Are you kidding me the way this city is being run you need a gun to protect yourself from all the low lifes you have put the welcome mat out for.

Billy Bob, in spite of your being down on yourself, I'm happy we put the welcome mat out for you and I never feel the need to protect myself with a gun.

People that want to cause harm will do so by any means. I won’t comply with any city regulations on firearms because I think of them as a joke. When it comes to firearm regulation, people want to think of new laws rather than enforcing the ones we already have. California is one of the strictest gun regulated states. Look at crime stats between heavy regulated states and those with almost no regulation.

Councilwoman Margaret Abe-Koga urged her colleagues to keep considering some kind of measure. Some state gun laws are being challenged in court, and she suggested that local restrictions could provide a backstop if those regulations are found to be unconstitutional.

Err.... Does this mean passing unconstitutional Mountain View city ordinances?!

Well, Vice-Mayor Abe-Koga actually stated that an ordinance adopted in Sunnyvale has passed legal muster and might be considered for Mountain View. Staff is searching for ordinances from other cities to describe when the topic returns. I will keep an open mind. I have advocated more posted "surveillance" for reasons I may reiterate when the matter of "gun safety" returns for further discussion.

Aren't we lucky to have the City Council to do our thinking for us. Those pesky Constitutional rights should be ignored when we have such luminaries to outshine them.

The City Council has allowed dozens of transients to live on our streets without any consequences, despite laws already on the books that they choose to have the police ignore. Those people live within footsteps of our front doors, yet they could very well be cooking meth in their RVs, for all we know. However, we aren't to be allowed to defend our families and property because the Council thinks they are entitled to strip us of rights they are not entitled to touch.

I guess we are supposed to tolerate it when our cars and homes are invaded. After all, these people are assisting the Council in the wealth redistribution they are in favor of anyway, so I guess our safety and rights are, once again, subordinate to those who reap the fruits of our community without contributing.

The City Council should keep in mind that Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore and other cities have the sorts of laws they want to impose here. Why don't they ask the people in those cities how well that's working out for them before subjecting us to their ill-informed regulations? I wonder if Ms Abe-Koga's mother ever said to her the time-honored phrase "If all your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?" She should keep that in mind when she wants to do something foolish, just because another community has chosen to do the same foolish thing.

A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to harm a loved one than be used in self defense.

The city council should stay out of this issue.

There are numerous Federal and State laws that govern what legal citizens can do with the Second Amendment.

This is an individual right for law abiding citizens, adults, to have and own firearms.

What ever other new law you think that you can pass, do you really believe that crooks-felons-law breakers-gang members will follow them?

If you really believe that, I have a really pretty Golden colored bridge that I have for sale, and because I like you, I will let you have it really cheap.

A talking point is,
"A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to harm a loved one than be used in self defense."
No, that is not true!

In fact, people who have concealed carry permits have fewer incidences of accidents with their firearms, than police do.

"No, that is not true!"

Yes, according to the NIH.


National Institute of Health:
"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."

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.
Kellermann AL, et al. J Trauma.

@Pet Party,

Please site a national study, done for many years, not just a 12 to 18 month period, in only 3 cities that where cherry picked.

That in no way can be considered for your blanket claim of a gun in the home will be more harmful to the loved ones in that home, 11 times more so than homes with no guns.

There are probably 10,000 cities in the country if not more, and many square miles of unincorporated areas of the country. You can not say what happens in just 3 cities, happens all across the country.

[Post removed due to promoting a website]

@Pet Party

By your own sitation you disprove you "fact": For every time a gun in the home was used..." Which you then turn into "A gun in the home is..."

But then we are told there millions of guns in homes. Which by your logic means we should have 11 of millions people shot in their own homes! I would vouch to say that most guns in homes are NOT fired in the home.

Since the study results do not indicate how many "unintentional shootings... criminal assaults or homicides.. [or,] attempted or completed suicides" happened in homes where firearms in the home were not used or homes WITHOUT firearms, your conclusion/statement is what is usually called "comparing apples and oranges".

Or maybe you just figure that if you post it on enough message boards it will suddenly become true, by magic.

Sally, the facts are there. It took a 30 second Google search to find that one.

You can't site numbers and studies at all, just shouts at the top of your lungs.

11 times more likely to harm a loved one than be used in self defense.

On your side? Emotional vacancy.

"Which by your logic means we should have 11 of millions..."

Trumpian twists of facts. Well done.

Even the NRA can't justify the numbers.

11 times more likely to harm a loved one than be used in self defense.

Just an emotional security blanket for Linus. That kills loved ones.

On one side we have:
- I would vouch to say...
- In fact, people who have concealed carry permits have fewer incidences of accidents with their firearms, than police do
- No, that is not true!
- Which by your logic means we should have 11 of millions people s

So emotional, so unable to think straight.

Look up Preemption: Localities are specifically prohibited from passing any law, rule, ordinance etc etc that concerns firearms. Period.

Depending on Federal Judges to Protect Your Gun Rights Is a Bad Plan.
This is a really bad strategy.
At its core, the Second Amendment exists as a limit on federal authority. When you sue in federal court, you do so in the hope that the federal government will limit itself.
Remember, federal courts operate as part of the federal government, and federal judges are nothing more than politically connected lawyers drawing federal paychecks. When we keep these facts in mind, it becomes pretty obvious we shouldn’t count on federal courts to limit federal power, and uphold or preserve the Second Amendment.
James Madison gave us the blueprint. When the federal government commits unwarrantable acts, the Father of the Constitution didn’t say “file a lawsuit in federal court.” Madison advised a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union. Don’t depend on politically connected lawyers to protect your right to keep and bear arms.
Tenth Amendment Center

"[S]he suggested that local restrictions could provide a backstop if those [state] regulations are found to be unconstitutional."

Memo to clueless councilwoman: If the state laws are struck down, any similar ordinances you enact will be struck down, de facto.

You can't "back up" an unconstitutional state law with an unconstitutional local ordinance.

My understanding is that the City will look at The Giffords Law Center for ideas on local regulations already adopted by other cities in California.
See:
Web Link

President Obama spent $10 million of our tax dollars and found that there are 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses per year (DGU also includes showing a firearm to a criminal who then runs away)

Enclosed below, is the link to this detailed report. No where in it states that guns in your home, will be 11 times more dangerous than those homes without guns. This is is from President Obama own report.

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Web Link

Lively debate. No one even showed up at the City Cpuncil meeting to attempt to head off the consideration of local "gun safet" laws in Mountain View. Maybe someone submitted an email - but that is not enough. Don't just "mail it in." This is your country and city. So, pay attention and show up when "gun safety" is again placed on the City Council agenda.

Maybe Council member Abe-Koga should follow what the state of Maine has done. Success here, tighter restrictions only mean that law abiding citizens will be hurt. Criminals never obey the laws.



Maine has officially topped the ‘safest states’ rankings after they rolled back their strict gun laws about four years ago.

Maine Examiner reports:

Political News
Maine Rolls Back Gun Laws, Now Deemed ‘Safest State’
Keely Sharp September 3, 2019 No Comments

Maine has officially topped the ‘safest states’ rankings after they rolled back their strict gun laws about four years ago.

The state passed a “Constitutional Carry” law in 2015, which ultimately allows residents to conceal carry their firearm without first having a concealed carry license. Of course there was opposition, mainly from Democrats, that the law would be dangerous and put children at risk. One representative even stated that it would make residents afraid to go into public or work.

Maine Examiner reports:


Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.

Jokes on them though! Now that more people carry, quality of life has been better and safer. The state has officially been named the safest state in the United States of America by the US News and World Report’s public safety rankings.

Putting the rights of Mainers ahead of the objections of opponents, Governor Paul LePage signed the bill sponsored by Senator Eric Brakey of Auburn after it won bipartisan approval in the Maine House and Senate

Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

Web Link

sooooooooooooooo lame.... posting a link to a bogus 'news' site.

Sally posted a link to bogus site maineexaminer - created by the head of the Maine GOP. Hilarity ensues...



Bangor Daily News:

" February 16, 2018 5:35 pm
Updated: February 16, 2018 6:09 pm
AUGUSTA, Maine — A top Maine Republican Party official admitted to state ethics watchdogs that he is behind a once-anonymous website that may have helped tip a 2017 mayoral race in Lewiston, but he said it was “not related” to his work for the party.

The argument from Jason Savage, the state party’s executive director, comes after Democrats requested an ethics investigation into the Maine Examiner last month, but his lawyer argues that he wasn’t required to report his work."


That's really pathetic. Or maybe just total ignorance on Sally's part.

Either way, clearly her posts are invalid.

More on the bogus link from Sally - the creator of the lies on the website she got sucked in on without using any critical thinking:

"The Maine Republican Party has struggled to explain the numerous reports that found a mountain of convincing evidence tying Jason Savage, executive director of the Maine Republican Party, to the anonymous fake news website Maine Examiner.

On Wednesday, Portland Press Herald columnist Bill Nemitz revealed that Savage owes Maine Revenue Service more than $11,000 in unpaid income taxes and fines and has had 16 tax liens recorded against him since 1999."


Not only is the creep ethically 'challenged', he's a deadbeat.

ie.. Republican.