Makes sense. Community perception matters.

Good idea!

The courts upheld Alameda county's efforts to do the same.

Virtue signaling. Those who want guns will buy them at one of the many other establishments that sell them. Or buy them on the black market. This is only for the supe to earn virtue signaling points.

Just ask the drug dealers with AR-15s and rifles in their RVs on Mountain View streets.

Back around 1998, Santa Clara, San Francisco and Alameda all imposed a ban on gun shows. They all got sued before the ban took effect and all of these bans were struck down by the courts. These pointless bans waste millions in tax payer dollars and accomplish nothing but glorifying politicians for "trying" to "do something". It never seems to matter that all of these proposed gun laws accomplish nothing that benefits the public.

Gun shows are the safest places you can be because everyone knows there are always armed police at the door and wandering around the show. All state and federal laws apply 100% inside all gun shows anywhere in the USA. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

When it comes to firearms, no laws targeted against the ordinary law-abiding gun-owners has ever saved any lives or prevented any violent crimes.

And the ONE GOOD LAW (1968 GCA) that directly targets the known criminals is rarely enforced. According to the Obama Admin, millions of people get prevented from buying guns every year because they "failed" the background check. Any prohibited person trying to buy a gun is committing another new felony (state and fed felony) and should be arrested and prosecuted and sent to prison for 5-15 years.

However, during the Obama years, only a couple dozen of these felons were even arrested and only about 10 were prosecuted.

Here in California the laws against known felons possessing a gun are very rarely enforced unless there is some additional crime the criminal is being charged with. Also, when a person in California fails the background check, the FBI never notifies the local police to go arrest the guy.

Local cops in California don't enforce the law either. When cops find a felon with a gun, they confiscate the gun and try to find some other charge to arrest him for, but if they can't, they just let the guy go.

A gun show ban has been proven unconstitutional several times in the past and will again.

Not that anyone cares about the facts.

@A Talking Cat said:

"Makes sense. Community perception matters."

I suggest you read the US Constitution and the "Federalist Papers".
The whole point of the Constitution was to PREVENT "community perception" and surges of emotions dictate the laws.

In the past "Community perception" was the consistent excuse used to justify a nearly endless series of laws all across the USA that imposed discriminatory laws and strip law-abiding citizens their natural rights. "Community perception" was the excuse for all the "Jim-Crow" laws, all the anti-homosexuality laws, and countless others.

The politicians exploit "Community perception" to impose all sorts of destructive laws to gain more power for themselves by making criminals out of ordinary peaceful citizens.

If these laws made any factual sense, then they would not need to exploit every tragedy and rush to add more and more restrictive laws that only burden innocent people and never could have prevented the tragedy that is being exploited.

The 1968 GCA that made it a felony for known felons to even try to posses a gun is the law we should all demand to be fully enforced because we already know for a fact that these convicted felons cannot be trusted to live in our society in a peaceful and lawful manner.

Not that anyone cares about the facts.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Can you name a single law passed in the last 10 years that makes it more difficult to acquire guns? Just trying to get our facts straight. :)

LiberalGuns, you are so right on. The anti gun folks are purely led by emotions. Facts absolutely don't matter to them. Your civilized comments are much appreciated.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Why is it that every "discussion" on this topic leads to rude behavior, usually coming from the left? Are people really so insensitive that they don't realize that the term "common-sense gun laws" comes off as disagreeing implies a lack of common sense? I don't think I need to point out who is coming off as rude and emotional in this thread, but that's sort of the norm in CA.

Probably because your hobby ends up killing people. Generally, people get kind of emotional about that. Perhaps y'all can save some lives and keep your toys locked up at a gun range.

Nah - my hobby is bicycling and, for the most part, the only people getting killed on bicycles is by people like you driving cars. Why don't you park your toy at the garage so y'all don't kill anyone.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Every time we have a shooting incident, the liberals use it as an excuse to strip rights from the people who didn't commit the crime. Same here. Let's prevent people from legally exercising their Constitutional rights but do nothing about what is causing the problem.

The hue and cry right now is to institute another assault weapons ban. Except there is one problem. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon, so any ban of this sort would have had zero effect on what happened in Parkland. Zero. How would enacting such a ban be "common sense gun control" if it would have had no effect? Doesn't sound like common sense to me.

The shooter in Parkland was reported to the FBI at least twice that we know of, yet there was no follow-up. The last report was less than two months before the crime. I think many people have heard that part of the story. What many don't seem to have heard is that the Broward County Sheriffs were called at least 18 times since 2008 (the shooter would have been about 9 then) and the local police have responded to his residence at least 39 times in the last 7 years. All this in addition to the disciplinary actions taken by the school when he was a student. It is my understanding that Florida has a law called the Baker Act, which allows authorities to remove weapons during the investigations of such things as internet threats of violence. Why do they need another law? Why don't they use the ones they already have?

The fact is that those who want to ban guns aren't interested in facts. They just want to push their agenda while emotions are running high. Sorry, but you have to prove that the system in place is working perfectly and he still got a gun before I am interested in more laws. In this case, the system had literally dozens of opportunities to stop him and they chose not to. It seems that that needs to be fixed long before law-abiding citizens are asked to give up their rights.

I also find the use of the term "common sense gun control" a bit disingenuous. It would seem like it would be common sense that, if you were an illegal alien who stole a gun and shot a young woman to death while supposedly trying to shoot a sea lion, you would get locked up in jail for the rest of your natural life. However, here in California, that isn't the case. Until a crime so obvious can be prosecuted here, any talk of "common sense gun control" is just a lot of hot air.

@GunNut

"You know, if you actually cared about something other than your guns,"

I'm a father of a child in Mountain View public school. I certainly care deeply about her and all of her classmates. I also know that at least 2 of our parents can LEGALLY carry a handgun onto our school campus while in plain clothes and I always feel safer when one of them is on campus armed, but not uniformed.

I care about many things, but of all the things I care about, only TWO are under constant attack. Firearms and freedom of SPEECH!

In California, it's common for Liberals and Democrats in general to wage all out culture wars, including violence, to attack BOTH our First Amendment protected rights AND our Second Amendment protected rights.

Just FYI, I'm an actual liberal myself and have always been a registered Democrat. I voted for Carter both times, Mondale and Bill Clinton both times. I fully support abortion rights and equal rights for gays as well. But when it comes to guns, I hate being lied to and when I learned the facts first-hand, I switched sides on that issue.

This is why the gun-haters intentionally lie to everyone, the worst thing for the gun-haters is for the public to be factually educated about firearms and the law-abiding owners of firearms.

"you would know why a lot of people are upset at types like you."

I know exactly why, as Bill Clinton himself said, the gun-control movement relies on the vast ignorance of the public about guns.

"Not that anyone should expect you to get that point."

I get that perfectly, when you have a general public who is utterly ignorant about any subject, it is a simple matter to mislead the public and make the ignorant angry at the wrong people.

The facts wont ever help the gun-haters and that is why gun-haters hate freedom of speech just as much as guns.

Not that anyone cares about the facts.

@GunNut2

So, please explain specifically what new "common sense" gun law you think would actually make a measurable reduction in firearms homicides? You either wont come up with one at all, or you wont be able to explain why it would help.

"So the "anti-gun folks" are purely led by emotions?"

Correct, all the gun-haters do is wallow in the blood of innocent people and yell and scream at the people who did NOT commit the crimes and claim that it's all our fault.

It would be like screaming at "evil" car makers and blaming them for the 6.5 MILLION car crashes and 2 MILLION serious injuries and 500,000 life-long injuries each year and then demanding that the Fed government pass a law banning all cars unless they require a breathalyzer test before stating. That technology actually exists and does work and could be installed in every motor vehicle in the USA. That "common sense" device would save more lives and prevent more serious injuries than anything other than a "common sense" total ban on all tobacco and "vape" products. After all, "if it saves one life it will be worth it".

"It seems to me (along with many other people) that the gun nuts are purely led by emotions"

It it "emotional" that all of our political leaders, all of our wealthy people, all of our celebrities, our banks, jewelry stores are all protected with guns, even all the major gun-haters are protected by guns?

I want my family to be safe, I want no more of the FAME-GRABBING motivated mass killings, I want the media to tell the truth. I guess that would be emotional to you. The difference is that I know what would help keep her safe, I also know that cannot protect her or anyone else.

"when any kind of common-sense gun law is being proposed"

Which gun laws proposed after 1968 GCA?
1968 GCA is the law that made it a felony for convicted felons to posses firearms. That was a "common sense" gun law.

Not that anyone cares about the facts.

@NotAnut

"Why is it that every "discussion" on this topic leads to rude behavior, usually coming from the left?"

Because the only way gun-haters can get what they desire is by exploiting the ignorance of the general public and doing everything they can to keep the public misinformed in every way possible.

For example, there is no such thing as "cop-killer bullets" and yet the media has been screaming about this non-existent threat. The truth is that since police started wearing the incorrectly named "bullet-proof vests" there has NEVER been even ONE law enforcement officer killed by ANY type of handgun ammunition fired from any type of handgun by the bullet passing through the protective material.

There is NO "special" type of handgun ammo that is capable of passing through the protective material of soft body armor when fired from a handgun. However, almost any shot fired from almost any type of rifle can easily penetrate soft body armor.

There have been some cops killed while wearing (the proper name) "soft body armor" when the bullet missed the protective material and hit a spot with no protection. Like a head-shot or neck or side or through an open seam when the vest was worn incorrectly.

There have been cops killed by RIFLE shots. Almost all types of rifles with almost all types of ammo can easily penetrate soft body armor.

In spite of these verifiable facts, the gun-haters still to this day spread this lie about "cop-killer bullets". The gun-haters are so ignorant that they are constantly changing their minds about specifically which type of handgun ammo actually is able to penetrate vests. The true answer is NONE.

Not that anyone cares about facts.

@MV Resident

"Virtue signaling. Those who want guns will buy them at one of the many other establishments that sell them. Or buy them on the black market. This is only for the supe to earn virtue signaling points. "

Correct, just look at the case of Diane Feinstein, she not only exploited a double homicide to make herself famous and powerful, she was also a massive HYPOCRITE since Feinstein herself carried a concealed handgun with the license the county of San Francisco gave her. Feinstein carried a revolved for decades in her purse with the license issued to her by her friends in the county sheriffs department. And Fienstein had ZERO actual firearms training.

The moment Feinstein became a US Senator, she applied for and was immediately issued a US Marshalls badge (which all members of Congress are specially allowed to get upon request, after all, Congress passed a special law granting themselves this privilege). This US Marshalls badge that Feinstein got allows her to walk into any gun store in the USA and buy any guns she wants including any fully-automatic machine-gun.

The huge irony of Feinstein is that she has NEVER proposed ANY gun-control law that would have had any effect at all on the specific double-homicide that made her famous and powerful!

Politicians NEVER propose gun laws that could have prevented the crime they exploited as an excuse to propose the law!

Not that anyone cares about the facts.

Sounds like someone got triggered, LiberalGuns. You may need to find yourself a safe space.

The last time you voted for a Dem for President was 20 years ago? I'm going to say you don't sound like a liberal...

@LiberalGuns

"Can you name a single law passed in the last 10 years that makes it more difficult to acquire guns?"

I think you mean to ask:
"Can you name a single law passed in the last 10 years that makes it more difficult for law-abiding Americans to acquire guns?"

Because, after all, no laws ever passed have ever been able to prevent any criminals from getting guns when they want guns, just like the massive body of "drug-contol" laws have utterly failed to prevent anyone who wants illegal drug from getting illegal drugs.

Now, yes, there have been laws here in California that make it more difficult and more expensive for law-abiding people in California to legally obtain guns. One "quiet" gun-ban is the "approved handgun list".
Every year in California the list of handguns allowed for sale or transfer keeps shrinking because of the way the law was set up. The only handguns allowed for sale are those which the companies making them feel they can sell enough of them to justify the costs required of the approved-list law. So, more and more handguns get banned for sale in California, simply because the DOJ does not put them on the approved list.

California also recently banned possession of any magazine or "feeding device" capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Since there are maybe 50 million of such devices in California alone, it's just another pointless ban that wont effect the criminals at all.

Pretty much every year in California the state or a local jurisdiction passes another pointless law that only burdens the law-abiding resident of California and does ZERO to reduce violent crime and ZERO to reduce criminal access to firearms.

"Just trying to get our facts straight. :)"

Yes, lets try to get the facts straight, unlike the gun-haters do.

Not that anyone cares about facts.

I think this is a great idea because politicians think this will reduce mass shootings in the future. If only criminals would think like this.

@LOL

How many Republicans are openly life-long atheists?
A liberal atheist is pretty normal, a Democrat atheist is pretty common too.
A conservative openly atheist is a pretty rare person.
I was "raised in the church", but I never bought in to the lies, so I have always been atheist.

"You may need to find yourself a safe space."

"safe place" is simply code for "freedom of speech banned zone".
Say nothing at all inside here because anything you might say might make someone "feel" uncomfortable, or at least might give someone an excuse to accuse you of making them "feel" uncomfortable. I need no "speech free zones" nor any "gun free zones". Neither has anything to do with actual "safety", they are all about "feelings".

"The last time you voted for a Dem for President was 20 years ago?"

I am still a Democrat, Bill Clinton was near the edge, but he was still a Democrat, back then. I would still vote for a Democrat, if I could find one.

I actually voted for Bernie Sanders!
I would rather have an openly honest Socialist than the people like Hillary who have hi-jacked my party.

"I'm going to say you don't sound like a liberal..."

Other than firearms, and my full support of true Freedom of Speech, I agree with most of the long-term platform goals of the Democrat party.

I starting attending gay marriage ceremonies back in the early 1980s when the state would not issue an actual license. The Buddhists were quite happy to have a wedding ceremony without a license. Other officiates were happy to oblige too.

I was all for helping gay couple adopt kids.

I have always been in favor of allowing any adult woman get an abortion on demand.

I am fully comfortable to have a confidential process to allow teenagers to get an abortion without parental notice or permission.

I am all for Congress getting together to allow the current DACA people a safe path to full citizenship. Obama should have taken this issue to Congress and got it done right instead of kicking it down the road for the next president to clean it up.

How many non-liberals have such positions on all these issues?

Besides, the people who were calling themselves "Liberals" have now switched labels, they now call them selves "Progressives", which is highly ironic since the original political use of the term "Progressive" was coined before either of us were born by Conservatives!

Not that anyone cares about the facts.

@Great Idea

"I think this is a great idea because politicians think this will reduce mass shootings in the future."

No politician calling for gun-control laws honestly believe that any of the laws they are proposing have any chance of reducing mass shootings or overall gunshot deaths. Diane Feinstein and Bill Clinton and Hillary and most of the big-time gun-haters have been caught admitting this. They have all stated countless times that all these laws have no purpose other than getting the public use to the idea of gun rights restrictions one slice at a time until the ultimate goal of mass confiscations.

Why do you think the gun-haters are so in-love with the Australia example and the UK example?

"If only criminals would think like this. "

Criminals DO think like politicians and vice-versa.

Not that anyone cares about the facts.

It's not about all gun or no guns as those seem torgue.
I own 12 fire arms myself but am very supportive of common sense gun laws.
It's not all or nothing and the change in our societal safety will take decades. The NRA has too much pull, though some absolutists support their absolutism

Watch out, "take off the polarized glasses," Liberal guns is going to write another 5000 word rant on here.

Not that anyone care about the facts.

Funny thing -- you've proven my point that gun nuts go into hysterics when they're challenged.

Not that anyone cares about the facts.

LiberalGuns, thanks for all the info, I've learned a lot from your posts, very informative.

One of the first things that needs to happen is an immediate ban on the media posting the perpetrators names from any shooting. That would take away the hype and the celebrity aspect. They also need to downplay the #'s. I'm not saying to not report it, I do feel we need access to facts, but I think once is enough and then move on.

But we all know that's not going to happen, the media needs the numbers and the views and the drama.....otherwise they'd need to report on other issues that require work, diligence, research and effort. These shootings are so much easier for them to spread the hysteria.

...it's the meeedia's fault and only they can stop it through how they report things. Because no info would get out via social media in about 3 seconds.
Good, well thought out solution.

It is amazing how one commenter in particular seems to never contribute anything to the discussion other than personal insults, and yet has not been banned. I wonder why? I thought this forum was supposed to be for the exchange of ideas, not insults.

That being said, I agree with LiberalGuns with regard to what was written about the gun debate. It amazes me that people talk about 'common sense gun laws'. Instead, why don't we have common sense laws against murder? After all, if we had the right laws against murder, no one would every be killed again right? We wouldn't need any gun laws, because the criminals would obey the laws against murder, right?

Unfortunately, you can never argue logically with people who think with their emotions. They truly believe that making laws will prevent people from doing bad things. They don't realize that laws are meaningless unless there is some type of threat of force or retaliation of some kind behind them.

We can all wish, that we lived in a better world than that, but we don't.

Do you know what the true gun show loophole is? That there has never been a mass shooting at a gun show, or a shooting range, or anywhere else where lots of people are carrying guns to defend themselves.

In Britain, the English banned and severely limited guns.... so the IRA used bombs instead! Do people think that would be better here?

Does Anyone remember Oklahoma City? The first world trade center attack? Birmingham 1963? Bath 1927 ( Web Link )?

The world is full of evil and sick people; and passing laws that further prevents law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and others does no good. What would do good is to make sure that all the existing laws are enforced, including the death penalty; and that law abiding residents of this country are fully capable of defending themselves and others without having to remember which acts of self-defense have now been criminalized.

If a politician tells you to give up your 2nd Amendment rights so they can better protect you, ask them how that worked out for Kate Steinle!


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, tell me more about Kate Steinle. In particular, how would her circumstances turned out different were she carrying a gun? Cite the specific events that occurred with supporting evidence, please.

@LOL - I didn't say anything about her carrying a gun. Her circumstances were that the gun used to kill her was stolen from a law enforcement officer. The person who ended up with the gun ( it was never clarified if he stole or found it) was an illegal immigrant, who also happened to be a felon, who was forbidden BY LAW from having a weapon in his possession. Kate was unarmed, since as we all know, THE STATE will protect us, right? We can depend on them to be sure that felons NEVER get their hands on weapons, right? It is IMPOSSIBLE for a criminal to illegally get a weapon, right?

This was the focus of my point, that politicians cannot guarantee safety, they can only act as demagogues, using the politics of fear and hatred, and inciting divisions amongst us. While we argue amongst ourselves about how much of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights we should give away, they're laughing their a**es off that we haven't realized that if they actually bothered to enforce the laws already on the books, the number of crimes and deaths related to crime would plummet dramatically.

As to the 'supporting evidence', I normally provide links for obscure references as I did in my prior post, but the Steinle story is enough in the public domain that anyone interested can find the facts for themselves easily, and decide if what I am saying is accurate or not.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, you said, "If a politician tells you to give up your 2nd Amendment rights so they can better protect you, ask them how that worked out for Kate Steinle!" I'm asking you to explain "how that worked out for Kate Steinle," with supporting evidence. Had she given up her 2nd amendment rights? Would exercising those rights have changed what happened to her? How did it work out for her? Cite your explanation with supporting evidence, please.

We get it, Jim -- you can't really find a way to defend your "case."

Can you find a way of not defending your "case" without going on and on and on about it?

@@Jim Neal - What I said is self explanatory and clear to any reasonable person.

@LOL - As I said, I was focusing on the fact that politicians cannot protect us. Maybe one of you can tell me which new gun law would have protected her? Give me just one and I will be the first person to sign the petition for the new law.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View





Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

"What I said is self explanatory and clear to any reasonable person."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Try again, and this time, make some *actual* sense.

I understand Mr. Neal. He makes a lot of sense.

@Take off polarized glasses

"It's not about all gun or no guns as those seem torgue."

I'm not quite sure what that sentence means, could you rephrase?
However, all the well-known gun-haters have indeed stated that their goal is a total ban on privately owned firearms, and have pointed at the laws in the UK and Australia as taking a big step in the right direction.

"I own 12 fire arms myself but am very supportive of common sense gun laws."

Please be specific about what new laws you feel would be measurably effective at either preventing mass shooting by fame-seekers or gunshot deaths overall?

"It's not all or nothing and the change in our societal safety will take decades."

It's called "the culture war". It's accomplished by demonizing one group of good peaceful people and then slowly stripping them of their rights.

"The NRA has too much pull,"

How funny, it's not the 5 million NRA members that matter, it's the fact that tens of more millions VOTE in the way the NRA and other gun-rights groups suggest.

"...though some absolutists support their absolutism"

Wow, even funnier!
Of all the gun-rights groups in the USA, the NRA is the most MODERATE group by miles! The NRA has never been an "absolutist" group.

Check out a couple of the true gun-rights groups:
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO)
Gun Owners of America (GOA)

You could also learn a few things from the web-site "The Federalist".

Not that anyone cares about the facts.

You know, sport, the minute you went out and cited "The Federalist" as a source...well, guess what? ANY credibility you might have had went right out of the window.

You see, extremist sources like that don't do much for a case you are trying to make. Ever.

@mvresident2003

"LiberalGuns, thanks for all the info, I've learned a lot from your posts, very informative."

Thanks, I just wish gun-haters were willing to learn anything more than what they get told on the TV.

"One of the first things that needs to happen is an immediate ban on the media posting the perpetrators names from any shooting."

I would agree fully, at least in relation to "mass-shootings".
Every one of these high-profile mass-shootings where we have any information about the shooters we have always found they had a deep-seated pathological need for fame and the media has drawn the road map of what a person has to do to get instant and long-lasting fame. Kill a lot of people in a gun-free-zone and for maximum fame point, use an AR-15. All the living shooters have said as much themselves.

The media has set up a video game set of rules as a guide to the mentally ill on how they can make everyone know their names for decades to come.

The media already found it acceptable to NOT publish the names of rape victims and not to publish the names of minors who commit crimes some media have even agreed not to publish the names of people who are suspected or even arrested for a crime until it's pretty clear that the suspect is not just a mistake.

There is no "common sense" excuse for the media to make mass murderers into cult heroes and publish every little detail of their lives spread across every media outlet in the world!

When JFK was shot, his killer became famous forever. He had spent his life trying to become a somebody and always failed until he shot JFK.

When Lincoln was killed, his killer was doing it for fame as well, he believed he would become a hero and his name and picture would be in every paper in the South as a hero.

Not that anyone cares about the facts.

@Jim Neal

"... I was focusing on the fact that politicians cannot protect us. Maybe one of you can tell me which new gun law would have protected her?"

Jim, the issue in that case was about the total failure of law enforcement to enforce the long-existing laws focused on actual criminal behavior.

Decades ago a law was passed to require that all guns being transported in a vehicle be locked up unloaded in a locking case separate from the ammo. The problem was that the law-enforcement groups pressed the legislature to carve out a special exemption for them so that any law-enforcement officer would legally be allowed to transport fully LOADED gun in even their private car without any locking device or lock box at all. Cops could legally leave a loaded gun in plan sight in their vehicles.

That is why we have seen thousands of cases of guns stolen from various law-enforcement agents.

Also, the felon in question had been deported many times and had been arrested and released to the streets many times in the past rather than deporting him again. Had the existing laws been enforced, he would have been back in Mexico at the time.

Again, enforcement of existing laws would work wonders, that is true "common sense".

Not that anyone cares about the facts.