Wondering why this storied is seemingly hidden? It was in the print edition, but the only way to find it online is to click on the print edition and then it appears in the list of stories.

Without an enforcement arm, no laws work. Take the cops off the streets, traffic laws won't work.
De-fund the ATF out of existence and gun laws don't work.
Without an active enforcement arm, No Laws Work!

Well, it's a lead story now. I guess they were just busy. I sure wish the city would post the video of the study session. The live stream was so bad you simply couldn't view it.

Yes, more safety laws to protect our citizens!

Yes, pass more laws. Maybe the criminals will follow the new laws, because they sure do not follow the current laws.



And if any politician believes that, they have no business holding any public office.

The City Council would do well to keep in mind that gun laws, like all our laws, are disproportionately enforced against the most vulnerable population, which is poor people in general and people of color in particular. So new laws criminalizing otherwise law-abiding gun owners will be largely enforced in the most heavily-policed neighborhoods, which are lower-income communities made up of disproportionately non-white residents.

The most onerous of these laws will have very low compliance rates (as many unpopular gun laws do) but affluent white gun owners have little to fear from enforcement actions.

Of course, it's an even more open question whether more gun laws will in any way reduce incidents of gun violence, and if so whether the size of the effect is large enough to justify a rollback on existing freedoms. Any government action that limits freedom should require the highest standard of evidence, at the very least, and not go into effect merely because the political winds dictate it.

A solid and impartial overview of the pros & cons can be found here: Web Link

The City Council would do well to keep in mind that gun laws, like all our laws, are disproportionately enforced against the most vulnerable population, which is poor people in general and people of color in particular. So new laws criminalizing otherwise law-abiding gun owners will be largely enforced in the most heavily-policed neighborhoods, which are lower-income communities made up of disproportionately non-white residents.

The most onerous of these laws will have very low compliance rates (as many unpopular gun laws do) but affluent white gun owners have little to fear from enforcement actions.

Of course, it's an even more open question whether more gun laws will in any way reduce incidents of gun violence, and if so whether the size of the effect is large enough to justify a rollback on existing freedoms. A solid and impartial overview of the pros & cons can be found here: Web Link Any government action that limits freedom should require the highest standard of evidence, at the very least, and not go into effect merely because the political winds dictate it.

The United States Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment extends to having a gun in one's home for (self) defense. A local law that requires the gun be unloaded or locked such that it could not be used in defense will surely be invalidated in court. A law requiring safety precautions in homes should be upheld as long as it does not render the gun ineffective for defense in the home.

They can't regulate RVs. How are they going to regulate criminals with guns in RVs? Or are they just going to make it difficult for law-abiding gun owners and dealers? How about enforcing all the laws on the books, to include RVs parking longer than 72 hours on public streets, before proposing more laws that restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens?

A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to harm someone in the home than be used for self defense.

Gun owners are buying guns for the same reason some buy lotto tickets - some fantasy that actual math and reality do not bear out.

Or, perhaps, because it soothes some feeling of inadequacy. Go buy a big sports car instead. It's safer for everyone.

Yeah we have gun control laws already. Wish this council would put this energy to use for homelessnes,vehicle dwelling, and actually approving more housing.

I don’t understand people’s rush to trade their freedom and liberty for the illusion of safety. If some one says something hurtful then there are calls to restrict first amendment freedoms. If some criminal commits a terrible crime there are calls to restrict the second amendment. This appears to be the first generation protesting to have their rights taken away. The world is an imperfect place. Subjugating ourselves to politicians will only make it worse.

"This appears to be the first generation protesting to have their rights taken away."

Perhaps a reread of your history books may be in order.

"I don’t understand people’s rush to trade their freedom and liberty for the illusion of safety."

A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to harm someone in the home than be used for self defense. Let's correct your statement: I don’t understand people’s rush put their family in danger just for the *illusion* of safety.

If you're having a difficult time with your feelings of inadequacy, go buy a big sports car instead. We all understand what your gun means to you - you're not fooling anyone.

I guess all these Democrat's who have been running around the last few weeks, regarding impeaching Trump, saying over and over again that it is about upholding the Constitution, are all gone now.

Now that impeachment is basically done, they go back to their old talking points of how bad the Constitution is. The Second amendment is not a right and we will take them away from you.

By the way, the poster above, your talking point of "A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to harm someone in the home than be used for self defense" has long been proven false. Do a little research and educate yourself.

Constitution - to which well regulated militia do you belong?

Dear Gun Safety poster...did you just make this argument about my penis? Ha ha thank you. Way to go.

@Gun safety,
You said,
"Constitution - to which well regulated militia do you belong?"


If you were educated on the subject, you would know what the founding fathers said.

Every able body male in each state is the militia.
I am in the California militia.

Right "LOL"

@Greg David

Videos of city council meetings are also available on YouTube. Look for the channel "City of Mountain View". It's streamed live and automatically saved after the meeting, so you can watch afterwards.

"If you were educated on the subject, you would know what the founding fathers said."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I repeat: @constitution - to which well regulated militia do you belong?


...


A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to harm someone in the home than be used for self defense.

Source: Kellermann - Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

"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."

There is zero factual evidence to support a safety reason for guns in the home. It's all emotional - some (typically male) Rambo fantasy that backfires and harms a loved one.

As I said: I don’t understand people’s rush put their family in danger just for the *illusion* of safety. If you're having a difficult time with your feelings of inadequacy, go buy a big sports car instead. We all understand what your gun means to you - you're not fooling anyone.

Make it a big red corvette, Rambo. Save your family.

A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to harm someone in the home than be used for self defense.

This is a silly argument. Its like saying that roads with cars have more accidents than roads without cars.

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)

This study was ordered by Pres. Obama then immediately shelved when it was completed. It went against everything the the Gun Banners were saying. Obama wanted to use this report as evidence to do a gun ban, it back fired on him.

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.”

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
Web Link

The study cited above by @facts matter belies his moniker, as he misstates the 'study' severely. Trying to hide his misrepresentations, he links to a page without the complete study (you can't make this up!)

From the study authors: “By their sheer magnitude, injuries and deaths involving firearms constitute a pressing public health problem."

"firearms constitute a pressing public health problem"

Don't read his misrepresentations - READ THE STUDY.



The authors themselves call the numbers cited above re: defensive use as not relevant - "...the exact number remains disputed."

Worse, the poster cherry picks data not only out of context, but eliminates key words and phrases before pasting a 'scrubbed' version of a a quote to his liking.

Disingenuous? Or a liar?

Example of cherry-picking:

He posts:
“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.”

The study says:
"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 in the context of about 300,000 violent
crimes involving firearms in 2008. **On the other hand,
some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual
defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey**"

3 million versus the 108,000 in the next sentence.

Close, right?


Two takeaways:

- 3 million is more than 108,000. He tries to hide study data with his cherry-picking.
- The study he cites says "firearms constitute a pressing public health problem".

finally:

The study says gun ownership *might* be good for defense, but that benefit could be completely canceled out by the tremendous harm that comes with gun ownership. The relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

"and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."

re the original study mentioned - the one that says guns in the home are 11 times more likely to harm someone in the home than be used defensively (Kellerman, I think)

It has NOT been refuted, and contains actual numbers. Definitely worth a read.

"Its like saying that roads with cars have more accidents than roads without cars."

Uh, yup. Both true. Your point?

Actually, I think the poster above understates the dangers of guns in the home:

"A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to harm someone in the home than be used for self defense."

If one looks at Kellermann, it's more dangerous than that:

"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."

- 4 unintentional shootings
- 7 criminal assaults or homicides
- 11 attempted or completed suicides

That's 22 times more likely to harm someone in the home, not eleven.

For me it's not about home safety or sporting issues. I think Dave Chappelle said it best. "The second amendment is there in case the first amendment doesn't work out." This is clearly what the country's founders intended. Do we want a country where only the police and military guns?

Let's not forget that if we forfeit our second amendment rights, then we are forfeiting the rights of future generations who may live in a very different world than we do.

re Chappelle, the context includes his thoughts on racists...

... he defended freedom of speech when talking about comedians he knows who are "very racist."

"(I) don't get mad at 'em, don't hate on 'em," he said. "Man, it's not that serious. The First Amendment is first for a reason. Second Amendment is just in case the First one doesn't work out."

And if it's not about home safety (guns make that an oxymoron) or sporting, then it's about fighting some perceived government agency run amok?

Bad news, bucko. Your semi-auto doesn't stand a chance. You think Mr. Well-armed Gucci Belt Web Link would last long unless he runs away to a cabin in the hills? Pull an Eric Rudolph, eat salamanders and steal from farmers for a couple years before surrendering?