an organization just because of their name.

What if I decided tomorrow to create an organization called "Mayors Against Illegal Murder" (MAIM)? What good would that do? Murder is already illegal, so what possible good can my organization do? There are already sufficient punishments on the books to deal with every form of murder known and unknown, so what is my true purpose?

It is a well known fact that MAIG is run by Mayor Bloomberg of New York. The same Mayor that took salt off the tables of the restaurants because we (the people) are too stupid to use it properly. The same Mayor Bloomberg that tried to ban sales of soft drinks over 16 oz. because we (the people) are to stupid to know how much we should drink. Bloomberg is the ultimate totalitarian autocrat! He wants to make all the decisions for us because in his opinion, we're not smart enough to think for ourselves!

I am proud to have a Mayor that knows that we are smart enough to figure things out for ourselves and deals with the real issues of our city rather than spending time joining organizations that make pointless statements.


If you think ANY laws keep criminals from getting guns, you're living in a fantasy. Try reading this and keep in mind that this is just California the article is talking about:

Web Link


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Eric.....you have no idea what you are talking about. Talk about education but obviously have no clue on any of the gun control issue. If you would ever like to have a real talk about gun control and not emotional nonsense than talk. Not one gun-grabber on this discussion has come up with any theory on why gun control is good. The only thing I ever hear is ooooooo that gun is scary and black looking....lets ban it. Most gun grabbers don't even know current laws or even the operation of a firearm. More time needs to be spent on fixing our economy and bringing back some decent American values like hard work and earning a paycheck not receiving one. This country is so screwed up. Only a matter of time for a civil war.....once we finally go bankrupt and people stop getting welfare and entitlements. I know which side ill be on. The one with guns.

I've always loved asking a question that's already been asked. If any of you gun grabbers care to put your money where your mouth is put a sign up that says gun control supporter or gun free zone. I'm sure you'll be fine since you put up a sign that says gun free zone.

Well I want to add my vote to removing guns from circulation. The mayor should have joined.

@whiskers-- what are you TALKING about? The naval shipyard shooter has been widely reported to be mentally imbalanced, yet could own a gun legally under current law. You gun nuts defend the shooter and their rights time and again after every mass shooting. Enough

@greg david Ive lived in Mtn View for nearly 30 years. My neighborhood is none of your business. To say that MAIG has no local relevance proves that you know nothing of their views.

Thankfully the views on this board do not represent the view of our city as a whole. Neither do Mayor Inks'

David, Jerry, it's very simple, the majority of Mtn View are in favor of universal background checks and closing the Gun Show Loophole, uniformly, across the whole country, not just CA. This is a free country, all are welcome, especially here in MV. Just understand that you are a minority here if you don't support common sense gun regulation. Don't worry, that's OK, just obey the law.

Ironic this story comes on a day when a dozen people were murdered in DC. It's time to take a stand against proliferation of gun violence.

I am utterly amazed at the lack of common sense comments coming from mountain view, the silicon valley where we are innovators for the world, yet cannot grasp the simple concepts surrounding the gun control debate.

first, there are already background checks in CA, so MAIG would have no relevance here.

second, MAIG claims to only want background checks, but if you look at its leaders, Mayor Bloomberg and Mark Glaze, their agendas go beyond what MAIG claims. They want to ban the entire 2nd amendment, not just implement backgound checks.

third, many comments are along the lines of "ban all guns" "remove guns from society", you make comments like this but really have not spent a single moment of deep rational thought behind it. it will be literally impossible to ban guns or totally remove guns from circulation in the US. Criminals intent on murder will not obey measly gun control laws, its as simple as that.

and lastly, anyone trying to make a connection between the DC navy shooter and gun control are truely ignorant. he was a military contractor with a history of violence and should have been banned from gun ownership, this was a failure on the part of mental health professionals. Also, the ar15 used was STOLEN off a police officer, no gun control law would solve that. He used a shotgun, which are even allowed in anti gun societies and was supported by Biden. He committed his shooting in a gunfree zone where no one was able to defend themselves.

educate yourself before spewing such ignorant, irrational, misplaced hatred towards responsible law abiding gun owners. the gun control argument has very little to back it up besides raw emotion and fear, HISTORY, FACTS, and RATIONAL ARGUMENTS are all on the side of 2nd amendment supporters.

The only thing prolific about gun violence is the media and politician's knack and pension for using it to divide our communities. Gun control is not about left vs right, it is about Libertarian v Authoritarian views.

A gun is a tool, and an efficient one to be sure. However, I would argue that the design vs actual usage matters greatly. Walk into any Home Depot and there are a great many tools that can do horrific harm to a human body. They may not be as efficient but they do far more damage. Hammers and blunt objects are responsible for more deaths than firearms - yet we do not push for legislation against hardware. We do not decry hardware stores as selling weapons of death. We do not blame the hammer for death when it is the deranged or angered spouse or drug addict or other criminal who uses it to the detriment of society.

Let's take a step back for a minute and think.

There are an estimated 270 million guns in the US.
Thousands die every year from gun violence (though a very large percentage of these are not innocent bystanders, are in heavily populated areas where guns are near-banned already, and do not make the news).

This is a tiny fraction of a percentage of guns that are abused or used negligently. While tragic, it is not a reason to demonize or persecute the vast majority of law abiding, normal people who happen to own firearms.

Take a read here:

[url]Web Link

MAIG as a group contains many mayors whose names were added as members without their knowledge, or who were misled as to the group's purpose. MAIG is, as previously stated, run by Mayor Bloomberg of NYC.

NYC has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation - yet last year, in 2012, 419 people were killed by firearms there. That's 17 more than the total number of coalition forces who died in Afghanistan during 2012.

Take a deep breath, think rationally, and realize that there's a lot more to the problem of gun violence than the inanimate object used for evil. Once we stop pointing fingers and screaming at each other, maybe we can come together as a nation and realize that it's not a gun problem, it's a society problem.

To: oldabelincoln,

By you logic, the Internet should be illegal in relation to the first amendment.

Which recent shooting would have been prevented by a background check?

Muzzle loaders were a good defensive weapon when the bad guys too had a muzzle loader.

Have you ever noticed that the anti-gun folks really are all about anti-you having a gun. More civil employees have sidearms and agencies have militarized units than ever before in this nations history. The folks who arm and militarize these folks are the same folks that want it harder for the average American to own a firearm. Ask them why before you vote for them again. Ever hear that Feinstein never had a good answer for why she is bent on banning gins but has a carry permit.

Eric,

"You gun nuts defend the shooter and their rights time and again after every mass shooting." Where in the world do you get the idea that I and my fellow "gun nuts" are defending the shooter in this case or in any case where innocent people are killed?

As I understand it in 2004 he had shot out someone's tires in a fit of rage. Later he fired a shot through his ceiling into the apartment of a lady he had had a disagreement with. No charges were filed in either instance. I can't speak for my fellow "gun nuts", but I think there should have been charges for the first incident at least. But some D.A. or judge who I assume wasn't a
gun nut" disagreed. I don't think given his past that he should have been allowed to have a gun. But of course that wouldn't have stopped him, irregardless of all the well-meaning but woefully misguided people out there who think gun control works.

For the record, I lived in Mtn. View for several years back in the early '70s. It was a nice town. And if I still lived there I'd be proud as punch of my mayor.

But, Eric, how about answering my previous post. Instead of just calling names, explain to us "gun nuts" just how gun control would remove guns from the hands of criminals and not just honest folks. Strange as it may seem, we would be just as happy as you if it worked.

Read and comment based off facts, not emotion. Keep guns out of criminal hands. We all agree on this. Gun violence prevention starts with the people. It's like saying spoons make kids overweight. Dont follow like mindless sheep and do a little research.

Education not prohibition is the way to eliminate accidental firearm deaths. As for criminals getting their hands on guns, why don't we try and make sure they don't ever leave the prison in the first place?

Good on him!! MAIG is not about making anyone safer, they are all about keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. None of their policies, ideas or tactics will ever have any impact on the possession and use of fireamrs by criminals. One only needs to do a little bit of research to know this. Do not accept what they say at face value. Take the time and learn the facts for yourself. The truth is absolutely out there, it is up to YOU to find it, not have someone feed it to you.

@Jean wrote "It is when there is a gun in the house and it is loaded and not locked up that kids get shot. I cannot understand this mayor's lack of care for the community by not supporting these principles."

Did you even read the article? It is perfectly legal to keep a loaded gun in the house, even if you have kids. It may be stupid, but that has nothing to do with illegal guns, and not addressed by the coalition.

Kudos to Inks for not letting this organization exploit his position as mayor. Joining it would not be appropriate either, according to the Mountain View public code of conduct. He's a wise man.

Good for the Mayor, not joining that hack organization!
NONE of the proposed laws, federally or locally would have prevented any of these recent atrocities. So to what end?

Here's the organization he should join with to protect Californians civil liberties:

demandrights.com

Mayor Inks,

I salute you for your courage, and support you for your stand against those who would abrogate one of the fundamental civil rights enjoyed by US citizens

Thank you Mayor Inks. As I'm sure you already know. Anyone who is against your decision not to join MAIG is obviously very misinformed and should educate themselves on the subject before making uneducated comments. Thank you for standing up for our RIGHTS.

We need to get rid of MAIG.
If politicians, particularly those on the left, are serious about reducing crime and incidents with guns then go after the problem. Thugs, Gang bangers, dealers, etc,,

Maybe form a new organization and call it MAC - Mayors Against Crime. The citizens should demand this but instead they fall for the straw man arguments and the red herrings.

@eric: Your comment "Your tea-party tone deaf views have no place in a highly educated city as ours." Indicates an elitist, divisive, and discriminatory perspective. You seem to indicate that to disagree with your "common sense" opinion renders those who would deign to disagree with your more 'enlightened' perspective as uneducated, tone-deaf to your version of social order, and oh my God affiliated with those you view as Neanderthals the Tea Party, as beneath your superior reasoning ability.

Bigot.

History has shown many times there's nothing more dangerous to civil rights than groups that see themselves as elitist in positions of power and authority who believe they they can mandate their version of the Greater Good upon those viewed as less 'equal' and less deserving of certain rights relative to the elite class.

Do you even know the history of the 14th amendment and that it took almost 80 years to partially realize its original intent in applying the Bill of Rights to states in order for enshrine equal rights for newly freed slaves due to different generations of elitists like yourself who didn't want "those other xxxx people" to have the same level of rights as those in the enlightened power structure? Have you read historical documentation on the passage of the 14th amendment that documents specifically the application of the 2nd amendment towards the states in response to the forcible disarming of blacks as a precursor to the denial of their broader civil rights?

thank you for not joining MAIG. thank you for recognizing our RIGHTS.

I like your mayor. MAIG is a false hood and he was right in not joining them.

I support MAIG and ask Inks to please reconsider his position.
I against all of these "residents of another community" budding in on our town dialog. Peace to all.

Exactly right SOP, pro-gun trolls are here from other communities. They hunt for such discussion boards, bu they are grossly out of step with the residents of Mtn View.

A nationwide PEW poll in May found 81% support universal background checks, while only 17% were against measures that would enforce background checks for both private purchases of guns and transactions made at conventions.

These numbers are even more skewed in progressive city like Mountain View.

In Mountain View, we strongly support universal background checks and want to close the Gun Show Loophole in ALL states, so these guns don't find their way back into our community.

Let the trolls flame on.

@Tom,

Can you tell me how many people that study polled? I ask because that popular argument for gun control, "90% of Americans favor more gun control", only polled approximately 1700 people across the country. Hardly representative, would you no agree? I looked through that ENTIRE article, to be fair to you. Who knows, maybe you were right, and I would learn something today. But absolutely nowhere in the article does it say how many people were polled. Did they truly poll 314 million people across the US?

If you and the city are so progressive, I simply cannot understand why you are so intolerant towards gun owners.

I've lived in Mountain View on and off since 1986 and went to high school at MVHS. I'm so proud of Mayer Inks and my hometown. Thank you for not joining MAIG. Bloomberg wants to make all guns illegal. Thank you Mayer Inks for standing on the side of freedom and civil rights for all.

if only the "libertarians" and t-baggers would just own up and exist off the "grid". we all pay for shared services-they want to just "be free" and crap in the backyard. so just do it already. they're not novel they are just selfish numbskulls who hate. to prove the point try this-try to infuriate a smart individual by calling him or her "stupid or ignorant" now try the same action on a tea bagger and watch the response. better yet mention the need for affordable health care and watch the beginnings of apoplexy. but if they do have a stroke don't call a taxpayer funded ambulance, let them be free at last!

@robert, a resident of another community

Thank God you don't live in our city. What a rambling piece of nonsense.

Please flame on, all of you, and invite your NRA friends to post here too!

The more light we shine on this issue the more difficult it will be to re-elect John Inks.

Can we all just get back to banning plastic bags, smoking in public and Chik-Fil-whatever-its-called?

I live in Mt. View. I am in my late-20s. My wife works in the start up world. Looking at the CV's of our lives, we fit the stereotypical "liberal", "yuppy", etc descriptions typically imposed on my demographic in the bay area. I am very proud of the fact that we've worked hard and have money. I apologize for none of it.

I will also not apologize for being a very pro-2A citizen. I am an owner of multiple semi-automatic rifles and handguns. I purchase my guns by the law, and will follow any future Ca laws.

However, bravo to a local representative who follows his beliefs. It is my opinion, based on numerous scientific studies (and yes I read them not just the highlights on CNN), that if existing laws were enforced that gun violence would decrease. No new laws are needed.

Whats needed is funding for prosecution of background check violators, collection of firearms from mentally ill people, additional regulation on violent video games, and everyone to take a step back and put it in perspective.

343 people were murdered by long guns in 2010 (FBI statistic)
50,000 people died from infections they caught in a hospital (CDC number)
10,000 people died from drunk driving accidents in 2010 (NHTSA number)

If you want to stop the loss of life, take a step back and ask whether you're really focusing on the appropriate issue. I think you'll find that whatever you're belief on firearms, its not the biggest killer of any group of people in the US...let alone Mt View.

[Correction]
I apologize, its actually listed as:
358 by Rifle
1704 by knife
540 by Blunt Object
745 by Personal weapons (fists, feet,etc)
Web Link

I bring up the 358 number because some of those types of rifles used are those that Bloomberg's group is currently lobbying to ban/regulate into an effective ban.

Why jump on the Mayor for using common sense and having the courage to NOT jump on the easy train of blaming guns for the much bigger problems that our society has. Those of you that think the "guns" are the problem are very simply minded.

As a strong supporter of our 2A rights I too support Mayor John Inks' decision on his opposition on joining Bloomberg's group.

I will never understand how an instrument of death equates with freedom. I feel less safe in Mountain View due to Mayor Ink's decision.

Way to go! I was shocked (in a good way) when I read this story. As a Palo Alto Resident, I would ask that you please consider annexing Palo Alto.
Gun control is about as successful as drug control or illegal immigration control. I for one am dead set against violence of any form. I am for kindness and compassion. Help heal the communities plagued by violence. I hope its not too late for this generation, but maybe people can come up with solutions to save the next generation from the cycle of poverty, violence, gangs and hopelessness.

Mountain view resident here.

Proud gun owner. Supporter of Mayor Ink's decision NOT to join. A hate group.

A hate group in any group that unfairly attack any minority group for their lifestyle or opinions.

MAIG is a hate group plain and simple. They use misinformation, intimidation, and lies against gun owners to jam their propoganda on the country. This is why many mayors are abandoning that org.

Regardless of your views on gun control, Inks is right not to join these people.

JC:

The primary objective of the MAIG is to require background checks for every gun sale in the US. Seems simple enough, and supported by a vast majority of Americans: close the Gun Show Loophole.

If you support the Gun Show Loophole, perhaps you can provide a 2A based reason that requiring background checks on all gun sales is unconstitutional.

If you can, then I will gladly ask John Ilks if he agrees with his supporter the next time he knocks on my door.

I applaud the Mayor. I think if we're being honest, the term "Mayor's Against Illegal Guns" is somewhat idiotic. Of course all Mayor's are against anything that's illegal. The group "Mayor's Against Illegal Guns" is actually against "All Guns". I'm not sure how that is viewed as "common sense".

As an elected official, I think the Mayor made an educated decision that many other Mayors across the country already have. This group is nothing more than another anti-gun group that is attempting to reclassify legal guns as illegal. Nothing more. Nothing less. Good job Mayor, for calling a spade, a spade!

I wonder how many here calling for "gun control" are for arming lunatic Muslim rebels in Syria?

But their dear leader wants it!!

Ironic.

Thank you Mr. Inks for using reason and distancing yourself from the farce that is MAIG. Bloomberg, you think you can just buy support?

A little history on anti gun Bloomberg and his "Posse" of Mayors against the 2nd amendment rights of Americans:
THE GODFATHER AND HIS GUN GRABBING GANG
1] Sheila Dixon, Baltimore, Md- Convicted of perjury and embezzling funds meant for charity!
2] Richard Corkley, Coaldale, Pa- Convicted of child pornography and bail violations!
3] Frank Melton, Jackson, Ms- Convicted of violating his own cities gun possession law!
4] Larry Langford, Birmingham, Al- convicted of 60 counts of bribery, fraud & tax evasion!
5] Gary Becker, Racine, Wi- Convicted of attempted child molestation and luring a child for
illicit purposes!
6] David Donna, Guttenberg, Nj- Convicted of extortion and tax fraud!
7] Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit, Mi- Convicted of assault on a police officer and perjury!
8] Pat M. Ahumada Jr, Brownsville, Tx- Arrested 3 times for driving while intoxicated!
9] Roosevelt Dorn, Inglewood, Ca- Pled guilty to public corruption and embezzlement
charges!
10] Tony Mack, Trenton, Nj- Recently charged for accepting $119,000 in bribes!
11] Adam Bradley, White plains, Ny- Convicted of domestic violence charges!
12] Buddy Cianci, Providence, Ri- Convicted of assault and racketeering!
13] Gordon Jenkins, Monticello, Ny- Pled guilty on 5 counts of trademark counterfeiting!
14] April Almond, East Haven, Ct- Arrested and charged with interfering with a police officer!
15] Eddie Perez, Hartford, Ct- Convicted of bribery and extortion!
16] Will Wynn, Austin, Tx- Convicted of assault!
17] Samuel Rivera, Passdale, Nj- Convicted of extortion and accepting bribes!
18] Jeremiah Healy, Jersey City, Nj- Convicted of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest!

Thank you for standing up for Civil Rights. I wish they were important to more Politicians.

Dear Mayor Inks,

Thank you for refusing to join Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It takes a large measure of fortitude to stand fast against tides of panic and "feel good" responses to complex issues.

I'm not one of your constituents, yet I do a fair amount of business in Mountain View - and I'l continue to do so, knowing that it's Mayor is more concerned with liberty than with labels.

Thanks pterodactyl, interesting list, and actually relevant here, since we should agree none of the 18 listed with felony convictions or violent crimes should be allowed to legally possess a firearm.

In CA, we just passed a law that will allow law enforcement to confiscate weapons from people with new felony convictions. See how that works? We are starting a data base for people not allowed to have guns. This is an example of closing a loophole.

Another thing we can all agree on, as responsible gun owners (myself included), is that background checks are required for all gun sales to keep weapons from criminals, and those prone to violence, I.e., terrorists. The Gun Show Loophole must be closed.

I don't think anyone is against ILLEGAL guns. If that was what this group was about, every mayor should be a member. The fact is, this is a group that is against ALL guns, including ones owned LEGALLY by law abiding citizens. Shame on those who joined this group without truly understanding it's intent and purpose.

Now now Howard, you certainly don't believe that Mayor Frank Melton of Jackson MS wants to do away with all guns do you? After all he was convicted of violating his own city's gun laws!

Don't be scared now. If you, Howard, resident of another community, are a law abiding citizen and have undergone a proper background check, will be legally allowed to possess a firearm.

What the group aims to do is require background checks for gun sales. Very simple. Now do you all feel better?

Thanks John inks for standing up for our 2and rights keep it up don't let's this losers tell you otherwise.
All acts of gun violence are commited by criminals, the mentally ill, gang bangers etc, NOT law abidin gun owner
So no laws will ever had stop what already happend criminals don't care about ur laws they will find a way.

Tom:

Your statement that their goal is simply to close the "gun show loophole" is not correct. Please read the following link:
Web Link

The fourth carrot in their mission statement is to "keep military-style weapons off our streets". These "military-style" weapons are exactly the kind that I described in the statistics I listed.

In addition I would like to highlight that this news article is about Mr. Inks. Well, Mr. Inks represents Mt View, CA. The city of Mountain View is governed by the gun laws of California. The gun laws of California state that EVERY sale or transfer of a firearm requires a background check (with very few exceptions of immediate family). Therefore, there is NO "gun show loophole" in this state, or the city of Mountain View. So quite frankly its none of Mr. Inks business what the rest of the country does. He's not getting paid to represent them. He's getting paid to represent Mt. View residents and has no place involving himself in how another city may choose to govern its citizens.

Google "MAIG member arrested".

Mr Mayor, Thank you and congratulations standing behind our second amendment rights. If MAIG was against illegal guns, I would not have as much of a problem as I do because their goal is to make all guns illegal.

Those of you with very short memories probably don't recall the story last week about a homeowner protecting his family by shooting 3 armed criminals in a home invasion attempt.

JC: I've repeatedly stated that the Gun Show Loophole is a nationwide problem that needs to be solved in each and every state, not just CA. Or else the guns will make it here, so our politicians need to think outside of their own cities/states. The guns in NYC come from other states.

JC you seems like a law abiding gun owner. Welcome to MV.

Great Job Mayor!!! Need more like you

I've been in MV a while, so thanks for the welcoming, but I've considered myself a resident for years.

As far as "the guns in NYC come from other states", do you have any single statistic to back that up? Please site using a webpage as I have. Quite frankly, I'm not sure I believe your statement. I would guess that the main source of illegal firearms in NYC is from thefts of firearms during things like home invasions and robberies.

You are entitled to your opinion about this "gun show loophole". I am entitled to mine. The difference is I have never seen a single legitimate statistic that shows that this exists. In fact I know numerous gun shop owners and people who sell guns at gun shows, none of them have ever said there's a "loophole". Every single one of them abides by whatever the local and state background check laws are.

I think he should join as a show of support for ending gun violence. No one should own guns except for the Police.


Ban calguns

JC: you are entitled to you own opinion, but not your own facts. I must say though, you know more gun shop owners than I do.

See here for a list of states and their gun show background check requirements:

Web Link

JC, see this link regarding Virginia Gun Show Loophole. When there is a gun used in a crime in NYC, there's a good chance it came from Virginia. See, now you are knowledgable about this important issue!

Web Link

Direct quote from your news story
"Federal investigators say Virginia gun shows COULD be a major factor."

Doesn't sound like concrete evidence to me.

Your main objection to Mr. Inks not joining MAIG was because of this "loophole" issue. Now that you know the MAIG is after more than that, do you think its reasonable he didn't join because perhaps he didn't agree with one of their other goals?

I don't think it is reasonable for the mayor of Mtn View to be against closing the Gun Show Loophole nationwide, or any of the positions taken by MAIg. Sorry, as I have stated, he is out of step with the voters of Mountain View. Maybe not you, JC, but a vast majority.

You have yet to present an argument based in any statistics. No surprise that our debate will end in yet another unsubstantiated claim that the "majority", I'm sorry "vast majority", feels he should have joined.

Good luck in your quest to impose additional restrictions on law abiding gun owners. It will do nothing for public safety, that Mr Inks and I certainly agree on.

SOP, et al,

Last night you suggested that people who are not residents of MV ought to keep out of this discussion. And yet you want the MV mayor to respond to the misleading petition of a mayor 3000 miles away. Do you realize how ludicrous that sounds?

More to the point, I see why you would object to all this talk by outsiders were we discussing strictly a Mountain View matter, but we’re not. This gun control madness affects us all equally.

Mayor Inks is doing the right thing. To bad the other Mayors are just followers.

The cops having AR-15s scare me more than the Mayor not going along with the MAIG people. I have little respect for the Mt. View police and certainly no trust.

THAT is why I need a gun! You never know what the Departmental thugs will do.

Good going Mayor you did the right thing. Now clean up the police Dept.

I support Mayor Inks- Bloomberg needs to stay out of our local politics. We already have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

Great job Mayor Inks, thanks for seeing through the Bloomberg facade and not joining this organization of ill repute. The recipe for solving violent crime is easy:

Increase access to and quality of education
Increase penalties for violent criminals, especially if they're gang members

JC, perhaps you need to understand politics in MV. Begin by googling Anna Eshoo, since she represents you in congress.

Check out her margin of victory and her stand on gun control. Educate yourself, don't be willfully ignorant.

Thank you Mayor! For standing with the law abiding citizens and Constitution of the United States, against those who would strip our rights from us. I applaud you! And I wish that other politicians would uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, instead of constantly attempting chip away at our rights by drafting "feel good", "do nothing" legislation for their own political agenda.

"Willfully ignorant"...and there is it. Back an anti into a corner with facts and logical arguments and eventually they'll resort to name calling and illogical statements.

Tom I am educated and based on all of your posts it's clear you are not.

Again. Good luck on your quest to trample my rights. Congress already said no once, they'll say no again.

Good call. Who would want to be associated with Michael Bloomberg?

It's nice to see at least one CA mayor standing up against our corporate masters who wish most urgently to disarm the serfs.

It is amazing how a big industry can make so many people so stupid that they do not see what their own real interests are.

And how well the internet serves the yahoos that (don't) think alike and brings them together into an echo chamber. They hear themselves, and think that the whole world thinks like them. They hear each other repeat the same nonsens an convince themselves that it must be the absolute thruth.

The mayor should lead them back to Oklahoma.

I think you are out of touch with reality like anna eshow is. I think when you say mass majority you are thinking of the other politicians that are out of touch with the people. If you think taking away the guns of law abiding citizens will solve the gun violence, then you are really out of touch with reality, living in a fantasy.

Therefor we need to throw these lifetime politicians like anna eshoo out in the next elections.

Whether or not he supports this issue, John Inks is still not a very good mayor.

"Criminals do NOT follow existing laws,how will new laws change that?"

They could hold accountable an otherwise law-abiding citizen that stores a firearm such that it could be easily stolen or accessed by a child.

Hey Tom,

He live in a Republic. This is not a democracy.

What you are describing is mob rule.

But don't let that stop. Shine on you crazy diamond.

Steve,

You do know that that is already against the law, don't you?

Craig

Free men can own guns, slaves can not.

On April 19, 1775, long before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolutionary War started. the legendary "shot that was heard round the world" happened when British troops tried "gun grabbing" from American colonists at Lexington. Our country was founded on the principle of preventing gun confiscation. If we lose our right to bear arms, we have already lost our freedom.

The Concord Hymn
by Ralph Waldo Emerson

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

I'm a resident of Woodside (near Mountain View) and I applaud Inks.

All law-abiding gun owners are also against 'illegal' guns.


@ Steve who said: "They could hold accountable an otherwise law-abiding citizen that stores a firearm such that it could be easily stolen or accessed by a child."

A citizen that stores a firearm such that it can be accessed by a child is already breaking laws. CA Penal Code Section 25200-25225.

As far as being 'easily stolen', perhaps you mean by not locking your home or not hiding it? It sounds like you are attempting to criminalize someone for being the victim of a crime.

It's actually Mayor's Against Legal Guns. There's nothing illegal about anything that they are trying to push for.

Seriously - what part of going to a gun store to be put through DROS with a check, waiting 10 days (cuz that's how Kalifornia rolls) and picking it up, is illegal? Or the choice to own an AR-15 - was the gun illegal to begin with?

Why aren't the policies instated say something like - we will fund the local police department to go into the places where we know gangbangers and crime-committing villains with guns are, and raid the place.

But instead you have these soft, mushy, feel-good that you did something legislations like, "oh, all citizens must go through a universal background check and registration of weapons" that actually don't do anything other than throw more red tape on the people who are OK with playing by the rules?

Good job mayor, wish there were more of you in this Constitution forsaken state

You made the right choice, Mayor Inks:

Web Link
Web Link
Web Link
Web Link

I applaud any mayor willing to think for themselves and their communities, while not bending over to the will of a man known to use his personal wealth to push an agenda that the people whom elected him may not want.

Pushing against outside influence is hard, and I support this man for doing it, particularly when supporting the Second Amendment rights of his citizens.

Thank you.

When your children ask you in years to come "why can I not( own a gun to )protect myself and my family" just think of Bloomberg , laughing in the background , as his armed bodyguards bring him his wine. ps by then you will not be drinking wine because Bloomberg will have outlawed alcohol. Downward slope.
Wake up fools and stop giving away YOUR RIGHTS.

I support John Inks on this.

"I've repeatedly stated that the Gun Show Loophole is a nationwide problem that needs to be solved in each and every state, not just CA."

LOL

Not a lot of gangstas or bank robbers at gun shows.

Instead of getting your info from HuffPo, try actually going to a gun show and talk to the people there.

I applaud Irks for not using emotion to dictate his decision and using "Common Sense" in realizing that haphazardly accusing people and tools for something that they have not done and will not do makes zero sense.

MAIG is an organization that is tugging on the heart strings of emotion and completely lack all common sense and sensitivity. Kudos to you Mayor Irks.

MAIG is just another anti-gun Bloomberg group that tries to bully communities into passing gun regulations that they otherwise would never have considered. Lots of politics and very little crime prevention. If he doesn't want to join them good for him.

MAIG is Bloomberg's group that tries to bribe or bully politicians into passing gun regulations that they otherwise would never have considered.

Remember MAIG is not opposed to illegal guns, they are opposed to all guns, and the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights...

Very good Mr. Mayor!

MAIG is Bloomberg's group that tries to bribe or bully politicians into passing gun regulations that they otherwise would never have considered.

Remember MAIG is not opposed to illegal guns, they are opposed to all guns, and the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights...

Very good Mr. Mayor!

Dear Mayor Inks,
I greatly admire your courage in the face of political bullying.
Please continue to stand firm in defending my right to keep and bear arms.
Sincerely,
John Q. Gun Owner

MAIG aka Majors Against Legal Guns.
They are anti self defense organization.

For those that have brought up the 'gunshow loophole'.

Hopefully you do realize that this has nothing to do with gunshows and instead it's private party sales which in most states do not require a background check.

HOWEVER in California, ALL sales including private party must go through a licensed firearms dealer and requires a background check and DROS (Dealer Record of Sale).

I really wish that all people that took a stance on this issue knew the facts and the laws. Unfortunately it's very obvious that this is not the case. And that's one thing the politicians that have a personal agenda are really betting on.

Guys, after careful consideration, I am changing my stance on MAIG. I now see it for the bully group that it is and now believe that Mayor Inks did the right thing. Thank you Mayor for properly representing the great people of Mountain View.

Mayor Bloomberg is the same man who lost the decision to nanny-state what people drink, i.e.; soda. Does he not have anything better to do?
However, given that NY is now in the top 5 states for violent crime I would say that he needs to work on gang relations not honest abiding citizens.
I applaud Mayor Inks for having a brain and using it. Joining the 1,000 group will do NADDA to fight crime, but those that are a non-gun owner will certainly make a big deal of it.

Thank you Mayor Inks for your support of the law abiding citizens of Mountain View. Consider me a supporter for any future public office you seek. Our Cities, States, and Country need more patriots like yourself.

I am not a resident of MV, but I too applaud Mayor Inks' stance on this issue.

I fully understand people's frustration with violent crime, but what people who don't own guns don't get is that gun owners have nothing to do with these crimes.

Would you support registering Muslims because of 9/11? Would you have supported the internment of Japanese Americans because of Pearl Harbor? If not, why are you blaming me and other gun owners for an act we reject as wholeheartedly as you do?

If a person breaks the law, sets a house on fire and kills several people, it is because he was a bad person. However, if he killed the same number of people using a gun, suddenly it is the fault of all 60M gun owners in this country.

For me, it is not as much about rights as it is about justice. If you're going to blame us for Newtown, you are no better than the people who blamed Japanese-Americans for Pearl Harbor.

Well Done Mayor Inks! Its refreshing to see someone who is not a sycophant to Bloomber's agenda.

Yes, Mayor Inks we need more guns so we can have more action. Second amendment rights trump a persons right to live. We should all walk around carrying assault weapons of our choice. Then, we need a stand your ground law so we can kills those who frighten us.

For Example:

May 10, 2011
San Jose, California Three people were killed in a parking garage at San Jose State University. Two former students were found dead on the fifth floor of the garage. A third, the suspected shooter, died later at the hospital.

Dec. 8, 2011
Blacksburg, Virginia A Virginia Tech police officer was shot and killed by a 22-year old student of Radford University. The shooting took place in a parking lot on Virginia Tech's campus.

Feb. 10, 2012
Walpole, New Hampshire A 14-year-old student shot himself in front of 70 fellow students.

Feb. 27, 2012
Chardon, Ohio At Chardon High School, a former classmate opened fire, killing three students and injuring six. Arrested shortly after the incident, the shooter said that he randomly picked students.

March 6, 2012
Jacksonville, Florida Shane Schumerth, a 28-year-old teacher at Episcopal High School, returned to the campus after being fired and shot and killed the headmistress, Dale Regan, with an assault rifle.

April 2, 2012
Oakland, Calif. One Goh, a 43-year-old former student at Oikos University, a Christian school populated by mostly Korean and Korean-Americans, opened fire on the campus, killing seven people and wounding several others.

July 20, 2012
Aurora, Colo. During a midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises, a gunman opens fire on the crowded theater. At least 12 people are killed and 38 others are wounded. The suspect, James Holmes, set off a smoke device in the front of the theater before opening fire. Directly after the incident, Holmes, age 24, was arrested in a parking lot behind the theater.

August 5, 2012
Oak Creek, Wis. A gunman opens fire at a Sikh temple, killing six people and wounding three. Police shot and killed the suspect, Wade Michael Page, after the attack. Page, a neo-Nazi, served in the U.S. Army from 1992 to 1998.

December 11, 2012
Portland, Ore. Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22, opened fire in the Clackamas Town Center mall, located 11 miles from downtown Portland, Oregon. Using an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle, Roberts killed two people and wounded one other. He then took his own life.

December 14, 2012
Newtown, Conn. Adam Lanza, 20, killed 20 children and six others at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. He killed his mother, Nancy, at her home prior to the massacre at the school. Lanza committed suicide after the rampage. The shooting was the second deadliest in U.S. history, behind the 2007 shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute that claimed 32 people.

September 16, 2013
Washington, DC Former Navy reservist Aaron Alexis, 34, killed 12 people at the Washington Navy Yard, near the U.S. Capitol. He was killed in a shootout with police. Alexis was employed at the base by a military subcontractor.

As seen from abroad, the mass shooting, apparently by a lone gunman, appeared part of a new American normal, a byproduct of a treasured gun culture that largely mystifies those living beyond U.S. borders.

Foreigners are aware of the grim list of the sites of recent U.S. massacres: Virginia Tech; Fort Hood, Tex.; Aurora, Colo.; Oak Creek, Wis.; Newtown, Conn. — and now, Washington, D.C. And with gun laws little changed after the earlier killings, many said they fully expect the list to grow.

In China, people commenting on Weibo, a local version of Twitter, reiterated the widespread international view of U.S. gun laws as quixotic and potentially lethal.

“It's time [for the U.S.] to control guns,” posted one user.

Mayor Inks,

You are right we need more guns. That will keep funeral parlors very busy.

In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported

Hand guns figured in the Virginia Tech shootings, Binghamton massacre, Fort Hood massacre, Oikos University shooting, and 2011 Tucson shooting. Assailants with multiple weapons committed the Aurora theater shooting, and the Columbine High School massacre.

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.

I'm glad that my mayor refuses to join this group. This group has no interest in saving lives, reducing crime, or keeping our cities safe. Their agenda exists only to strip American citizens of their rights. The members of this group are the mayors of some of the most violent and crime-ridden cities in the United States. I don't think that our fair city belongs with a group like that.

Don't forget this group considers terrorists and mass murderers victims of gun violence if they met their demise from police gunfire...Like Chris Dorner and Tamerlin Tsarnaev...who actually didn't die from gunshots but are on still their list...google their list.

I don't think either side in this argument will ever convince the other side to come over. The way forward therefore consists of mobilizing all the people who already believe as we do (and we are the majority, the huge majority) to get organized and demand action. That's what's happening! Every mass shooting, every child killed by stray bullet, reinforces our determination. The spokeswoman for the hospital in Washington DC was only supposed to report on the condition of the Navy Yard shooting victims, but she spontaneously said it, not trying to start a controversy, not as an advocate, just as someone sick and tired of seeing this kind of thing: Something is wrong in our country, and we have to work together to fix it. That's what the Mayors Against Illegal Guns are saying too. Mayor Inks was asked to help move forward; he has declined.

From this morning's Mercury News:

Navy Yard shooter latest in series of servicemen booted from military but still able to buy guns - By Josh Richman - jrichman@bayareanewsgroup.com


They were deemed unfit to continue serving in the military -- yet nothing stopped Washington Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis and a series of other former servicemen from buying guns as civilians before going on rampages in the last 14 months.

Alexis, the Navy Yard shooter, walked into a Virginia gun shop last week, passed an instant federal background check and legally bought a Remington 870 -- similar to the pump-action 12-gauge shotgun he'd been taught to use in the Navy. It didn't matter that he had been kicked out of the service in January 2011 for "a pattern of misconduct" including a gun incident.

Feb. 26, 2013 — Jeremy Goulet, 35, shoots and kills two Santa Cruz police officers investigating a groping allegation against him. Goulet had joined the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve in 1998 and was trained as a helicopter mechanic and police officer but quit an officer-candidate program in 2000 after two citations in peeping-tom cases; he was discharged in 2002. He joined the U.S. Army in 2004 and was trained as a Blackhawk helicopter pilot, but while serving in Hawaii was accused of raping two female officers. His 2006 court martial could’ve put him in prison for life, but instead ended with a plea deal including an other-than-honorable discharge. He later served two years behind bars in Oregon for a 2007 peeping-tom case in which he carried a firearm.

Aug. 31, 2012 — Terence Tyler, 23, shoots and kills two of his co-workers and then himself at a grocery store in Old Bridge, N.J. A U.S. Marine Corps spokeswoman said Tyler had joined in March 2008, was trained as a rifleman and was stationed at Twentynine Palms before being discharged in February 2010 as a lance corporal. The Marines won’t comment on his discharge. Family members said he was discharged after suffering from depression, having never gotten over his mother’s 2007 death.

Aug. 5, 2012 — Wade Michael Page, 40, kills six and wounds four in a mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisc., before being wounded by a police officer and then killing himself. Page was a white supremacist who had served in the U.S. Army from 1992 through 1998, learning to repair the Hawk missile system and then working as a psychological operations specialist. He was demoted, given added duties and fined for drunkenness on duty and going absent without leave. He later received a general discharge for “patterns of misconduct.”

Thank you Mayor Inks for your support for the people of your city. As a former resident of Mtn View, I commend your stance of refusal to submit to the bully otherwise known as Mayor Bloomberg. Thank you.

As for all the haters/low information responders to this thread, you should do some research into "gun" crime. In CA, we already have an Universal Background Check in place (yet criminals STILL have access to firearms, how can that be!!? OMG!!), there is NO gunshow loophole (if you think a 200 people sample is representative of ACCURACY when the USofA has 300M people, then you need to submit yourself back to a high school statistic course.).

Fact: majority of the firearms used to commit a crime are not LEGALLY purchased.
So how will an universal background check address this?

Likewise, how does your emotionally driven "common sense" trump my right as an individual to choose how to pursue life, liberty, and happiness? Allow me to tell you, it doesn't. Your right and my right are the same. If you don't like guns, please don't buy one. I wouldn't trust YOU with one either.

Why we need more assault weapons:


Chicago police: Assault-style rifle used in attack
By CARLA K. JOHNSON and HERBERT G. MCCANN, Associated Press
CHICAGO (AP) —

Those behind a late-night attack at a southwest Chicago park in which 13 people were wounded, including a 3-year-old, used an assault-style weapon to spray the crowd with bullets, making it "a miracle" no one was killed, the city's police superintendent said Friday.

Ballistics evidence shows that those behind Thursday night's attack used a 7.62 mm rifle fed by a high-capacity magazine, police Superintendent Garry McCarthy told reporters. That type of weapon, he said, belongs on a "battlefield, not on the street or a corner or a park in the Back of the Yards," the neighborhood where the shooting took place.

"It's a miracle in this instance that there have been no fatalities based upon the lethality of the weapon used at the scene," McCarthy said, calling on lawmakers to restrict the sale of such weapons and choke off the flow of illegal guns into the city.

Good on you, Mayor Inks! Bloomberg's actual goal is not the eradication of "illegal guns," it's the eradication of "all guns" by making them illegal. The citizens of Mountain View have an intrinsic right to armed self-defense, and your declining to join MAIG only reinforces that right. Bravo!

Why does he need to join a group to show that he is against illegal guns?

Can't you see that EVERYONE is against illegal guns (except for criminals of course. Mayors against illegal guns set out to make legal guns illegal to get rid of them all.

Mayor Ink, I'm happy to finally see someone with a backbone.

To state that laws regulating the sale and possession of legally purchased semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines will make a dent in the tragic results of gun violence in this country is disingenuous at best. All rifles combined (not just those assigned the 'assault weapon' label) are responsible for less than 5% of gun-related murders and about 3% of all murders. More than 4 times as many are murdered with knives, and more than twice as many are beaten or bludgeoned to death. Lets at least be honest about it, current calls for gun control are just thinly veiled calls for a repeal of the 2nd amendment. Kudos to Mayor Inks for standing on principle.

Kudos to Mayor Inks. He does represent this MV resident. I am glad that our mayor is using logic rather than emotion to drive his decision.

In each of the recent incidents of mass killings in the US (Aurora, Newtown, the DC shipyard), our more liberal politicians have taken the opportunity to attempt to further their agenda of removing guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens. What they seem to be oblivious to is the fact that in each of these cases, the shooter was MENTALLY ILL. THAT is the real problem, yet they ignore it.

Timothy McVeigh didn't need a gun to murder anyone in Oklahoma City. No one at the most recent Boston Marathon was killed with a gun. The extremists that murdered 3000 of our fellow Americans just over 12 years ago didn't need to construct a weapons of any kind to do it. Yet the hundreds who died in these attacks are no less unjustly dead. Why are they less important?

There is NO evidence that banning weapons will have any effect at all in any of these cases. What could help is treating these sick people, most who have had long histories of mental illness BEFORE their murder sprees, rather than disarming law-abiding citizens. The real link in these killings is mental illness, not guns. There will be no solution until the REAL cause is addressed.

Stop focusing on taking guns away from people who are NOT dangerous and start focusing on treating the mental illness of the people who ARE dangerous.

This is one of those issues that seems to really divide people. Either they are on one side or the other, there's really no middle ground.

But I still feel that it is part of a mayor's duty to represent their constituents, and I didn't see anywhere that the mayor had solicited anyone's opinion, he simply responded in a way that reflects HIS beliefs. Even if I agreed with the mayor's position, which I don't, I don't feel like he represents me.

JimA,

There's nothing Mayor Inks could have done that would have been right in someone's eyes. It's somewhat similar to the old impossible question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" What do you say, yes or no? If Mayor Inks signs the petition some people will be happy. If he doesn't sign it other people will be happy. What's the poor guy to do?

It's a shame the petition started in the first place. The only thing it did was put thousands of mayors around the country in a lose-lose situation, cause them and their town's folks mental anguish and unnecessary bickering, and end up not doing a darned thing.

Please change one word in the above post: "There's nothing Mayor Inks could have done that would have been right in EVERYONE'S eyes."

Ah, me, no matter how many times you proof something... :-)

Thank you to Mayor Inks, who is Pro People and Pro Rights for standing up to MAIG.

Mayor Inks saw through Bloombergs fog of ignorance by calling it that. All people except for criminals are against illegal guns. MAIG is trying to outlaw legal firearms owned by good citizens whose rights are protected under the 2nd Amendment.

They should be renamed "Mayors Against Constitutional Guarantees", then people would understand their position better.

If they can tear down the rights of the 2nd Amendment, then the other rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution are sure to fall as well.

Bloomberg already has shown himself to be an elitist, believing that citizens cannot make choices for themselves. Thus he has instituted and tried instituting various bans on such items as polystyrene foam, sodas over 16 ounces, outdoor smoking, alcohol advertisements, salt, and trans fats in cooking oil. Bloomberg does not support peoples right to decide, instead he feels that he needs to protect the citizenry from itself. That is not freedom, that is oppression.

Bravo to Mayor Inks for seeing this group for the phony ideals it purports to support!

Thank you, oldabelincoln!
This is not about stripping people of their guns, but limiting guns 'with high rates of fire' & other common sense fixes to existing legislation. It won't stop all the senseless killing, but MAIG is a responsible & substantive stand for mayors to take.
Mayor Inks should join them.

Why does Mr. Inks refuse the Voice's request for an interview? Why does he refuse to even meet briefly to hear from gun control advocates? I want a more open discussion of gun control issues with the mayor and hope the Voice will contact Mr. Inks again for a comprehensive article on the subject, not just a few sentences taken from email messages. As it stands now it looks like Mr. Inks is not confident enough of his opinions to speak in public and likely made his decision just to please the gun lobby.

@Alison

Mayor Inks' position on 2nd amendment rights is irrelevant in his position as mayor. It is not his job as mayor to spend time on issues that are not pertinent at a local level. Firearms laws are made at a State and Federal level. Local authorities are not responsible for these laws.

That said, he has made his view clear, an interview would be a waste of time and simply fodder for the hack journalists at the Voice to manipulate his words into anti second amendment "news".

As I have also said several times in this thread, it would be inappropriate for the mayor to join ANY organization utilizing his title of mayor, when it does not represent the interest of the city or its residents. Doing so would be a violation of the City Council Code of Conduct.

What don't people get here? It's all quite clear. Some facts for you.

Mayor Inks is a Libertarian.
Mayor Inks. Supports 2nd amendment rights.
Mayor Inks will not join MAIG.

Get over it and let him worry about other CITY issues like how to keep GOOGLE and PROMETHEUS from ruining Mountain View.

@JC: I can help you understand local politics in Mountain View a bit. First of all, John Inks is not representative of Mtn View, but that's OK, since he is only a temporary mayor anyway, whose 1-year term is up in January. We will push his scheduled replacement to support MAIG. For a clearer picture, please refer to our representative in congress Eshoo, who was elected by a 2:1 margin.

You see JC, like most Mtn View residents, Anna Eshoo supports expanding the background check system for all gun sales. Don't worry, she is not out to confiscate your weapons. She and Mike Thompson (D-CA05) have co-sponsored legislation that is "pro-gun owner, pro-second Amendment, and anti-crime"

More than 9 in 10 Americans support the idea of universal background checks for purchasing firearms, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.

Eshoo and Thompson support numerous bills to reduce gun violence, including H.R. 1565, the King-Thompson/Manchin-Toomey bipartisan compromise to expand the current background check system to cover commercial sales at gun shows, over the Internet and in classified ads.

The residents of Mtn View support closing the Gun Show Loophole.

JIC you don't know how to use the Google:

Web Link

@ psr,

No one wants to take away all guns.

Pistols, rifles and shotguns are great for target shooting
Hunting rifles are O.K.
Pistols to defend yourself are O.K.
However, assault rifles have only one purpose - killing others They should be restricted to the military (the militia) and not carried around by everyone.

Mayor Inks, with his swelled head, thinks that he speaks for everyone in Mountain View. The truth is that he doesn’t give a rat’s a__ about anyone but himself.

@JC: two other relevant facts about MV politics: vice-mayor Chris Clark will become mayor in January. He is a Democrat, like most residents, and was endorsed by Rep Eshoo.

I cannot believe that, "Mountain View Mayor John Inks has declined a request to join a coalition of over 1,000 mayors across the country that want gun law reforms."

We have to curb violence in our communities, and this is a good start.

Would those people who believe that John Inks is against proper controls and upholding of our existing laws please check out what MAIG stands for before they preach to us all.
Your simple minded approach is what drives reasonable minded people MAD MAD MAD !

ps Non gun owner

Hi Rob, thanks for your comment. I don't know if John Inks wants to close the Gun Show Loophole or not. But a proper gun control measure would require expanded background checks to cover all commercial sales of all gun sales nationwide. Do you think Mayor Inks would support that reasonable and proper gun control?

I wouldn't support the total banning of personal weapons but would support gun control that is reasonable and with some common sense. I don't know why we need AK 47's or one of those weapons for mass killing, or something the military would have in their arsenal.

Mayors against gun violence. Now I think that is what the mayor and the city would support. A little gun control is OK, gun checks are fine, better weapons training would go a long way.

Most important better mental health care for those that are troubled.

@ Tom "I can help you understand local politics in Mountain View a bit. First of all, John Inks is not representative of Mtn. View"

Really? Inks received the most votes of any candidate in the last election. This whole idea is silly because it wont solve a problem or get any legislation passed at the state or federal level. Take a look at large cities that have tried to impose stricter gun laws. Guns travel with people and criminals break laws in these cities.

Look at the CRIMINALS who have signed on to part of this group. I wouldn't want to be a part of it if I was Inks

Is there a "gun show loophole" in california? If so, please explain it. Good luck.

Inks and Kasperzak each got more than 12,000 votes. Inks got 40 more. His personal views on guns are very likely not what folks considered when voting for him. If groups like MAIG cannot force simple changes in National Gun Laws, who can? We must have the right to regulate arms, since I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that would grant vehicle licensing to a Humvee with a roof 50-cal. City folks and Country folks have different issues with guns of all kinds, but unless we want security at state lines to search cars for weapons, we need to do something on a national basis. There is no Gun Show Loophole in California, but what about all the states within driving distance. After all, all politics is local, and I would encourage the Mayor to reconsider.

"Guns travel with people and criminals break laws in these cities."

Correct Flava. That is why the Gun Show Loophole needs to be closed in all states, just as it is in California.

Hey Folks! easy peasy answer to Inks' stance. As I told him in a private email to the mayor's office: "I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN"... no matter what office he runs for.
Boy! did that ever get a quick response. He wanted to 'dialogue' but I don't have the time to waste. Gun lovers rationals are the same as with any other addicts. I don't do "co-dependent" behaviors.

Checked the NRA site and found 9 person who committed various crimes, but how many others don't commit crime. I know there are many more who abuse the public trust, steal, lie and cheat which they have to pay the price according to the laws of the land.

Hunters, Ranchers and others in small towns or the country will most likely buy a gun from a store, a local gun show or by legal means. I don't expect massive amounts of gun related crime on a farm or in the back country.

Here is the problem, someone selling weapons on a street or in the back of a car in a major U.S. city. Most likely weapon exchanges are legal, the gun or preferred weapon of choice will end up in the wrong hands. Worse yet will end up just being resold after its use which will be most likely illegal.

Common Sense Gun Control is needed.

"That is why the Gun Show Loophole needs to be closed in all states, just as it is in California."

I'm sure a mayor elected by proxy has lots of control over what other states do.

Another tragic event happened early Saturday morning. A 51-year old husband and father was beaten into a coma by a gang of thugs outside his home. Here's the link:

Web Link

Here, in a matter of seconds, a wife may have lost a husband and kids may have lost a father. A family will never be the same again. And, once they come to their senses, any decent kids that might have been in the gang that beat him will be guilt-ridden for life.

It hurts me to have to write this and it probably hurts you to read it. Because suppose - just suppose - when the wife heard a commotion outside, she walked to the doorway with a shotgun and fired a shot into the air. That would have ended the whole thing right there. Nobody would be hurt. The family would be whole. The gang of teens would have run off or been held for the police. But nobody would have been hurt. And all because of a single shot in the air.

For the past week Mountain View Online and Palo Alto Online have been stirring up emotions by repeatedly running the article about Mountain View’s Mayor Inks refusing to sign a worthless petition by Mayor Bloomberg of New York. And we folks, you and I, have been happily joining in with our various viewpoints. But for me anyway, this beating article changed things, and I started thinking about the hopelessness of what we're doing. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

You can have your "easy peasy answers" and "reasonable and proper gun control", and I can have my "explain to us 'gun nuts' just how gun control would remove guns from the hands of criminals and not just honest folks" and "If Mayor Inks signs the petition some people will be happy. If he doesn't sign it other people will be happy. What's the poor guy to do?" And none of it means a thing. Not a word of what you or I or anyone else said could have prevented this poor soul from being beaten into a coma – perhaps to death. What could have stopped it? What could have prevented so many lives being tragically affected? I've already told you.

A single shot in the air.

Flava, that is a terrible story. It is well documented however, that for every successful use of a firearm to stop a crime there are 22 tragedies where gun misuse causes a death. 22-to-1 are simply not good enough odds for your argument.

The mayor has the power to show some leadership. If he won't, then this January his replacement will.

Thanks.

Tom, you have offered many statements as facts in this discussion, but have yet to back any of them up when challenged. Your reputation is growing, and your "facts" are suspect. Please provide sources and citations for you 22-to-1 claim.

Thanks for your concern Rich.

Every responsible gun owner should read this article:

Web Link

My contribution to the M.V. voice, 9-16-13:

It pains me to say this, but just today we had a terrible shooting spree at Washington Naval Yard. 13 people died. Some of those servicepeople had been to Iraq and Afghanistan. They carried weapons there. But in their own country it was illegal. Result: they died. The death toll might have been higher had not the police killed the gunman. Which brings to mind this adage: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

But it does make me think, "Perhaps the shooter wasn't aware that guns are illegal in the Washington Naval Yard. If he had known, he would have realized that what he was about to do was against the law, and he wouldn't have done it."

Or perhaps he would have thought, "Gosh, all those people are unarmed and defenseless, so I can do what I want without fear of getting stopped or hurt myself".

Comments on the above are welcomed, especially by those who think gun control laws work.

Whether or not you want to have a gun is up to you. But don't try to take away my means of defending my family.


Posted by eric, a resident of another community
2 minutes ago
The NRA is known to aggressively troll message boards over news like this, and they are doing an effective job here.

Mayor Inks' decision to take a pass on a smart initiative in favor of rational gun control looks even more foolish in light of the days events. Mr. Inks, you are an embarrassment to our city. Your tea-party tone deaf views have no place in a highly educated city as ours.

Shame on you.
Hey, Eric,

I was typing my own post and didn't see yours until just now. Please be the first to point out the fallacy in my post.



Eric,

"You gun nuts defend the shooter and their rights time and again after every mass shooting." Where in the world do you get the idea that I and my fellow "gun nuts" are defending the shooter in this case or in any case where innocent people die?

As I understand it in 2004 the shooter had shot out someone's tires in a fit of rage. Later he fired a shot through his ceiling into the apartment of a lady he had had a disagreement with. No charges were filed in either instance. I can't speak for my fellow "gun nuts", but I think there should have been charges for the first incident at least. But some D.A. or judge who I assume wasn't a “gun nut" disagreed. I don't think given his past that he should have been allowed to have a gun. But of course that wouldn't have stopped him, irregardless of all the well-meaning but woefully misguided people out there who think gun control works.

For the record, I lived in Mtn. View for several years back in the early '70s. It was a nice town. And if I still lived there I'd be proud as punch of my mayor.

But, Eric, how about answering my previous post. Instead of just calling names, explain to us "gun nuts" just how gun control would remove guns from the hands of criminals and not just honest folks. Strange as it may seem, we would be just as happy as you if it worked.


Posted by SOP, a resident of Old Mountain View
22 minutes ago
I support MAIG and ask Inks to please reconsider his position.
I against all of these "residents of another community" budding in on our town dialog. Peace to all.


SOP, et al,

Last night you suggested that people who are not residents of MV ought to keep out of this discussion. And yet you want the MV mayor to respond to the misleading petition of a mayor 3000 miles away. Do you realize how ludicrous that sounds?

More to the point, I see why you would object to all this talk by outsiders were we discussing strictly a Mountain View matter, but we’re not. This gun control madness affects us all equally.


Posted by JimA, a resident of Rex Manor
2 minutes ago
This is one of those issues that seems to really divide people. Either they are on one side or the other, there's really no middle ground.

But I still feel that it is part of a mayor's duty to represent their constituents, and I didn't see anywhere that the mayor had solicited anyone's opinion, he simply responded in a way that reflects HIS beliefs. Even if I agreed with the mayor's position, which I don't, I don't feel like he represents me.

==========

JimA,

There's nothing Mayor Inks could have done that would have been right in someone's eyes. It’s similar to the old impossible question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" What do you say, yes or no? If Mayor Inks signs the petition some people will be happy. If he doesn't sign it other people will be happy. What's the poor guy to do?

It's a shame the petition started in the first place. The only thing it did was put thousands of mayors around the country in a lose-lose situation, cause them and their town's folks mental anguish and unnecessary bickering, and end up not doing a darned thing.


Please change one word in the above post: "There's nothing Mayor Inks could have done that would have been right in EVERYONE'S eyes."

Ah, me, no matter how many times you proof something... :-)


Another tragic event happened early Saturday morning. A 51-year old husband and father was beaten into a coma by a gang of thugs outside his home. Here's the link:

Web Link

Here, in a matter of seconds, a wife may have lost a husband and kids may have lost a father. A family will never be the same again. And, once they come to their senses, any decent kids that might have been in the gang that beat him will be guilt-ridden for life.

It hurts me to have to write this and it probably hurts you to read it. Because suppose - just suppose - when the wife heard a commotion outside, she walked to the doorway with a shotgun and fired a shot into the air. That would have ended the whole thing right there. Nobody would be hurt. The family would be whole. The gang of teens would have run off or been held for the police. But nobody would have been hurt. And all because of a single shot in the air.

For the past week Mountain View Online and Palo Alto Online have been stirring up emotions by repeatedly running the article about Mountain View’s Mayor Inks refusing to sign a worthless petition by Mayor Bloomberg of New York. And we folks, you and I, have been happily joining in with our various viewpoints. But for me anyway, this beating article changed things, and I started thinking about the hopelessness of what we're doing. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

You can have your "easy peasy answers" and "reasonable and proper gun control", and I can have my "explain to us 'gun nuts' just how gun control would remove guns from the hands of criminals and not just honest folks" and "If Mayor Inks signs the petition some people will be happy. If he doesn't sign it other people will be happy. What's the poor guy to do?" And none of it means a thing. Not a word of what you or I or anyone else said could have prevented this poor soul from being beaten into a coma – perhaps to death. What could have stopped it? What could have prevented so many lives being tragically affected? I've already told you.

A single shot in the air.


Tom,

I’m afraid your argument has a fatal flaw.

Let me take you back about 30 years. It was about 4am and my wife and I were asleep. Suddenly a soft sound woke up my wife and she saw flashlights being shown through our bedroom window curtains. She woke me up. I reached under the bed and grabbed my .45 pistol. I went over and stood by the bathroom door as the flashlight lit up the bathroom. At that point I racked my gun. At that time of night the sound of the gun being cocked made a very loud sound that seemed to shake the house. The flashlight went out and that was the end of the story. Burglars don't like to invade homes where the occupants are able to defend themselves.

My wife told me I rolled over and went back to sleep, but she was awake the rest of the night. I've though about the incident many times over the years, and never without a shutter and a little prayer of thanks that I don't believe in gun control.

Now, do you think this event made the papers? Of course not. We didn't say anything, and if not us, who?

How many times a year do you think a similar situation happens that never makes the papers? Enough to make the statistics your article presents meaningless.

Good Lord, did I really do that?

I keep a copy of all I have written on this thread together with comments by others to which I respond. Because I can increase the type size on a Word document to a more comfortable level, I do my writing there, at the bottom of all the copies of my other posts. Then I cut & paste.

This time I accidently highlighted and copied the entire list of my comments, and they appear above.

Please forgive a foolish old man. :-(

@Whiskers: I understand from your story why owning a gun is important to you. I don't understand why you object to the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" group. Have you looked at their federal legislation list? It's a fairly modest form of gun control. Let's take the first item, for example. It's effective background checks, including closing the gun show loophole as has already been done in California. Unless you're a convicted felon, this shouldn't stop you from owning your .45 pistol or using it in self-defense. They're not planning on taking away everyone's guns. You and Mayor Inks are arguing against a straw man.

So If I say save baby seals everyone should join in. Read the fine print, save the seal and kill all the sharks is not always best.

1000 Mayors joined, does that mean 20,000 have not?

Scott,

You said, “You and Mayor Inks are arguing against a straw man.” Actually I don’t believe Mayor Inks is arguing at all. I think he’s ignoring the issue, as he should. And good for him. Why should he jump just because a big city mayor wants him to? I live in Los Altos, and I have no idea what Mayor Fishpaw’s opinion of gun control is. Nor do I care. That’s his own business. It has nothing whatever to do with me or Los Altos.

And yet people seem to think Mayor Ink’s personal opinion somehow represents Mountain View. Some people get so wound up about his personal opinion they threaten to base their vote upon it. And here it has nothing whatever to do with Mountain View. I think that’s silly.

If I understand what a “straw man” means, it means I’m arguing against something different than what’s in the MAIG proposal. As you said yourself , “It's a fairly modest form of gun control”. There’s an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." Perhaps you don’t believe that’s MAIG’s ultimate purpose. I do.

And should that be their ultimate purpose, I hardly think they’re going to tell us that. That might cause a fuss.

But let’s suppose for a minute every mayor in the country, including Mayor Inks, signed up on MAIG. What would happen? Every criminal in the country would turn in their guns? Probably not. All violence would leave our shores? Perhaps not. In truth, not a darned thing would happen. Nothing whatever. Maybe a few mayors around the country would feel proud of themselves for having done all they could do to prevent crime. But they needn’t.

“I understand from your story why owning a gun is important to you.” The first instance was decades ago. I’m actually much more bothered by the Pleasanton beating. I’ll repeat half of the last paragraph of my previous post on the subject: “Not a word of what you or I or anyone else said could have prevented this poor soul from being beaten into a coma – perhaps to death. What could have stopped it? What could have prevented so many lives being tragically affected? I've already told you.



A single shot in the air.”

How can you not agree with that?

@Whiskers:

It's Mayor Inks's choice to join or not, but that's not all he did. He argued against them by "calling the group's positions 'fundamentally anti-gun.'" You and he apparently see a conspiracy hiding behind the group's very reasonable list of legislative proposals. I do not.

As for what would happen if they all signed it, you're right, nothing directly. Mayors don't set gun control policy. Advocacy groups simply promote debate. But when you assume ill intentions and won't consider the specifics being proposed, you make debate impossible. That jaded attitude is a reason to vote against Mayor Inks. We've seen a lot of extreme, entrenched politicians lately, and I think we'll see more at the national level next week. It's not working out. We need moderation and honest debate on all subjects.

@ Scott Lamb

'It's Mayor Inks's choice to join or not, but that's not all he did. He argued against them by "calling the group's positions 'fundamentally anti-gun.'"

So what. He formed an an opinion based on his reading of their guidelines. I agree with him.

"As for what would happen if they all signed it, you're right, nothing directly. Mayors don't set gun control policy."

Then whats the point other than wasting city council time. The council did the same thing with their endorsement of the "move to amend". What did that accomplish?

For the first time in many years I find our mayor an embarrassment.

@ Gretchen,

"For the first time in many years I find our mayor an embarrassment."

So you are embarrassed because out Mayor didn't pander to Mayor Bloombergs idea and used common sense and intelligence to figure out if this was a good idea. I applaud Mayor Inks for taking the time to consider the idea and look at both sides of the issue before making a decision. Unlike the other Mayor's who grandstanded at public meetings after only one side was presented.

@ One Who Values Life
I find your comment interesting in that you completely fail to address my statement at all. You rant on about how guns are the problem, etc. but ignore what I said while addressing my comment.

I made a short list of nearly 4000 people murdered in the U.S. WITHOUT the use of a gun. I ALSO said that the connection between the recent gun-related killings is the MENTAL ILLNESS of the shooter. You gloss over that in order to plow ahead with your rant against law-abiding gun owners. If you are responding to my statement, you should at least address what I said.

As for those that state that Mayor Inks is not representing the people of this town, you would be better of remembering that we live in a republic. This country was constructed that way to try to reduce the tyranny of the majority. Just because there are people that the "majority" doesn't agree with does not mean the larger group is free to trample the rights of their fellow citizens.

I understand the concerns of the gun control crowd. However, I have yet to hear a compelling argument that supports their goals. Most of what I have heard has absolutely no evidence that supports the idea that what they want will have any effect at all on their stated goal. On the contrary, the things they want (i.e. an assault weapons ban) have empirical evidence that shows that their desire would have, at best, no effect at all. Yet, each time these terrible events happen, they want to try the same approach that has not worked in the past.

Since we actually have evidence that bans are ineffective, how about a different approach? Try treating the mental illness of those with violent histories, restricting THEIR access to weapons (not just guns) and confining them if they cannot control their violent impulses? We have the tools, we just don't use them. Edmund Kemper murdered his own grandparents as a teenager. He was incarcerated and treated for mental illness, yet at age 21, and against the advice of the professionals treating his mental illness, he was released. He went on to murder 6 coeds, his own mother and his mother's friend. Were the weapons he used (guns, knives and his bare hands)at fault, or was it a system that doesn't deal with the root problem?

There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country. I have to believe that there are far fewer mentally ill people with violent tendencies. That seems like a far better place to start and has a better chance of producing results that we ALL desire.

I once voted for cleaner air in CA. What we got was MTBE and poisoned water, killing wild life and a big cost to the CA public. You can't just read the Anti- xxxx headlines. I have to go now, to listen to the President solve the budget by sending everyone home.

We really need to dig deeper into who the mass shooters are who are prompting this legislation.

Web Link

As for the other gun violence as it pertains to gangs: Gangs are involved in a host of illegal activities, why not add another business to their list? Gun laws will not limit gang violence.

So sick of these people on soapboxes going on about guns.... it was 1791!! Things were different then....

The 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791, so let's go by the letter of the law and really enforce the 2nd Amendment as was intended by our founding fathers...

Guns in 1791 WOULD
...be made by a gunsmith.
...have rudimentary rifling.
...be single-shot weapons.
...be loaded through the muzzle.
...fire by means of a flintlock.

Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)

So if you are a real American trade in your handgun for a musket.

Web Link

As is always the case anything to do related to guns, gun control and potential gun violence is always a hot topic and for good reason. I am not a gun owner unless you want to count my 22 cal target pellet gun but I am not a stranger to guns of many types starting from when I was on the rifle team in high school in JROTC, and continue to go out target shooting with friends. I totally agree with back round checks and they should be enforced nationwide and with any and every gun purchase. That said every time there is a mass shooting everyone gets on the banning guns bandwagon and I totally understand why, but I would be willing to bet that a large percentage of the people that are outraged don't own a gun or have never even fired one. I also understand that whenever one of these tragedies happens it is our governments responsibility to respond to the people. If you look at almost all of the mass shootings, the shooter had some kind of undiagnosed mental issue going on discounting Columbine. So you say ok I can agree with that but that what about the assault weapons and how if that guy in the theater didn't have one not as many people would have been killed? Anyone that knows anything about guns knows that you can manually fire many weapons as fast as you can fire a non automatic assault weapon. My point is most of the restrictions they want to implement won't stop senseless violence or mass killings. And to go one further a lot of the gangs are stealing their guns and gang violence has been going on since the 30's. It's very hard to control violence as a whole if you don't have enough law enforcement on the street but that's another topic for another day. I'm glad we have a mayor that is willing to stand behind what he believes in!

“I was never an active member. They’re not just against illegal guns, they’re against all guns.” – Mayor Bob Scott, Sioux City, Iowa

“It was a mistake really…They swindle you in and then put your name on the list.” – Mayor Keith Hoffman, East Berlin, Pennsylvania

“I am withdrawing because I believe the MAIG is attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns. Additionally, I have learned that the MAIG may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership. It appears the MAIG has misrepresented itself to the Mayors of America and its citizens. This is gun control, not crime prevention.” – Former Mayor Patricia Shontz, Madeira Beach, Florida

“I became a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns based on my belief that this group would help in the fight against criminal gun use. After all, who isn’t for making our communities safer by getting illegal guns off the streets and out of the hands of the wrong people? After careful consideration and after listening to the concerns of many of my constituents I have come to the conclusion that some of your organization’s statements and actions can be construed as infringing on the rights of legitimate gun owners. Because of this, I request that you remove my name from your web site and from your membership lists.” – Former Mayor Royce Pollard, Vancouver, Washington

“I am withdrawing because you are attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns. I have learned that the coalition may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership, and that some actions on your behalf are dubious…Regrettably, it has become continuously clear to me that you are using this coalition of mayors to advance a hidden agenda of bringing lawsuits against members of the firearms industry and spreading anti-gun propaganda.” – Former Mayor Marlene Anielski, Walton Hills, Ohio

“Sometime ago, I attended a meeting with many city officials from throughout the United States. At this meeting there was a table with the title “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.” Not wanting illegal guns, I signed the form not knowing what kind of spin would ensue. As it turned out, it was against the 2nd amendment, etc. I have since been removed from the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” movement. On our city website I have a letter to all stating my position. I’m not against the NRA, guns or hunting and never will be.” – Mayor John D. Link, Edgewood, Kentucky

“It is simply unconscionable that this coalition, under your [Michael Bloomberg's] leadership, would call for a repeal of the Shelby/Tiahrt amendment that helps to safeguard criminal investigations and the lives of law enforcement officers, witnesses and others by restricting access to firearms trace data solely to law enforcement. How anyone, least of all a public official, could be willing to sacrifice such a law enforcement lifeline in order to gain an edge in suing an industry they have political differences with is repugnant to me. The fact that your campaign against this protective language consisted of overheated rhetoric, deception and falsehoods is disturbing.” – Mayor Harry Moore, Oldmans Township, New Jersey

I love the gun nut argument that since gun laws don't 100% percent keep them out of criminal hands or prevent 'mass shootings', then that means they are ineffective. The same could be said about all laws. 55mph speed limit, someone goes 65...well, the speed limit law is ineffective, so we should not have speed limit laws.

Regarding Inks' decision, I don't think it matters much. Frankly, the council is pretty meaningless in this (and most) cities, so what they choose to do or not do has very little effect on the world.

@Ed S: of your quotes, only Mayor Hook's took issue with any of the group's actual actions. Most of them left the group with vague allegations of malice. The withdrawals followed an intense letter-writing campaign by the NRA. Web Link The NRA has a long history of incendiary, hyperbolic rhetoric.

As long as we're looking at public resignations, why not consider President George H. W. Bush's resignation from the NRA. Web Link It starts as follows:

"I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as 'jack-booted thugs.' To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as 'wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms' wanting to 'attack law abiding citizens' is a vicious slander on good people."

I have every reason to believe the NRA's allegations about the MAIG are slander as well. I think for the most part those mayors just repeated the NRA's language.

As for what Mayor Moore said about the Tiahrt Amendment, I think there are valid points on both sides. He's talking about cases where these trace requests have inadvertently revealed the identities of undercover police officers. The other side would talk, among other things, about reports used to analyze gun trafficking on a wider scale. And the law has been relaxed since Mayor Moore's comments: Web Link which I assume is why reversing the Tiahrt amendment is no longer on their list of federal legislative priorities. A compromise has been reached, which is what happens when people debate ideas instead of simply insulting their opponents.

@Kathy

You're argument is bunk.

If that is what you truly believe, then you also believe that the first amendment does not apply to TV, radio, internet, telephones, etc., etc., etc.

Those technologies did not exist at the adoption of the bill of rights either.

Technology evolves. If they had the firearms of today back then, then you can bet both sides would have had them. If the militia (which is every able bodied American, NOT the military) were to find themselves defending our "free state", we would need the latest technology to be able to mount an effective defense. Although I admit it is highly unlikely, do you think we would survive an attack from lets say China if all we had were flintlocks?

Greg says: ".... Although I admit it is highly unlikely, do you think we would survive an attack from lets say China if all we had were flintlocks?"

Um, do you really think the US could withstand a nuclear attack from China simply because people like you want to have fewer regulations on guns than we do have on cars???

Gun nuts are afraid of having their toys taken away from them. They are a fearful people who think having everyone carrying guns is safe. No reasoning with them....

I think Kathy makes a great point that, as Greg notes, technology evolves, and as a result so must our laws and regulations. Street violence on city streets with semi-automatic weapons poses a new reality that must be reflected in our gun laws to help keep our citizens safe.

What did Oakland's mayor say? The #1 highest crime city is so close to us. They are just one concert away.

Hi Tom your statement " Street violence on city streets with semi-automatic weapons poses a new reality that must be reflected in our gun laws to help keep our citizens safe."sounds reasonable to all law abiding citizens.
The problem with more laws is that the criminals do not obey any laws.
I am not a gun owner but I have no objection to anyone who has passed background checks, and training to own any gun.

@Tom, you stated, "It is well documented however, that for every successful use of a firearm to stop a crime there are 22 tragedies where gun misuse causes a death." I challenged you to provide evidence for your claim, and you referenced a study that talks about shooting deaths. As others have pointed out, there are *many* times that guns are used to prevent crime where there is no death involved, so your claim appears to be unsupported, and you appear to be attempting to distort the facts.

I agree with you that street violence needs to be addressed. However, doing that by trying to infringe the right to keep and bear arms will, I believe, cause way more harm than good. The real solution is to change the social dynamics that drive people to that kind of life, and, in the mean time, to allow the innocent to defend themselves.

@Rob, you said: "The problem with more laws is that the criminals do not obey any laws."

The problem with this statement is that it can be used against any law on the books. Are you really advocating that we have no laws at all?

@Rich: You seem to think that there are many examples where the civilian use of guns has stopped crimes. Is there a comprehensive list of these instances?

@Moreregulation
Actually, there is documentation about people being saved by using their weapons. The NRA publications list them in each issue. It is not a comprehensive list, but it does, indeed, cite specific examples. As has been said by others, this is a particularly difficult area in which to get exact numbers. Crimes that DON'T happen are very hard to track and quantify simply because they are not an event, but the lack of an event.

You continue to state that the same argument could be made about speed laws, etc. What I find rather interesting is that you made a statement that involved the 55 mph speed limit (instituted to save gas, not lives, incidentally). Yes, we did indeed have a 55 mph speed limit at one time and one of the results was that fewer highway deaths occurred as a side benefit. However, you may have noticed that the speed limit is once again 65 mph and highway deaths did rise when that happened. Also, far more people die in those accidents each year than are killed by guns.

What I'm interested in knowing is the reason you are not working on lowering the speed limit. Or is it that you enjoy driving faster and that law would bother you, whereas a gun control law has no personal sacrifice for you?

psr, you said: "Actually, there is documentation about people being saved by using their weapons. The NRA publications list them in each issue. "
and
"Crimes that DON'T happen are very hard to track and quantify simply because they are not an event, but the lack of an event."

I don't subscribe to the NRA magazine, but I would think there ought to be a list somewhere that documents this well. I would think there should be examples of people with conceal-carry pulling out their guns to thwart a crime and that would be public record.

Regarding your commentary about speed limits, I was simply responding to the gun nut argument that since gun regulations does not keep guns out of criminal hands 100% of the time, we should have fewer gun regulations. I extended that reasoning to speed limits to show how the logic is completely invalid.

It is certainly true that more people die in traffic accidents than by guns. Of course, cars are used 1,000,000,000x *** more per day than guns, so if you do the math, I'm sure you will find that driving a car is actually safer than handling a gun. (*** This number is not precise--I pulled it out of thin air.)

@Moreregulation

I do not claim that there exists a magical list of crimes prevented by gun ownership. It would be impossible to compile such a list. People who are faced with a potential incident, and end the incident by revealing that they have the capacity for a vigorous defense do not always report such incidents to the authorities, and it isn't clear that, when they do, the authorities compile such reports in a fashion that would allow for meaningful study. So those cannot be counted.

Further, crimes which may be prevented because the wanna-be criminal knows there is a gun around and decides to find another way to get money (maybe even something crazy, like getting a job), are pretty well impossible to count since we don't have 1-800-I-decided-not-to-rob for reporting.

It would be great to have such a list, but, we don't, so it's hard to *know* the direct effect of the *presence* of firearms on individual safety from crime. My point to Tom was that mixing up shooting *deaths* and using guns for self defense is not an appropriate comparison.

We could, however, gain a little insight by looking at crime rates in our towns where legal guns are fairly common versus those where there are strong legal impediments to *lawful* possession of a firearm.

I wonder how often a house with a police car parked out front is robbed?

Rich, here was your "challenge":

"Tom, you have offered many statements as facts in this discussion, but have yet to back any of them up when challenged. Your reputation is growing, and your "facts" are suspect. Please provide sources and citations for you 22-to-1 claim."

In response I offered a peer-reviewed article from a medical journal to support my assertion. Please, read the article and refute the study findings, or provide a respected source to the contrary, but don't give me some nonsense about what "others" have said. Otherwise it is your reputation that will be "growing".

Quite simply: statistically, not anecdotedly, it is more dangerous to own a gun than to not own a gun. Again, the link: Web Link

Rich, you said: "We could, however, gain a little insight by looking at crime rates in our towns where legal guns are fairly common versus those where there are strong legal impediments to *lawful* possession of a firearm."

I agree that it is difficult to study the effects of gun ownership on crime. The problem with your suggestion is that in areas where there is more violence, there tend to be more gun regulations passed. So, unless you look really carefully at the history, on the surface it appears that the stronger gun regs are *causing* the violence. I don't think there is a causal relationship there, but I would welcome seeing a study that looks into this question.

How about the 100,000 deaths each year by way of virus and infection given out in hospitals... THese folks die not from the situation that took them into hospitals, but due to closed ventilation, unwashed staff hands, staff infections... Most could be "cured" by washing of hands, sterilization of instruments and opening the windows for fresh air instead of recycling of stale and infection air.

Let's start a PADIH... any community that won't sign up for Patients Against Death In Hospitals must be labeled as PRO-DEATH folks...

Hum... what cause shall I take up next.EXJec

John Lott reports FBI statistics where guns are used far more times to stop potential criminal acts than used to commit crimes. Whats missing from the study cited above are any control variables. Why do people have guns in their homes. Is this a high crime area. Also they report the use of firing a gun and don't report how many times a gun is displayed and deters a potential bad situation from becoming worse. The study also ignores the perceived benefits. By doing so , the doctors assume people intentionally choose to make themselves worse off. Its like reporting how many bananas turn bad when purchased and taken home. It ignores the benefits of purchasing fresh bananas. The same could be said for surgery. People who die in hospitals are likely to have had surgery. People still choose surgery because the expected benefits exceed the costs.

@ Tom: I am not relying on others, I’m relying solely on what you wrote. You wrote “for every successful use of a firearm to STOP A CRIME there are 22 tragedies where gun misuse causes a death.” (my emphasis added). However, the study you cited does NOT back up that claim. In the first sentence of the abstract, the authors state the study is about "…the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to INJURE or KILL in self-defense, compared with … unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide." (my emphasis added) It does not address "stopping crime", except in the narrow case of when someone is injured or killed.

Additionally if one small study complies data and finds a 22-to-1 ratio of something happened somewhere at some time, that is not sufficient justification to claim that the result is true in the general case, as you have done.

Are you approaching this issue logically and scientifically, or purely emotionally and/or relying on per-conceived notions?

Rich, I think the study Tom cites is very telling on what the impacts of gun ownership is.

This is an excerpt:
"Results: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."

What is so compelling to me about the numbers is that out of the 626 shootings, only 13 of them were legally justifiable. Of those 13, 10 were from private citizens. Even if you remove the suicides, that is still hundreds and hundreds of unjustified shootings.

I believe the three cities studies have very lax gun laws (easy to get concealed carry permits), so perhaps these numbers aren't so bad in areas that have more gun regulations.

Rich-- the data is so telling that more guns = more gun violence. Perhaps the lack of data and studies showing the contrary are not available, simple because it is hard to prove a falsehood?

Sometimes I think the gun debate is religious. Agnostics ask the religious for scientific proof of gods existence, but none is forthcoming. At best you get, "the proof is all around you---and you are going to hell" :)

@Moreregulation

We can debate a matter all we want, but before the heavy fist of government swings into action to limit the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens, the standard of "proof" should be very high indeed. So, I say the burden of proof belongs on the shoulders of those who would limit lawful access to guns.

As a reasoning person, I find the data less than completely persuasive on either side, with little or no unbiased data.

You wrote that, :"... more guns = more gun violence". That's probably just as true as "more water = more drowning". The question needs to be "Are heavy limits on legal gun ownership an effective way to substantially reduce all crime and especially violent crime (not just crimes involving injury by a bullet)?"

I'm not a scholar on this topic, but a quick search with Google turned up indications of a number of scholarly works that suggest the answer to this question is not clear:

A Harvard study that shows no correlation between gun control and less violent crime: Web Link

This is an older article; an updated version would be nice to see: Web Link

And, I think this supports several of my points: Web Link

To follow your religion analogy, I'm happy for you to have your religion, but please don't force it on me.

As I stated earlier, none of the arguments for gun control weigh benefits and costs of restricting legal gun ownership.

John Lotts research does this and concludes that murder rates decline in RTC counties.

I know I need to protect my property with the help of Smith and Wesson. Lets face it, law enforcement nowadays is a joke. If it take 1/2 hr for them to show up to the scene, then they are too late.

Smith and Wesson ensure that i am protected.

Lot of thugs out there, from illegals, gang banger, to released inmates, the police can't be everywhere all the time. Has anyone noticed an increase in thefts lately?

Guns are a deterrent to crime!! If only criminals had guns, we would be in serious trouble.

Political Insider-- I would look for a different source of information than John Lott. In the early 2000s, his work fell into controversy for employing what some academic critics termed “junk science” and for various apparently fatal methodological flaws. Later, he was unable to prove the existence of a study central to his thesis. He was also caught using a fake “sockpuppet” persona to defend his work and attack his critics online. “In most circles, this goes down as fraud,” Donald Kennedy, the then-editor of the prestigious journal Science wrote in an editorial. Even Michelle Malkin said Lott had shown an “extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work. There were other controversies as well, such as the case of the mysterious missing table and the claim that 50 percent of black Republican votes in Florida were rejected.

If these so-called research studies were fraudulently constructed, then it's hard to take their conclusions at face value.

This is my point.. It's difficult to prove a falsehood, although the gun manufacturer lobbyists sure throw a lot of money to help deny reality.

Rich--thanks for the links. I didn't have time to do more than scan them, but this quote popped out at me:

"When you only look at the negative side of guns, then by definition you're ignoring the protective effect that guns have. He's only looking at the harms. And that's being willfully blind."

I think this is a good point--it is fair to look at the positive (protective) effect of gun ownership. He goes on to say: "Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety"

I agree with this statement. I'm not against an outright ban on all guns. Guns IN THE RIGHT HANDS help public safety. The question is: "Who are the right hands?" I've spoken to several tea party gun lovers and their answer is effectively that 'they' should be able to own and carry guns anywhere they want. When pressed, it turns out that they only want unrestricted/unregulated gun ownership for themselves and "people just like them", which I can tell you means right-wing caucasians.

I also don't think it makes sense that there are more regulations on car ownership/usage than on gun ownership/usage. When speaking on this subject, I frequently get blasted with the tired old: "The gov'mnt' gonna put me on a list and then they will come a knockin and take our freedoms!"
Dude. What are you smoking? Would you like the government to come take your car away? Why don't you complain about having to get an auto license? Sigh...

On a positive note, with more regulation & registration of firearms, we should get better data on their effect on society. If having most of the public packing firearms everywhere is actually safer, then hoo-raa! Of course, if it is safer, because few dare to leave their homes, then not sure it is worth it! :)

We need uniform federal laws regulating the sale of assault style weapons. If we had them, maybe the 49ers pro-bowl lineman Aldon Smith wouldn't be in trouble now. From SFGate (Web Link

"None of the five weapons was registered with the state Department of Justice, investigators said, and three rifles were determined to be illegal assault weapons under California law.

Prosecutors described those three guns as an Armalite AR10-T .308-caliber rifle, a Bushmaster ACR chambered for 5.56mm NATO cartridges and a Bushmaster Carbon 15 .223-caliber rifle.

Investigators determined that Smith had purchased the three firearms in Arizona in 2011. He bought two of them from a gun dealer in Phoenix on Dec. 10, 2011, the day before the 49ers played the Arizona Cardinals, investigators said, adding that even if the weapons were purchased in Arizona by an Arizona resident, the weapons are illegal to possess in California.

...

But regulators say looser gun-buying laws in Nevada, Arizona and other nearby states allow many forbidden weapons to be brought into California."

We need to close the Gunshow Loophole in states like Arizona and Nevada to prevent these guns from entering into other states like California, which has sane gun control.

As the article also alludes to, we also need a national gun registry for every weapon to keep track of these types of transfers.

Rich's first link is to a bogus article written by an NRA hack Gary Mauser (Web Link It is not a scholarly article.

I think its rather refreshing to see a mayor who has the moral fiber and backbone to stand up for what he believes. MAIG's agenda (or should I say, Bloomberg's agenda) is to make currently legal guns into illegal ones. And that is to marginalize and ciminalize a lot of gun owners who, otherwise, have done absolutely nothing illegal in their lives. The 2nd Amendment seems to be the one, sole, liberty that "progressives" want to curtail and systematically destroy. Gosh, I wonder why that is? There has to be a reason other than "crime prevention," because the people they effect with their invasive rules and regulations are pretty much everyone except criminals. I salute the mayor for taking a responsible, respectful stand on this issue.

Thank you, Mayor Inks for knowing your role and acting appropriately.

Hopefully the next mayor will support many residents desire to keep guns away from criminals.

@Next election, a resident of Rengstorff Park
1 hour ago
Hopefully the next mayor will support many residents desire to keep guns away from criminals.

I thought Chris Clark and not John Inks was Mayor?

Inks was a mayor FOR illegal guns. AFAIK, our current mayor has not joined MAIG yet...

Lots of AKs going off last night, even at least once over near Miller and Del Medio

Rumor has it that council has received an update from the CA and council will take some action at the end of the next meeting.

Neither Clark or Inks has convictions or blatant double interests in their past...so they'd be poor candidates for MAIG membership

Seriously Sparty. Inks is the only council member that makes decisions based on his convictions and doesn't pander to the mob crowd that shows up to object to any development. Inks replied to the MAIG group in a logical manner only to be lambasted with emotional arguments. This is why he received the most votes for his re-election. People respect Mr. Inks even though he is a libertarian in a heavily democratic city.

I'm sorry "Seriously Sparty" that you do not love democracy. Your comment,

"People respect Mr. Inks even though he is a libertarian in a heavily democratic city. " was quite offensive.

If you do not love democracy, then I suggest you move to another country that is a total anarchy without the rule of law or go to a place like North Korea or Burma.

One does not need to be an extremest to oppose the proliferation guns to criminals and the insane. Clark is new to his mayoral posting, so I do hope that he signs on sometime soon!

Why don't you retread my post, where did I say I do not love democracy? Sparty made a silly claim, I provided counter evidence. As I said, Inks received the most votes in the last election. That's democracy. I have no clue what you are saying as a response to my comments.

Oh look... a MAIG mayor just went away for 10 years.

"Why don't you retread my post, where did I say I do not love democracy? Sparty made a silly claim, I provided counter evidence"

Seems to me I said Inks and Clark don't have double interests. Then you replied that he sticks to his guns.

so what exactly was your counter evidence? You prove he DOES have double interests by saying he he doesn't get swayed away from his beliefs?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?