PDA

View Full Version : Redwood City Police anti-gun bias on website


davescz
11-09-2009, 7:16 AM
Hello: I am wondering if you all would be interested in helping me remove some anti-gun bias from the offical website of the Redwood City Police Department.

I want to have this misinformation removed from the police website. I believe many of the statements made are false. I have highlighted some of the falsehoods.

Will folks here please supply me with links or referances to refute these claims? I want to present the true data to the police so that they can correct these errors. I need your help with obatining referenced studies that can be used to refute this info.

Interestingly of the half dozen local cities near Redwood City, none of the police departements websites have an anti-gun bias like Redwood City does.

This is bad stuff, becuase many uninformed folks will take this info from the police website as fact, we need to get the truth out on how guns REDUCE crime.

Any help and suggestions in fighting this will be most appreciated.

I suggest each member screen their local city's websites for this type of anti-gun misinformation. We need to purge these falsehoods from police websites.



Please see below copy of the page taken from the offical Redwood City Police Dept. website on "Guns in the Home"...... (taken from the following website: http://www.redwoodcity.org/police/hottopics.html)

Weapons in the Home

When we talk about violence, we cannot ignore weapons. Nine out of ten murders involve a weapon-eight out of ten involve a firearm. Most robberies involve the use of a weapon, most frequently a handgun.

One in seven teens has reported carrying a weapon, like a bat, club, gun, or knife, at some time to protect himself. Weapons can make violence more deadly and less personal. A gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide three times and the likelihood of suicide five times.

Reduce the risk

Think long and hard about having weapons, especially firearms in the home. Studies show that a firearm in the home is more than forty times as likely to hurt or kill a family member as to stop a crime.

Look at other ways to protect yourself and your home. Invest in top grade locks, jamming devices for doors and windows, a dog, or an alarm system.

If you do choose to own firearms, handguns, rifles, shotguns, make sure they are safely stored. That means unloaded, trigger locked, and in a locked gun case or pistol box, with ammunition separately stored. Store keys out of reach of children, away from weapons and ammunition. Check frequently to make sure this storage remains secure.

The Redwood City Police Department offers free gun locks to residents.
Please call Officer Rasmussen for more details 780-7105

Obtain training from a certified instructor in firearms safety for everyone in the home. Make sure its kept current.

Teach your children what to do if they find a firearm or something that might be a weapon,
STOP, DONT TOUCH, GET AWAY, TELL A TRUSTED ADULT.

Mitch
11-09-2009, 7:17 AM
Kellerman strikes again!

GrizzlyGuy
11-09-2009, 7:36 AM
Try this site for data to refute their claims:

http://www.gunfacts.info/

AJAX22
11-09-2009, 7:49 AM
The statistics are from a widly discredited report...

Kellermam is very easy to poke holes in

Glock22Fan
11-09-2009, 7:58 AM
The statistics are from a widly discredited report...

Kellermam is very easy to poke holes in

But the kind of people who quote Kellerman don't really care if it is discredited or not. They know, deep down, that guns are bad, and this is an easy way for them to brainwash others with even less critical thinking ability. My experience, when faced with people who spout Kellerman, is "save your breath, they are past reasoning with."

AJAX22
11-09-2009, 8:04 AM
True, but occasionaly they are simply missinformed

Southwest Chuck
11-09-2009, 8:42 AM
Welcome to CGN, davescz. Good 1st post.... go get 'em !

Liberty1
11-09-2009, 9:57 AM
Look at other ways to protect yourself and your home. Invest in...a dog...

How many many people are malled each year vs firearm accidents?

I like to recommend this safe:
ul0C_Q2VBO8

Glock22Fan
11-09-2009, 10:05 AM
How many many people are malled each year vs firearm accidents?


Only when my wife wants to take me Christmas shopping!

Flopper
11-09-2009, 10:24 AM
A gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide three times and the likelihood of suicide five times.

Those "studies" were so ridiculously biased.

From what I remember, the "firearms in the home" number included firearms brought BY THE CRIMINAL into the victimized home.

Death of the PERPETRATOR was also included in the homicide number.

Another false statistic was used in calculating how many children were victims of firearm violence. "Children" were defined as anyone 24 years and under who were hurt or killed by a firearm, whether they were the criminal or the victim.

Nice propaganda.

MudCamper
11-09-2009, 10:26 AM
Nine out of ten murders involve a weapon

While not surprising, this means that the reverse is true. 1 in 10 murderers use their bare hands to kill people. That is a rather creepy statistic IMO.

Dont Tread on Me
11-09-2009, 10:34 AM
That is pretty bad. It makes the department look unprofessional.

7x57
11-09-2009, 10:47 AM
To expand on what Flopper said, IIRC the definition of "child," "in the home," and so on were massaged so that most of the deaths were basically gang-bangers who happened to be at home when their lifestyle caught up with them. There is basically nothing to be learned from the occupational hazards of 22-year-olds dealing drugs for a living about ten-year-olds living in stable homes. I believe there was a large contribution from suicides, which only makes sense if people inclined to commit suicide with a gun would NOT commit suicide if no gun were available, a theory which I believe has no credible statistical support.

Guncite also has a couple (http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html) of pages (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html) discussing Kellerman's hijinks. Those pages have some useful links as well as their own information.

But the problem with the 43-1 number is that it's so stark, so memorable, and so agreeable to the prejudices of those who cite it that trying to stamp it out is like trying to stamp out a high-school rumor that a certain "socially unacceptable" girl is a ho' started by an offended girl in the "in crowd." The more outrageous the lie, the more legs it has, and the victim will never get either justice or her reputation back.

7x57

tiki
11-09-2009, 11:17 AM
But the problem with the 43-1 number is that it's so stark, so memorable, and so agreeable to the prejudices of those who cite it that trying to stamp it out is like trying to stamp out a high-school rumor that a certain "socially unacceptable" girl is a ho' started by an offended girl in the "in crowd." The more outrageous the lie, the more legs it has, and the victim will never get either justice or her reputation back.

7x57

You say that like being a ho is a bad thing.

mmartin
11-09-2009, 11:22 AM
hey, davecz's up for tilting this recuring windmill, I say if he's game, let's help him do it well.

does someone have stock rebuttals for the kellerman claims already worked up?

megan

mmartin
11-09-2009, 11:25 AM
John Lott's book More Guns Less Crime is also full of stats that help with understanding how the numbers have been misused and abused, and what they really show. not light reading, but informative and extremely well referenced. don't recall if he addresses kellerman directly though.
megan

7x57
11-09-2009, 11:29 AM
You say that like being a ho is a bad thing.

I decline your offer of a pointless off-topic discussion of sexual morality. However, if you don't know just how devastating (and sometimes suicide-inducing) such rumors are in high school, I suppose you need more remedial social education than I am willing to give you.

I swear, the level of social unreality on Calguns can be amazing. And if it amazes a card-carrying social misfit like me....

7x57

Mitch
11-09-2009, 11:53 AM
To expand on what Flopper said, IIRC the definition of "child," "in the home," and so on were massaged so that most of the deaths were basically gang-bangers who happened to be at home when their lifestyle caught up with them.

There are a lot of problems with the Kellerman survey, but numbers don't have to be massaged to miscount the deaths of children. The fact is, for whatever reason the CDC (where a lot of death data come from) don't feature an age bracket ending at 18 or 19. The age ranges in their charts are 14 years, 514 years and 1524 years. Obviously there's no way to break out children from young men (and young women) from such statistics.

The annual CDC National Vital Statistics Reports are very interesting and contain lots of primary source information regarding firearms-related deaths compared to other things that kill Americans. The 2007 preliminary report is here (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_01.pdf).

7x57
11-09-2009, 12:05 PM
There are a lot of problems with the Kellerman survey, but numbers don't have to be massaged to miscount the deaths of children. The fact is, for whatever reason the CDC (where a lot of death data come from) don't feature an age bracket ending at 18 or 19.

It wouldn't help that much if they did anyway. The deception is in the implication that we're talking about "children"--a category that wouldn't include 17-year-olds either. These statistics are used to imply that a gun in a stable home is horribly dangerous to actual children, age five, ten or something else that fits within the customary meaning of "child".

IOW--the representation is about "children," which is not synonymous with "legal minor." Plenty of legal minors are dealing drugs at school, and they are also irrelevant to the purpose which the study is actually used for.

Now if the take-home message was "gangs and drug dealing are 43 times more likely to get you shot than doing your homework," I think we could all get behind it. :D

7x57

Hogxtz
11-09-2009, 12:44 PM
1524 years. Obviously there's no way to break out children from young men (and young women) from such statistics.

Freakin idiots! So... I suppose that crowd thinks that the entire Marine Corp.
grunts are mere "children". Than the IRS should let us claim our kids as dependants untill age 24, since they are "children". Sorry, I got frustrated.

nicki
11-09-2009, 1:27 PM
If we attack him on just guns, we are going to get nowhere.

Now on the other hand, if we attack him on the crediblity of the whole website and every angle from both sides of the political spectrum, we could get somewhere.

The Redwood City police and the San Mateo sheriff department have questionable ccw issuance practices. Such an official post would imply that their is a bais against private gun ownership which would compromise the ability of someone to get their CCW "good cause" fairly considered.

Perhaps we need to start picking up the pieces because the lawsuits are going to be hitting hard within the next 12 months.

Nicki

bigcalidave
11-09-2009, 3:10 PM
Are you going to try to get the redwood city PD to change their website to say something like, guns are good, criminals are bad, you don't need the police, defend yourself?

Not gonna happen!
lol

mmartin
11-09-2009, 4:34 PM
Are you going to try to get the redwood city PD to change their website to say something like, guns are good, criminals are bad, you don't need the police, defend yourself?

Not gonna happen!
lol

how about just statistics that mean what people actually think they mean... like using stats that apply to children who are, say, under 18 rather than 24.

don't expect they'll change their opinion, but they could state it without having to lie or mislead. if they want to say 8% of gun-shot homeowners are shot with their own guns (or whatever the well-referenced stat was from Lott's book) and that's why we think people shouldn't have them, well, ok, go for it.
megan

bigcalidave
11-09-2009, 5:00 PM
But are they obligated in any way to do so? Is there any way to force them to accurately state statistics on the website? I say go for it anyways, try to make some news on it, try to get a local newspaper to cover it (lol) it's a great idea. Just giving the negative point of view that it's completely pointless.

yellowfin
11-09-2009, 5:05 PM
If they think guns are so bad, then it should be publicly demanded that they give up all theirs.

CABilly
11-09-2009, 7:57 PM
If only there was some organization based in or close to RWC who could apply some local pressure on the PD. Some group expert in providing facts and writing up compelling letters to anti's....

Dang, drawing a blank.

mhho
11-09-2009, 8:06 PM
I am wondering if you all would be interested in helping me remove some anti-gun bias from the offical website of the Redwood City Police Department.

Write to the dept. and tell them to practice what they preach:

"If you do choose to own firearms, handguns, rifles, shotguns, make sure they are safely stored. That means unloaded, trigger locked, and in a locked gun case or pistol box, with ammunition separately stored."

All RCPD officers should exemplify the excellent advice above with their weapons while on and off duty.

hoffmang
11-09-2009, 8:12 PM
I think a PRA request is in order...

-Gene

davescz
11-09-2009, 8:42 PM
I think a PRA request is in order...

-Gene


1....A PRA what is that?

2....If anyone is local to me in redwood city, please PM me so we can contact.

I guess first a formal letter to the police is in order, pointing out the factual errors. I could use any help in drafting it, specifically referances that refute their claims.

3. If there is indeed some lawsuites coming up regarding anti-gun bias, and the inability to obatin a CCW permit, then someone shoud get this police website page archived or something like that, as I hope to get this false information removed soon. If you want it to help in a anti-gun bias suite, please save that web-page. I do NOT know how to archive one yet.

4....failing the police to respond to a letter, I think we willhave a great opertunity to give a educational presentation at the city council meetings, where we can use powerpoint graphics and give the council a good education. These meetings are televised, so we could reach 100's of folks at home with our message. I dont think we would have an opertunity to present 2nd admendment facts at a council meeting if it were not for the police webpage we want to correct. The city has gotten themselves in the middle of the 2nd admendment and must give equal time for our opposing views at the public council meeting. this is a golden oppertunity. who is with me on this?

5.....does the cal guns staff have a registery of members that live in redwood city? if so can teh staff send a email to those locals asking them to contact me? We could plan a date, get materials together, and give a ggod showing at the meeting. Each resident that shows up is usually allowed about three minutes of presentation time, and residence can request that their time be shared with another speaker. so more folks that come, the more time we will have to present, even if you dont speak, your presence would allow others to take your alloted time.

Please let me know all that might want to help out here.
thanks

davve

oaklander
11-09-2009, 8:46 PM
FTW!

I think a PRA request is in order...

-Gene

Window_Seat
11-09-2009, 8:50 PM
I feel that it would be best to counter those non-credible numbers with credible facts that have credible backing, and make it known. We are already doing that here, but we should not just call it a day when we are finished with one project. I agree that a PRA (Public Records Act) request is in order, and if possible, we might be successful at getting those untrue statements taken off the site with an injunction (or whatever legal avenues possible).

Erik.

hoffmang
11-09-2009, 9:59 PM
Enh. A PRA would be embarassing but government organizations have the right to spew dumb speech too.

I want to ask them to provide any records that show that police officer's firearms are any safer than citizen's possession and carry of same.

-Gene

jamesob
11-09-2009, 10:16 PM
i'm upset about the scooter laws, "damn you redwood city, damn you to hell"

robairto
11-09-2009, 10:27 PM
Police officers killing themselves with their firearms should be posted on there as well. Or how about the officers in Yuba City and Redding who left their gun out and their children shot themselves. Or in the Case of Folsom PD, 4 officers fired in roughly 12 months for "theft, DUI etc." 4 officers from a small department is failed management.

mhho
11-09-2009, 11:19 PM
I guess first a formal letter to the police is in order, pointing out the factual errors. I could use any help in drafting it, specifically referances that refute their claims.


http://www.gunfacts.info/

http://www.guncite.com/


3. If there is indeed some lawsuites coming up regarding anti-gun bias, and the inability to obatin a CCW permit, then someone shoud get this police website page archived or something like that, as I hope to get this false information removed soon. If you want it to help in a anti-gun bias suite, please save that web-page. I do NOT know how to archive one yet.


Go to upper left corner of the web browser window and select
File -> Save As
and save to your local drive

Go get 'em Dave.

B Strong
11-10-2009, 7:01 AM
Kellerman strikes again!

Exactly.

He raised his ugly head in a discussion with one of my doctors (Do you own guns? LOL!) And after I got up on my soapbox refuting the Kellerman orthodoxy, things leveled out.

Billy Jack
11-10-2009, 7:55 AM
hoffmang is absolutely correct. Do not waste your time attacking the Police Department. Send a well written PRA to the Chief and cc the City Attorney and all members of the City Council and City Manager. Names of all concerned parties are available on the city website. Ask for copies of all documents and studies thta support the information posted on the website. When they are unable to produce it, politely ask that they remove it. If they refuse, you will be attending a City Council meeting with their response in hand where you will ask the City Council to direct the City Manager to order the Police Department to remove the information. This is not rocket science.

They can not place false, unsupported information on the city website just because it supports their point of view. This is an issue that has come up before in CCW lawsuits when a department states reasons not to issue based on false statistics. Time for someone residing in Redwood City to brush up their writing skills. The city will give a request more weight if it comes from a resident.

I will turn you folks into investigators yet.

Sincerely,


Billy Jack
Patriot, Son of Liberty &
Oath keeper

mmartin
11-10-2009, 8:01 AM
davescz, sounds like a PRA would be a good way to go... take a crack at writing one and post it up, as a group we can help get it refined to a razor edge.

looking forward to seeing your draft.
megan

CABilly
11-10-2009, 10:35 AM
Police officers killing themselves with their firearms should be posted on there as well. Or how about the officers in Yuba City and Redding who left their gun out and their children shot themselves. Or in the Case of Folsom PD, 4 officers fired in roughly 12 months for "theft, DUI etc." 4 officers from a small department is failed management.

Potential backfire: anti's nod and agree, place hats over their hearts and wax on about how it's just one more sacrifice those tiptoeing the thin blue line make for the benefit of the sheeple - a necessary evil to them that no civilian should take on.

KylaGWolf
11-10-2009, 9:56 PM
Is it just me or the fact they use the word weapons is a bit misleading. A weapon can be anything including ones own hands. I also would love to know how many of those deaths were the actual bad guy being taken out by the person they were trying to victimize.

goldleviathan
11-10-2009, 9:59 PM
Follow Billy Jack's advice in comment #37. You are wasting your time with any other suggestions.

7x57
11-10-2009, 10:12 PM
Follow Billy Jack's advice in comment #37. You are wasting your time with any other suggestions.

My guess is they won't, because Billy Jack isn't popular here.

Funny thing is, a major complaint is he doesn't share his information. But he just shared some, and it won't be taken advantage of?

7x57

mhho
11-11-2009, 5:39 AM
My guess is they won't, because Billy Jack isn't popular here.

7x57

But if Billy Jack is right and his suggestion is effective, why not do as he suggested?

vantec08
11-11-2009, 6:10 AM
Figures lie and liars figure bro. There is so much misinformation and downright deceit around nowdays that they can latch on to about any statistic they want to justify about anything they want. An honest statement would be "we, the police, cant protect you. Your safety and protection are your responsibility. If you choose a gun, make sure you know about its use and safety." The police are part of government, and government in general is becoming aware of how stressed out the public is getting from all of the government intrusion and nonsense at all levels, so they are really more concerned about guns being turned on THEM. But they dont have the inherent honesty to own it.

Write Winger
11-11-2009, 6:40 AM
I always found it "humorous" that anti's say to get a dog instead of a gun, because guns kill people. Let's see, an inanimate object versus a live unpredictable descendant of wolves...

vantec08
11-11-2009, 8:01 AM
True, Write. Its much easier to demonize an inanimate object than criminals because criminals are politician's constituency. When they holler for gun control, I holler back for criminal control. I want one of these self-loading, self-aiming, self-shooting, self-reloading self shooting guns. Anyone have a url?

7x57
11-11-2009, 8:30 AM
I always found it "humorous" that anti's say to get a dog instead of a gun, because guns kill people. Let's see, an inanimate object versus a live unpredictable descendant of wolves...

You are apparently unfamiliar with good dogs. My live descendant of wolves is 100% safe with children who are too young to be trusted with anything on their own. In fact, his only liability with infants is he might lick them entirely too much if they can't push him away.

Guns, being inanimate objects, are safe if the handler is safe, and absolutely not otherwise. A six-month-old cannot learn safe gun handling. But that six-month-old can grab a big fistful of fur and pull hard, because that's pretty much the extent of his manipulatory ability, and the dog will not hurt the child in any way.

Good dogs know children are puppies and get "puppy privilege"; guns neither know nor care.

7x57

curtisfong
11-11-2009, 8:30 AM
But if Billy Jack is right and his suggestion is effective, why not do as he suggested?

Because people are lazy.

7x57
11-11-2009, 8:32 AM
But if Billy Jack is right and his suggestion is effective, why not do as he suggested?

I was saying what people will probably do, not what makes sense. This is a subject on which Billy Jack is an expert, and if he's willing to give out free advice it should be followed. I was mocking the fact that it might not be, for irrational reasons.

Billy Jack's relationship with Calguns seems to be...complex.

7x57

Write Winger
11-11-2009, 8:38 AM
You are apparently unfamiliar with good dogs. My live descendant of wolves is 100% safe with children who are too young to be trusted with anything on their own. In fact, his only liability with infants is he might lick them entirely too much if they can't push him away.

Guns, being inanimate objects, are safe if the handler is safe, and absolutely not otherwise. A six-month-old cannot learn safe gun handling. But that six-month-old can grab a big fistful of fur and pull hard, because that's pretty much the extent of his manipulatory ability, and the dog will not hurt the child in any way.

Good dogs know children are puppies and get "puppy privilege"; guns neither know nor care.

7x57

Still working on my factiousness and dry humor :rolleyes:

Maestro Pistolero
11-11-2009, 8:47 AM
Originally Posted by tiki
You say that like being a ho is a bad thing.
I decline your offer of a pointless off-topic discussion of sexual morality. However, if you don't know just how devastating (and sometimes suicide-inducing) such rumors are in high school, I suppose you need more remedial social education than I am willing to give you.

I swear, the level of social unreality on Calguns can be amazing. And if it amazes a card-carrying social misfit like me....

7x57

Dang, 7, the guy was jes riffin. . . Ya didn't hafta jump his grill like like dat.

vantec08
11-11-2009, 8:50 AM
I dont know who you are or what you mean. Dont pm me again.

7x57
11-11-2009, 9:44 AM
Still working on my factiousness and dry humor :rolleyes:

In that case, my savage beast and I withdraw our objection. :D

Say, why don't we have any dog smilies anyway?

7x57

7x57
11-11-2009, 9:46 AM
Dang, 7, the guy was jes riffin. . . Ya didn't hafta jump his grill like like dat.

You may be right. I took it at face value, whether I should have or not.

7x57

Pont
11-11-2009, 6:34 PM
You are apparently unfamiliar with good dogs. My live descendant of wolves is 100% safe with children who are too young to be trusted with anything on their own. In fact, his only liability with infants is he might lick them entirely too much if they can't push him away.

Guns, being inanimate objects, are safe if the handler is safe, and absolutely not otherwise. A six-month-old cannot learn safe gun handling. But that six-month-old can grab a big fistful of fur and pull hard, because that's pretty much the extent of his manipulatory ability, and the dog will not hurt the child in any way.

Good dogs know children are puppies and get "puppy privilege"; guns neither know nor care.

7x57

Someone afraid and desiring self defense is not going to go purchase a cuddly, well-mannered dog. They're going to purchase the meanest dog they can find.

...and promptly end up getting it euthanized when they can't handle it.

Seesm
11-11-2009, 7:29 PM
TOTALLY BS how can I help to change there website?

goldleviathan
11-11-2009, 8:28 PM
TOTALLY BS how can I help to change there website?

See post #37

Stormfeather
11-12-2009, 12:55 AM
I dont know who you are or what you mean. Dont pm me again.

a bit OT., . . . but having security/self-esteem/dont-touch-me-there issues? :eek: Stranger-Danger!

mmartin
11-12-2009, 1:02 AM
Originally Posted by vantec08
I dont know who you are or what you mean. Dont pm me again.a bit OT., . . . but having security/self-esteem/dont-touch-me-there issues? :eek: Stranger-Danger!
yeah, I didn't exactly track that one either...
megan

davescz
11-22-2009, 5:40 PM
Got a call from the Redwood City PD on Friday, they have deleted the entire section off the website.

A little nice phone call did wonders. Didn't even need to write them a letter.

Three cheers for the Redwood City PD!!!!:clap::hurray:

anthonyca
11-22-2009, 5:52 PM
Got a call from the Redwood City PD on Friday, they have deleted the entire section off the website.

A little nice phone call did wonders. Didn't even need to write them a letter.

Three cheers for the Redwood City PD!!!!:clap::hurray:

Great job!!!!!

mhho
11-23-2009, 5:34 AM
Got a call from the Redwood City PD on Friday, they have deleted the entire section off the website...:clap::hurray:

Dave, You're The Man!

hoffmang
11-23-2009, 9:47 AM
Well done Dave.

-Gene

Liberty1
11-23-2009, 2:04 PM
nice work Dave!

AJAX22
11-23-2009, 2:40 PM
Dave

You the man

nagorb
11-23-2009, 3:04 PM
If this is how you get things done, can you call CA and tell them to drop all the stupid anti gun laws?

Good job!!!!

Got a call from the Redwood City PD on Friday, they have deleted the entire section off the website.

A little nice phone call did wonders. Didn't even need to write them a letter.

Three cheers for the Redwood City PD!!!!:clap::hurray: