If the mass shooting in Gilroy is the motivation for more gun restrictions, I don't see how requiring people to lock up their guns at home would have prevented that tragedy. Also, for people who live alone, locking them up makes little sense. If a burglary occurs, the thief will take the entire gun box and open it later. Finally, how will the city measure the success of this restriction? If it makes no change in the illegal use of firearms in Mountain View, will the restriction be lifted?

I really don't understand what is new here, and I don't understand how this actually solves anything. Keeping a gun in a safe that I know the combo for is going to reduce my chance of suicide? Really? Don't get me wrong, I think people totally should keep their firearms stored safely to prevent unauthorized access, but there are several problems: 1) enforcement - if someone doesn't comply, how would anyone know? It specifically says the police will not proactively enforce it. Most of the time you don't until after it happens. 2) If someone goes unhinged and decides to do something bad, is it really going to prevent anything if they have the key to the lock? Cars are locked, but if some guy decides to plow through a crowd or kill themselves by driving off a cliff, is that lock really going to prevent anything?

Again, I am not against safe storage. I am against the expectation that it will make improvements in stats that the article states.

Echoing Hicks: "I'm particularly looking forward to public education around this."

Gun owners have a responsibility for safety at all times. Education goes a long way here, and CA gun purchasers and hunters are already generally required to have safety training. Perhaps we should consider legislating gun safety training for the entire household, not just the individual purchaser of new guns or hunters. Ideally, everyone would know the basic rules of guns safety.

Restrictive local regulations like this new ordinance make outdoor recreation in California frustrating and gives outsiders "ammunition" that CA is restricting freedoms. I grew up with guns in another state, still love to hunt and fish, but don't do either in California because I can't stomach the disparate rules. My introduction to CA fishing 18 yrs ago was: first day + first cast + wrong section of a river with a barbed hook = big fine. I don't fish or hunt in CA because of that - unfortunate for my kids - and a little education by the ranger (instead of a fine) would have went a long way. My kids were trained in CA for hunter's safety, and through education & skill development (hunting 1-on-1 in another state) I am confident that if a gun appears to them in a social situation they will not be on either end of an Alec Baldwin situation. The lack of training and familiarity with guns is a real problem.

I think peoples' reaction to this new ruling will fall along sharp tribal lines. Those who oppose guns and think gun owners are pathological will support any and all restrictions on the rights of gun owners. Those for whom gun ownership is normal will find this an obviously onerous restriction on their right to keep a gun handy for home defense in an emergency (try unlocking a gun safe in the dark in the middle of the night in the case of a home invasion).

Open Source Defense ("100% gun rights, 0% culture war") is a good place to learn more about what is and isn't true around guns and society. Here's from a recent post:

"The core of modern, yes-guns-are-weapons gun culture is that ownership of weapons is a feature, not a bug, in a free society. For someone who’s not fluent in cultures where that’s the common view, it’s a jarring idea. Reflecting on the idea of a concealed carrier putting on a gun in the morning, they might think, “What a shame that they feel a desire to do that. One day society will mature beyond that.” Whereas the concealed carrier is thinking, “How empowering that I can do this. One day society will mature to the point that this is ubiquitous.” (Legally, concealed carry is in fact on its way to ubiquity. But you know what we mean. In the few remaining states where it’s a privilege with which the state blesses a chosen few, it’s by definition very rare.)

So you’ve got two people reflecting on the same act and interpreting it in diametrically opposite ways. The first person sees anti-social paranoia. The second sees pro-social personal responsibility."
Web Link

Woohoo!

The city council did nothing to change nothing. Pretty much much par for the course. At least they can add a line to their political resume that they did “something”

Their actions are unenforceable, unconstitutional, and utterly asinine. The only people this will (adversely) affect are those unwitting citizens that admit guilt under duress from law enforcement.

Bravo.

PeaceLove, that site says they are "about making new gun owners," so you're being a bit disingenuous when you say they're a good place to learn "what is and isn't true." They have a stated agenda to get more people to own guns!