Anti-gun meeting, Mountain View City Hall 2/8/2014 9:30 AM

[Noble Cause]

That statement can be falsified by looking at the statistics of how many gun purchases are denied.


While your statement, as written, is correct, it is misleading. While we can't expect every gun in every household to be locked up at all times, we should expect every gun that is not held ready for self defense to be locked up. A typical household that owns guns has way more than one gun (the statistics for that are calculable from known data), and most of these guns are not useful for nor intended for self defense. And we can expect all guns to be locked up when they are unattended (for example when there is nobody at home, except for the burglar who just entered the unoccupied residence), because there is no chance that they will be used for self defense.

My real point, however, is the following. We don't need to start quibbling about the details of the statements you made here, in this thread. That would only derail this discussion. But gun rights advocates have to be very careful to not make statements that can be falsified or quibbled with, when trying to educate or debate gun control advocates.

Chainsaw...Why do you focus on restricting what law-abiding citizens can do in
their own homes ?

If your truly concerned about a criminal invading a home and specifically
stealing a firearm, why not focus on restrictioning / punishing the criminal ?

For example, Grand Theft Firearm can get a criminal somewhere between
16 months to 3 years in prison.

Why not increase the penalty ? Start with five years minimum.

Maybe For each firearm stolen, another mandatory year is added.
Or if the stolen firearmis used in a crime, the criminal who originally stole it Will
have 10 years added to their sentence.

If the stolen firearm is used in a homicide, then the original criminal who stole
it could have upto 25 years added to his sentence.

If a criminal steals a firearm, he has 48 hours to report it to the police,
otherwise ten years is automatically added to his sentence.

These are just Quick examples of changing the focus from restricting citizens,
to focusing on the criminal.

We do have some common ground, Chainsaw... Neither one of us wants to see
criminals using weapons against innocent people.

Don't you think it's reasonable we should start by focusing on criminals ?

Noble

[paladin4415]

Grew up during a time when the car and front door could be left unlocked.
Today, times are completely different.
Everyone should have freedom to keep their things as they see fit.
A gun safe should not be a government requirement, but a common sense requirement.
Especially for these time.
Sometimes laws are made to force common sense on those who have none.

Those laws have never, ever worked for anything.

[CitaDeL]

That statement can be falsified by looking at the statistics of how many gun purchases are denied.


While your statement, as written, is correct, it is misleading. While we can't expect every gun in every household to be locked up at all times, we should expect every gun that is not held ready for self defense to be locked up. A typical household that owns guns has way more than one gun (the statistics for that are calculable from known data), and most of these guns are not useful for nor intended for self defense. And we can expect all guns to be locked up when they are unattended (for example when there is nobody at home, except for the burglar who just entered the unoccupied residence), because there is no chance that they will be used for self defense.

My real point, however, is the following. We don't need to start quibbling about the details of the statements you made here, in this thread. That would only derail this discussion. But gun rights advocates have to be very careful to not make statements that can be falsified or quibbled with, when trying to educate or debate gun control advocates.

Bending statistics is the domain of gun prohibitionists. Which is why we should rely on the historical/constitutional context of why there is no balance between an individual right and public safety and stress that personal responsibility is what puts murderers and crooks in jail- not the possession of 11+ round mags,'ghost guns', or semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine.

[-hanko]

I've canceled both a family movie and a party, and shall attend.

Some things are significantly more important.

-hanko

[Noble Cause]

I've canceled both a family movie and a party, and shall attend.

Some things are significantly more important.

-hanko

Excellent.


Noble

[Adeodatus]

I've canceled both a family movie and a party, and shall attend.

Some things are significantly more important.

-hanko

Thank you!

[VAReact]

I've canceled both a family movie and a party, and shall attend.

Some things are significantly more important.

-hanko

This. Thank you very much. Would go with you if I was closer.

[chainsaw]

My real point, however, is the following. We don't need to start quibbling about the details of the statements you made here, in this thread. That would only derail this discussion. But gun rights advocates have to be very careful to not make statements that can be falsified or quibbled with, when trying to educate or debate gun control advocates.

It seems that IVC was the only one in this thread who actually read what I wrote. The rest of you guys: I could take a printout of what you wrote, and bring it to the meeting in MV, and hold it up as an example of what gun people really think. That would do further harm to the cause of gun rights. Fortunately, I have no intention of being at this event.

[njineermike]

It seems that IVC was the only one in this thread who actually read what I wrote. The rest of you guys: I could take a printout of what you wrote, and bring it to the meeting in MV, and hold it up as an example of what gun people really think. That would do further harm to the cause of gun rights. Fortunately, I have no intention of being at this event.

Oh no, we read it, but very typical of you to assume we didn't, and cut the one section that made you appear remotely reasonable, and not the poster on records as supporting the egregious laws we have, along with supporting more stringent restrictions..

[nothinghere2c]

hey maybe they will try to pass similar sunnyvale legislation and get sued in turn!

[Adeodatus]

Hey guys, really sorry about this but crazyScott90 will not be able to fill in for me at the meeting. Work came up.

If anyone would like to meet up in MV once i'm off work on Saturday to discuss how we can work together against the antis shoot me a PM. I'll be off work at 3, crazyScott90 will be off at 5. So if interested we could all meet for dinner around 6 in MV. Let me know.

I can go now! See you there!


Lets take the fight to them!


CrazyScott90 and I are currently in the "war room" working on some political stuff.

[Best sale]

Could always make a craigslist ad for a different type of social/mixer in the same time at the same place.....

something like a Needle exchange hour for the crack heads.

BTW, shame on these antis or should we just call them ignorant Brady/Bloomberg followers.

[Adeodatus]

Hey guys!

CrazyScott90 and I will be at Sunnyvale rod and gun club's member meeting tomorrow night. If you are a member that will be attending, keep an eye out for us.

[Adeodatus]

Also guys, here is the anti gun Facebook event.. Josh Wolf's facebook is linked to the event page.

[jdberger]

Though it's nice of Mr. Wolf to bring up the subject, is it really in the best interest of the City of Mountain View to embark on a path that's sure to result in litigation?

Sunnyvale did.
So did Daly City.

And each is now the defendant in a lawsuit (2 for Sunnyvale).

Now, the retort of the Antis might be that prestigious law firms have volunteered to defend these cities pro-bono. The municipality isn't paying anything for representation - but litigation creates other expenses beyond just lawyers' fees.

There's the time spent with city officials discussing the case and planning strategy, time and expense in depositions, time and expense gathering discovery materials and stress on the personnel involved.

And finally, there's the potential expense of a loss, because even though lawyer time is donated, if the city loses and has to pay attorney fees, it's the city who is going to have to cough up.







Our friends at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence alway seem to forget to mention things like this to the local councils when they're selling their snake oil.