Town Square

Post a New Topic

Mtn. Vew mayor won't join anti-gun violence coalition

Original post made on Sep 19, 2013

Mountain View Mayor John Inks has declined a request to join a coalition of over 1,000 mayors across the country that want gun law reforms. The group was co-founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, September 19, 2013, 9:07 AM

Comments (29)

Posted by Frank, a resident of another community
on Sep 19, 2013 at 9:15 am

Eddy's Shooting Sports must do quite the business. Right, Mayor Inks?


Posted by 2nd-Amendment-Advocate, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2013 at 9:47 am

"Mayors Against Illegal Guns."

It doesn't take much for this group to become:

"Mayors Against Guns."

Mayor Inks no doubt sees that. Palo Alto's Mayor Greg Scharff probably does too, since Palo Alto's Mayor Greg Scharff has never really advocated much for the US 2nd Amendment.

While Palo Alto's Mayor Greg Scharff has joined this group, he has never indicated that he would join "Mayor's Against Crime", or "Mayors Against Illegal Immigration."

Well, at least Mountain View has an honest Mayor, unlike Palo Alto.


Posted by blessing, a resident of Mountain View
on Sep 19, 2013 at 9:56 am

2nd-Amendment-Advocate, you funny.


Posted by Which amendment you talking about Willis?, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 19, 2013 at 10:08 am

This 2nd amendment?

"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."

The well regulated part is what the argument is about, correct?

Or the unwritten part: if you keep guns in your home, you or someone you love is 22 times more likely to be harmed by those guns than to use them in self defense.

and... "Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home" Web Link

and "a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that "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." Pistol owners' fantasy of blowing away home-invading bad guys or street toughs holding up liquor stores is a myth debunked by the data showing that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for selfdefense."

Now, what Well Regulated Militia are we talking about? Seems like a pretty stupid, and male-ego driven one, at that....

Fantasies and the male-ego - putting families at risk since 1776.


Posted by 2nd-Amendment-Advocate, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2013 at 10:29 am

> Fantasies and the male-ego - putting families at risk since 1776.

So .. this poster would seem to be condemning the Colonials for resulting to armed rebellion to create the United States of America, or to use force of arms to defend this country since that time.

Fantasy? Well, anyone who really believes that the US could have grown to its current size, and prosperity, without the use of arms is in total delusion.

Oh, and by the way--British Citizens (or which most of the Colonials qualified) were granted the right to bear arms after the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The framers of the new country were well aware of that fact. Given that the government that we now enjoy was hammered together in less than thirty years (1763-1787), based on some portions of the English government, and a lot of theoretical ideas (Hobbes, Locke, etc.) that had never been tried before, the Constitution of 1787 is both a masterpiece, and woefully inadequate, as a basis for creating a working government that deals with every conceivable issue facing the newly minted country, at that time, and the coming years.

Guns were used to feed families, and to protect them, from the earliest days of the Jamestown colony. Claims to the otherwise are revisionist propaganda, nothing more.


Posted by stretch, a resident of another community
on Sep 19, 2013 at 10:38 am

Another example of narrow-minded NRA thinking: if they make any rules about guns, pretty soon they'll take away our "right" to have guns. What baloney (and baloney was not the word I wanted to use)! Any law-abiding, responsible gun owner should be behind tougher checks, so the [portion removed] who now can buy guns don't make everybody look bad. Mayor Inks - he doesn't care who has guns in his city, I guess.


Posted by Raymond, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Sep 19, 2013 at 11:07 am

Plenty of parents in Mtn View. Can the Mayor see the writing on the wall? maybe they're looking for Mayors in Colorado.


Posted by Cid Young, a resident of another community
on Sep 19, 2013 at 11:35 am

[Post removed.]


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2013 at 11:44 am

Whether they should or shouldn't, I would hope that the mayors are speaking for those that elected them rather than themselves. I don't remember Palo Alto actually voting on this. I don't want the mayor of Palo Alto (whoever it may be) speaking for Palo Alto without a mandate to do so.


Posted by Which amendment you talking about Willis?, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 19, 2013 at 12:18 pm

"Guns were used to feed families, and to protect them, from the earliest days of the Jamestown colony. Claims to the otherwise are revisionist propaganda, nothing more."

Yup. As silly as some modern day PA family being protected by a Daniel Boone wannabe. Silly? Yes. Real World Danger? Of course.

One notes that there is zero discussion of the WELL REGULATED 2nd amendment, nor of the higher risk that his family takes so a gun owner can feel (yes FEEL) like some sort of wild west patriot.

Real life statistics (also called "tragedies") prove that gun possession is a self-defense fallacy, based on an illusion of perceived safety (compared to the reality of increased tragedy.)

22 times the danger, for yourself and loved ones, so you can FEEL better. Wow. You know, they make pharmaceuticals that help those who live in constant fear, or have low self-esteem, those who FEEL like a gun makes them actually FEEL powerful. Gun possession in the home is a dangerous salve for those feeble enough to think it makes them actually safer, with all evidence to the contrary.

22 times the danger for you or your loved ones. Way to go, patriot (yes, please put "patriot" in full sarcasm font.) Fantasies and the male-ego - putting families at risk since 1776, okay, my bad, strike that. Let's go with full, documented reality:

Fantasies and the male-ego - putting modern families at risk FOR DECADES.

Feel better? Can't imagine how - knowing you have put your family in danger for some puffed up NRA fantasy. Good luck with that. Statistics show you'll need it.

May the Good Lord protect your family from being another statistic.


Posted by Advocate for Mayors Against Illega Guns, a resident of Mountain View
on Sep 19, 2013 at 12:41 pm

As a Mountain View resident, I am mortified by our Mayor's stance. The need for more stringent oversight and change of our current laws on gun control is completely obvious. I appreciate understanding our current Mayor's stance and I hope he will not run for re-election. This is really disappointing.


Posted by Gun Owner, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2013 at 1:34 pm

A home owner in Monterey county just shot a person breaking into his house last week. Using the right tool at the right time. Good for him! The US is selling more guns now than any other time in history.


Posted by OPar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 19, 2013 at 2:50 pm

Gun Owner,

You really want to look at the stats of self-defense v. accidents and homicides?

Or do you want to latch on to the occasional anecdote so you don't have to look at events like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech and the Naval Shipyard?


Posted by Which amendment you talking about Willis?, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 19, 2013 at 3:42 pm

Gun owner?? I pray for your safety, and for your family.

"A home owner in Monterey county just shot a person breaking into his house last week."

And this week, in one of the more secire buildings in DC, run by the military a massacre.

Gimmee a break. For every "good" outcome, come dozens of tragedies: accidents while cleaning by supposed "responsible gun owners" (want a list of cops who accidentally discharged?) Murders. Domestic violence. "Good" guns that get stolen. Murders. Suicides.

All by so called "good guns".

22 times more likely to bring your family harm, than "good". Your poor misguided attempt to feel like a man, may well cause your family harm. Again, we pray for you.

A real family man protects his family, he doesn't cause greater risk by having a gun at home.


Posted by Gun Owner, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 19, 2013 at 6:50 pm

To Which Amendment,
Thanks for praying for me! That's very nice!


Posted by morgansinkc, a resident of another community
on Sep 19, 2013 at 11:54 pm

I am very unhappy with this group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. I never gave them my email address and they sent me an email last Friday. When I tried to phone them to ask them how they got my email address and to be removed from their list, I discovered that there is no phone number listed on their website or Facebook page.

I politely asked them on Facebook to stop emailing me, and today I received another email from them.


Posted by OPar, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 20, 2013 at 12:00 am

morgansinkc,

You're probably not on their own list. Lists of e-mail addresses can be rented or swapped--so your address is, in a sense, being "borrowed." The people running the FB page probably have nothing to do with your getting e-mail.

Annoying, isn't it?


Posted by Terry, a resident of Midtown
on Sep 20, 2013 at 12:25 am

Sure wish that Mountain View could annex my property. So tired of the shallow depth of thought and incompetence in Palo Alto city government.


Posted by What to do?, a resident of Stanford
on Sep 20, 2013 at 8:16 am

What is a person to do when most police departments, when called, direct you to their website to file a crime report?? In Fremont, the cops will not come to your home unless a murder is in progress, literally, due to all of their layoffs ( yet they still give traffic citations!)

In a high crime area like East San Jose, where some cops fear to tread, and the police force has been woefully reduced, how does a person protect himself from violent crime, should the need arise?

Personally, I hate guns and weapons of all kinds. However, I would truly rather. E in front of twelve than under six!


Posted by 2nd-Amendment-Advocate, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 20, 2013 at 11:33 am

> Yup. As silly as some modern day PA family being
> protected by a Daniel Boone wannabe

Absolutely meaningless comment. One might as well be talking to a wall!

> 22X less safe ..

Says who?

Let's start with a little data. The following WSJ interactive database is a good place to start.

Wall Street Journal/Murder In America:
Web Link


We could go to any number of data sources on crime/murder/etc., and we won't find much in the way of data which provides any insight into how many illegal guns were used in these crimes/murders, etc.

The number of gun-related deaths in the US is somewhere in the 12K-14K per year, at the moment. About half of these are suicides. A significant number of the remainder are deaths resulting from the commission of a crime (often criminals killing criminals). The number of people killed defending themselves is very low, based on this data.

But let's start with a few simple questions:

How many illegal guns are there in the US?
How many illegal guns are these in Mountain View?
How many innocent people are killed with illegal guns in the US yearly?

Bet that not one of the Mayors who have signed up to get their names in the paper can answer one of these questions. So—if they can't answer the questions, how big is the problem? And if the problem isn't that big—what's their real agenda?


Posted by Which amendment you talking about Willis?, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 20, 2013 at 12:59 pm

2nd amnd adv shifts the discussion from the dangers of possessing a gun in home to illegal guns.

"> 22X less safe .. Says who?"

Well, the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, that's who. And a whole lot more.

If you have a gun in the home, you are endangering the your life or a loved one.

"a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that "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." Pistol owners' fantasy of blowing away home-invading bad guys or street toughs holding up liquor stores is a myth debunked by the data showing that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for selfdefense."

More: "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.

Conclusions: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense." Web Link

More:

"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In addition to the 31,672 people killed by guns in 2010, another 73,505 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for nonfatal bullet wounds, and 337,960 nonfatal violent crimes were committed with guns. Of those 31,672 dead, 61 percent were suicides, and the vast majority of the rest were homicides by people who knew one another."

"For example, of the 1,082 women and 267 men killed in 2010 by their intimate partners, 54 percent were shot by guns." Web Link

Keep a gun at home? 22 times more likely to cause tragedy than be used in self defense. Still insist on it for your male pride?

Then you are subjecting your loved ones (and you) to far greater risk than good. Guns at home cause more problems and tragedy than they fix. Other than one fix: inflating a weak male ego, which guns seem to help, for some pathetic reason.

Prayers for your family.


Posted by Which amendment you talking about Willis?, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 20, 2013 at 1:02 pm

"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."

That's fact.

1 good use, for every 22 TRAGEDIES.

Absurd, laughable even, if not for the family members and children victimized by the weak male need for a gun.


Posted by Which amendment you talking about Willis?, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 20, 2013 at 1:31 pm

Oh this is it: two "responsible gun owners", with conceal and carry permits.

Obviously a responsible pair of gun owners, protecting 'Murica from the redcoats, as the WELL REGULATED militia members, as intended and described in the Constitution

"IONIA, Mich. (WZZM) -- Two drivers are dead after a road rage incident escalated into a shootout. The incident happened around 6:45 p.m. Wednesday on M-66 near Steele Street.

Witnesses tell WZZM 13 one driver was following another driver too closely. The first driver pulled into the Wonder Wand Car Wash parking lot and the other driver followed him into the lot.

Witnesses say the driver of the following car fired shots, and the first driver returned fire. Both drivers were shot and killed. Authorities say both men had licenses to carry concealed weapons." Web Link

At least they got their guns safely out of the house, before they risked the the inherent 22-1 chance of hurting their family in the home.

Sometimes, even our prayers can't help the deluded gun owners.


Posted by Another Gun Owner, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 21, 2013 at 8:29 am

"Deluded gun owners" ya, right. My right to own a gun (legally), your right not to. End of story.


Posted by Which amendment you talking about Willis?, a resident of Green Acres
on Sep 21, 2013 at 8:42 am

[Post removed.]


Posted by Another Gun Owner, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Sep 21, 2013 at 10:24 am

To Which amendment,
That's right, my choice. [Portion removed.] Enjoy your day.


Posted by 2nd-Amendment-Advocate, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 21, 2013 at 12:21 pm

> 1998 study

This so-called study is over fifteen years old. To be meaningful, these sorts of calculations would need to be recalculated on a yearly basis.

However, what needs to be pointed out is that the number of numbers cited in these studies are very, very, very, small, compared to the total number of guns in American, and presumably kept in people's homes.

Just how many guns are there? No one knows for certain, but various sources suggest something in the range of 280M. The number of deaths in the US, involving firearms, is in the 10K-20K a year (or the past decade). The number of deaths attributed to so-called assault weapons is barely 1% of all of the deaths, and most assuredly these deaths involve gangs, and other criminal elements—not ordinary Americans who decide to go shoot up a soda shop on a Saturday night, because they are bored.

Using ratios, like "22X more likely" without including the numbers that these calculations are based upon is intellectually dishonest. Intelligent people should immediate by suspicious of any such propositions. Moreover, without having access to the methodology used to make these calculations—there is no way to know what variables were included, and which were excluded. Some analyses of these sorts of studies report that there has been significant "cherry-picking" of the data used by anti-gun advocates.

What's really interesting to note is that home swimming pools are a source of deaths in young children that never seems to be noticed by the anti-gun advocates:

Web Link

Drowning is a leading cause of unintentional injury death worldwide, and the highest rates are among children (1). Overall, drowning death rates in the United States have declined in the last decade; however, drowning is the leading cause of injury death among children aged 1–4 years (2,3). In 2001, approximately 3,300 persons died from unintentional drowning in recreational water settings, and an estimated 5,600 were treated in emergency departments (EDs) (4).

=============

The following is an interesting article that compares gun-related deaths of children against pool-related deaths—

What's Riskier: A gun or a swimming pool?:
Web Link

Wonder how many parents against guns are remotely aware of the dangers to their children in homes where there are pools?


Posted by That User Name is already, a resident of another community
on Sep 21, 2013 at 4:34 pm

That User Name is already is a registered user.

[Portion removed]The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery study is very clear:

22 instances of gun violence for each time a gun was used in self-defense.

That's 22 tragedies as Willis has posted, for every legitimate use.

"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."

***************************
Of 626 shootings, only 13 were justifiable or self defense
For EACH "justifiable" use, there were:
- four unintentional shootings
- seven criminal assaults or homicides
- eleven attempted or completed suicides
***************************

You can [portion removed] talk about recreational drownings, but folks don't choose to bring a water-skiing lake or pond home with them. They cover a pool or choose not to have one. If they choose to keep an uncovered pool, or allow alcohol use, they are needlessly putting loved ones at risk. Either way, it doesn't compare to Gun Deaths.

31,328 US gun deaths in 2010. That current enough data for you?

If you keep a gun in the home, you are needlessly risking the safety of you and your family. Willis just asked: why would a person do that to their loved ones?

Would you place money in Vegas with odds like that?


Posted by A Menlo Park Parent, a resident of Menlo Park
on Sep 24, 2013 at 9:45 pm

A Menlo Park Parent is a registered user.

You all are missing a couple of points -

Firearms are used by many folks, myself included, for sport. And no, I don't hunt - never have. I shoot trap and sporting clays, and target shoot. Where is the harm, bravado, macho BS etc. in that? It is simply fun to do. Try it some time before you condemn the tools of the sport.

Also, stats that show that guns are so violent are usually cherry picked. Consider how many people die a year in car accidents (over 35,000/year in 2009 according the the US Census)). If that is acceptable (must be since no one wants to outlaw cars), why is 11,000 gun murders (in 2010) even worth commenting on?

No one number can tell the story. We have all heard the one that says there are "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Also, your odds of dying from the following are greater than from a firearms assault:

heart disease
cancer
intentional self-harm
car accident
Unintentional poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances
Falls

Web Link

I think everyone needs to take a step back, and drive slower.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Palo Alto quietly gets new evening food truck market
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 3,123 views

On Tour - The Highly Selective Liberal Arts Colleges: Occidental, Pitzer, and Scripps
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,885 views

See Me. Hear Me. Donít Fix Me.
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,601 views

Foothills Park: a world away
By Sally Torbey | 9 comments | 1,485 views

Candidate Kickoff Events: Public, not just for supporters
By Douglas Moran | 6 comments | 873 views