Someone please turn in this cowardly loser.

If this woman had her own gun, she could have shot the perp where he stood instead of just cowering behind her dashboard, like that would save her

Sounds like she doesn't live in fear and knows how to take cover and avoid harm without risk of taking the life of an innocent bystander.

If she had a gun, she also could have shot a stranger as the perp shot wildly back, maybe hitting a kid or the guy sitting at his desk talking on the phone

Carrying a gun screams "I'm afraid to walk in society w/out it."
They are the binky that terrified people suckle in order to get some sense of security

pretty sure this CFO's co-workers were glad he had a gun that day...

Web Link

Pretty sure the San Bernadino victims' families would have appreciated someone having a gun at work that day...

I get your point, mine is that there are arguments on both sides for the proper use of firearms to defend lives and liberty.

I own guns, but personally I think a better thing to have in the case of road rage incidents is a dash cam. If she one, this guy would probably already be caught...

Fact: Not one life was lost and not one shot was fired. Pretty sure the guy that didn't catch the stray bullet is glad the woman did not have a gun.

And as for San Bernadino, I'm pretty sure the people who didn't get shot because the guy next to him didn't begin firing back are please nobody had another gun.
Oh, gee this is easy. Speculative Hindsight!

Don't look at the macro data that proves you're far more likely to be shot if you own a gun, just cherry pick only the minority of stories that support your opinion, and apply speculative hindsight when you run out of those few headlines.

I still see a scared little kid in the eyes of every fervent gun owner. That's the whole reason they have them in the first place. They will never fool me into thinking they are not afraid as they walk through life. It's sad IMO.

The problem is EVERY person with a gun thinks THEY are the exception. They insist THEY are trained better, THEY are the responsible ones, THEY will hit their target and not innocent victims. Unfortunately there have been enough studies and experiments that indicate THEY are usually wrong.

@Living Without Fear said it best.

'Carrying a gun screams "I'm afraid to walk in society w/out it."
They are the binky that terrified people suckle in order to get some sense of security'

@Ahh, yes "FACTS?" "Speculative Hindsight!?" How ironic of you.
So, lets start with these facts:
USA violent crime rate has fallen sharply since 1991.
We are now safer in the USA than we have been in the past 50 years.
Side-note: 1991 began the big push for legalizing civilian concealed carry.

All 50 states, under widely varying rules, now allow ordinary law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns and tens of millions do.
No state has had cause to repeal lawful concealed carry.
When civilians fire lawfully carried handguns they are an order of magnitude less likely to mistakenly hit an innocent person than law-enforcement officers are.
Several states now allow citizens to carry with no license.

Who's in danger? The FACTS are:
At least 2/3rds of all gunshot deaths are suicides about 20,000.
Unintentional gunshot deaths about 650. (incl. suicides disguised as accidents)
Lawful justified gunshot homicides by law-enforcement officers about 2,000. (Incl. suicide-by-cop)
Lawful justified gunshot homicides by civilians about 1,000.
Criminal homicides by gunshot about 6,500.

The majority of criminal gunshot fatality victims have criminal records.
The majority of criminal gunshot deaths take place in sections of just 5 USA cities.

What is really dangerous is being a criminal and/or a suicidal person and possessing any sort of dangerous objects in certain big cities.
Cops shoot people holding knives all the time.

Oh, and the vast majority of lawful self-defense use of firearms by civilians does not involve the civilian firing a shot, but thousands of such cases do.

The gun-ban crowd has always predicted that lawful concealed carry by civilians would result in rivers of blood running in the streets and endless wild-west shoot-outs in every concealed-carry state and yet, it never happened.

Facts you choose to ignore while you were busy speculating.

Remember back when guns were not a problem, when it was nearly impossible to get a handgun permit, when guns meant hunting rifles and shotguns, and guns hadn't become a religion? Just one SCOTUS change could get us back on that path, though it would take a few decades for the current arsenal to fade away. Choose the world you would eventually prefer, everyone on the street armed, or hunters armed, and work toward that long term goal for your great grandchildren.

@Vonlost
a resident of Cuesta Park
14 hours ago
"Remember back when guns were not a problem,"

Guns are not the problem now, "gun-free-zones" are.
Such places do not protect the innocent, they encourage the violent criminals.

Do you also blame the car for drunk driving deaths and injuries?
Do you blame the American Automobile Association AAA for the 6.5 million car crashes each year, the 2 million people sent to the hospital, 500,000 people with life-long injuries, the 35,000 deaths caused in car crashes?

"when it was nearly impossible to get a handgun permit, when guns meant hunting rifles and shotguns, "

No, I remember a time, 1980's here in Calif, when I could read the San Jose Mercury News classified ads and see a whole long list of people selling pistols (semi-autos) and revolvers to anyone without any paperwork required, no "handgun permits" or registration required, no laws broken.

I also remember, as a teenager, walking into the local Sears store (or pretty much any hardware store) and just buying an actual rifle and ammunition. No laws broken, no permit.

I also remember a time when it was perfectly legal to bring a loaded handgun on an airplane with you. No laws broken. No hijackings either!
Hijacking airplanes began shortly AFTER it became illegal for anyone to bring a handgun on an airplane.

Just a couple years ago it was perfectly legal here in California to openly carry a handgun in a holster in public places, as long as the ammo was not actual inside the gun itself, but you could have loaded magazines.

The violence problem has never been about the objects mis-used to commit a violent crime, but rather the person who commits the unlawful act.

You might as well blame the internet.

It's a shame that we still have gun stores in Mountain View that continues to sell weapons and ammunition to criminals.

Let's see how long this posting stays up. When the owner of one of the stores sees this posting, he will threaten the Voice with legal action and get it taken down. Look back on gun debates in Town Square and notice this pattern.

Watch this thread get locked now.

@duh
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
1 hour ago

"It's a shame that we still have gun stores in Mountain View that continues to sell weapons and ammunition to criminals. "

Please forward any proof of your allegation, or even the basis of your suspicion, to the Mountain View Police and the BATF, the phone numbers are readily available.

Such activities are serious crimes and should be swiftly investigated and if true, prosecuted.

Or, you already know you're just making it up because you're a hoplophobe?

Let's find agreement for a change, instead of focusing on disagreements, OK?

I think we can all agree (yes even the gun-rights groups, probably even the membership of the JPFO too) with the following:

If a law-enforcement officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person is in unlawfully in possession of a firearm or that a person has unlawfully used a firearm, I think we all want that officer to detain that person and investigate the suspicion properly which may lead to arrest, prosecution & jail.

If there is any reasonable suspicion by law-enforcement or a member of the public that a firearms dealer is violating any of the thousands of state and federal laws relating to the sale of firearms, then that should be reported immediately and investigated properly and quickly to determine if any laws have been broken and take the proper action up to revocation of license to sell and perhaps jail time.

I think we can all agree that the male criminal perpetrator described in the news story should be found, arrested and prosecuted for the many crimes he committed according to the woman victim/witness in the story.

By my count, assuming every word the woman said was accurate and that the criminal had a real handgun which was loaded, the criminal committed several serious crimes including felonies. From his behavior, I would also assume he already has a criminal record and thus could not legally possess any firearm, so these first big charges would apply:
Federal violation of GCA 1968 prohibiting felons from firearms possession,
5 years no parole in fed prison
Calif violation of similar law.

Even if the guy has not been caught before, he still should be charged with:
Illegal transportation of a firearm in a vehicle
Illegal loaded firearm
Illegal carrying of a firearm
Assault with a deadly weapon: firearm
Assault with a deadly weapon: automobile
reckless driving 2 separate counts for chasing the woman and speeding away
reckless endangerment for stopping in the middle of the street
speeding maybe 2 counts

If the criminal had fired his gun and hit nobody, then there would be more charges:
reckless endangerment
attempted homicide

Now, had the criminal actually wanted to kill the woman, all he had to do is walk over to her car as she cowered behind the dashboard and shoot her through the drivers side window. Clearly this criminal, and idiot by the way, only wanted to scare her for reasons we don't know as yet and may never know.

His criminal behavior makes him a serious danger to society and he should be put behind bars for many years.

I think we can all agree on that, right?

@ron
a resident of another community
on Feb 12, 2016 at 2:58 pm

""I own guns, but personally I think a better thing to have in the case of road rage incidents is a dash cam. If she one, this guy would probably already be caught...""

Ron, I have a "what-if" for you.
What if the criminal in the story had no intention of harming the woman, just scare her, but as he charged at her car and spotted a dash-camera recording him and his car and plate info, he then realized that this camera was going to send him to prison?

He then would have a strong incentive to attack the woman, take her camera and since now she would have seen his face close-up, he may have killed her to prevent her from identifying him.

Since she had no weapon to defend herself, she would be at the mercy of the criminal's whims. Like people always are in "gun-free-zones".

On the other-hand, if she had acted quickly enough, she could have used her running car to either escape or, more risky, to run her car directly into the criminal as he came towards her car.

A hidden dash camera, perhaps as part of the rear-view mirror would not have attracted a criminal's attention.

Hopefully now that Scalia's reign of right wing extremism has ended, we can get the Supreme Court to stop blocking reasonable laws to regulate firearms in this country. Every bullet should be serialized and ownership registered with the authorities. That way when crimes are committed, we can track it back to the original dealer who profited from the sale and shut them down.

Once everyone stops playing the "What if" game, lets all just settle back and live our lives. Gun owners can walk in fear, clutching their "just in case" machines. Big truck drivers can jack them up and put huge wheels on them. They'll feel better about themselves, and we'll see them as scared and overcompensating for a shortcoming.
It's all good, the people will do as they do and think as they think.
Just know what they are thinking may be opposite to what you want them to think.

@Hmmmm a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood 9 hours ago

Hey everyone, Hmmmm wants to tattoo serial numbers onto every newborn child and register that number with the authorities so when a violent criminal is identified the parents can be rounded up and shipped off to jail (probably in a cattle car). Not to mention, Hmmmm wants all car dealerships to be held responsible for every crime committed with the cars they sell.

"Every bullet should be serialized and ownership registered with the authorities."

So, you want 12-16 BILLION rounds of ammunition per year each given a serial number?
That's twice as many serial numbers per year than there are people on the planet!
Civilians alone in the USA lawfully use around 8 BILLION rounds of ammunition each year, not counting US government 4 BILLION and more billions in other nations, probably at least 16 BILLION each year total.

Bullets are usually severely damaged when used in crimes, many times the cops cannot even get a useful ballistics report from the used bullet, let alone any sort of serial numbering. If the serial numbering is damaged even a little, no trace possible.

Criminals only use about 50,000 rounds per year out of the lawfully used 8 BILLION USA civilian rounds. That's a ratio of 0.00000625 crime bullets to 1 lawfully used bullet.

Also that criminals illegally obtain serialized guns from untraceable sources like thefts and guns illegally passed around from one criminal to another and the same goes for ammunition serialized or not.

The typical violent criminal will use up less than one box of 50 rounds of ammunition in his lifetime of criminal mis-use of firearms. Ammunition wont be traceable to the criminals nor lead to them indirectly.

"That way when crimes are committed, we can track it back to the original dealer who profited from the sale and shut them down."

Again, when someone dies from a car crash, trace the car back to the dealership who sold the car and shut them down. When a knife is used to kill someone, trace that knife back to the store that sold it and shut them down. When someone is beaten to death, track down that person's parents down and ... put them in jail for the crimes their children committed.

With 320 million guns already in civilian hands in the USA and all serialized, that did nothing about criminal use of guns.

At least we can all agree that Obama is not coming for your guns...never has been after them, but the weak are easily scared and therefore easily motivated by such drivel. Those with big money in the game know this and market to that.

It all boils down to someone being afraid and willing to spend money because of that deep seeded fear. When their personal weakness can be monetized, we have the gun lobby.
It's all pretty simple, follow the trail of fear to the money.

What if there was no gun? It wouldn't be the first time a 20-something embellished a story. Why did she wait an hour to call the cops? Why did no witnesses come forward? If someone stops their car on Alma and brandishes a firearm, you know damn well a few folks are going to IMMEDIATELY call 911. Whereas the angry little girl needed an hour to concoct a good story...

I like the theory Greg. We've all seen the monster egos some of these kids drive with. Stupid road ragers trying to get the last word in because they feel so small and powerless outside their cars.

The woman could have lied about the whole event, maybe it never happened at all.
There is a long history of fake "man with a gun" reports to police in California.

Several years ago I was quietly sitting reading a newspaper in a laundromat while washing/drying some sleeping bags in the big machines they had. Nobody else was in the place at the time. I happened to be wearing a T-shirt with the well-known logo of a major handgun maker on the back which was clearly visible through the windows.

Suddenly a police car came screeching up to a stop in the parking lot and a cop flew out of the car with his gun drawn and came running right for me. He got close enough to see I was just sitting there reading the paper and he stopped running, put away his gun and swore a blue-streak out loud.

When he saw that I had seen his actions, not to mention heard him, he came and told me they had a report that some man of my description was at the laundromat waving a handgun threatening several people inside the place. He could see I was totally alone and not doing anything wrong and I had no gun. I have actually never carried a handgun in public.

He saw the gun-related T-shirt and realized someone had called in the false "man with a gun" report in an attempt to get the police to harass or even harm me simply because I was wearing a T-shirt they did not like.

This sort of thing has happened so many times here in California that they even have a name for it "SWATTING". The gun ban people think it's great fun to use cops and endanger the public in order to harass and endanger law-abiding firearms owners. It seems in recent years this method has also been used against all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.

It's a serious crime to make a false report of a "man with a gun" as it causes police to do all sorts of risky things to respond to the report and it ties up police resources which should be out arresting actual violent criminals. Not to mention the tax payers money wasted. The police tend to make quite an effort to track down the person who made the false report.

So, yeah, this woman could have made up the whole thing, but until we get a lot more information we cannot know if anything happened at all or if the guy really pointed something that looked like a gun to the woman or if she was correct about it all.

I do find it really fishy that there was no crash of other cars, no other witnesses and mostly suspicious that she waited an hour before reporting it, but hey, I suppose it could happen.