Town Square

Post a New Topic

Today is the day to talk about Gun Control in Palo Alto

Original post made by Gun Control on Dec 15, 2012

I am not normally a political rantist, but I feel so strongly about this and we do need to act to prevent more bloodshed in this country and prevent it in Palo Alto.

If ever there was a time to talk about gun control and what we can do to prevent another massacre, it is now.

Do we want a crazy person with a legally obtained gun running into one of our schools, our places of worship, our movie theater, our shopping mall? Do we care whether the legally obtained gun came with all the strictest background checks if it kills and causes mayhem in our town.

If anyone of the people who don't agree with me on this gun control issue starts talking about rights, knives, semi trucks, poisons or anything else, they are bringing up red herrings. Guns are designed to cause death and serious injury. Period. This is not a farming community where a farmer may be protecting his livestock from invading bears or mountain lions. This is not somewhere where we can go and shoot a squirrel or deer for dinner. It is much cheaper to buy food in a grocery store.

It is time to protect our kids and ourselves, not by personal weapons in the home, but by getting rid of guns in society. We can't figure out who the nuts are, so we have to prevent them getting their hands on guns. If nuts are given guns, in any state, it is proof that the system is broken. We must get the guns out of society.

This must not be a taboo subject. It is what we must do because civilized societies in this world do their best to prevent massacres and so should we.

Comments (16)

Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 15, 2012 at 10:24 am

Limit the number of shells to three per clip; pump or bolt action only, no semi-auto.

Prohibition would probably inhibit the overall death count, but it would also violate the 2nd Ammendment, and it would guarantee the old tautology: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns"...then innocent people would have no protection against the bad guys.

If the nutcases used molatov cocktails, instead of guns, would there be talk of banning gasoline? Remember, the biggest school masacre ever n the U.S. was in 1927 (Michigan), and it was done with a bomb. Norway has very strict gun laws, but there is always a way to get them, if the determined shooter wants to do a masacre (as happend last year).


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 15, 2012 at 10:45 am

Really, Gary?

Had to go back a hundred years to find a case to defend guns?

How many kids have to die?, next time?

Fifty? One hundred?

Bringing up another country? Of the largest massacres in the last 50 years, 15 of the top 24 have been in the US. 5% of the worlds population with more than half of the massacres. Still want to deflect?

Two cops killed in Memphis yesterday.

Another 30 people will be killed by guns, every day.

How many more kids will it take, Gary?

Serious background checks for all purchases. Remove the regulations that free dealers and manufacturers from all responsibility. Outlaw the weapons of mass destruction such as assault weapons and high capacity weapons/clips.

Increased mental health services.

How many more Americans murdered by guns?


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 15, 2012 at 11:33 am

>Serious background checks for all purchases. Remove the regulations that free dealers and manufacturers from all responsibility. Outlaw the weapons of mass destruction such as assault weapons and high capacity weapons/clips.

I am OK with most of that, except the part about legitimate gun dealers, who already obey the law. If guns were restricted to three shells per clip/magazine, no semi-auto, most gun dealers would go out of business. However, i support those who are still willing to supply guns for the law-abiding crowd.

No matter what you or I agree or disagree about, concerning guns, the nutcases will still commit mayhem.


Posted by Janet F, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 15, 2012 at 3:15 pm

I agree with Gary 100%. Having lived overseas, in gun controlled countries that have a lot of violent crime regardless, I know first hand that he is correct.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 15, 2012 at 3:26 pm

"in gun controlled countries that have a lot of violent crime regardless"

WHAT?!?!?

What a crock of unsubstantiated cow droppings.

Two cops killed yesterday in Memphis. How many were killed yesterday in all of Europe?

As I said earlier: Of the largest massacres in the last 50 years, 15 of the top 24 have been in the US. 5% of the worlds population with more than half of the massacres.

Janet: How many more massacres do you want? What are you willing to do to prevent them? Will it take one closer to (heaven forbid,) home to get you to open your eyes?

Try not to deflect to some straw man, just answer the question.


Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm

Sharon, are you suggestng that law-abiding citizens should not have the ability to buy guns, of any type, for self defense?


Posted by Janet F., a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 15, 2012 at 3:47 pm

Be glad, Sharon, that you have freedom of speech here. If the government can take away a constitutional right, they can take away others, too. The first to go would be freedom of speech and freedom of the press, since they cause so much "trouble" for the government.

Yes, take away the high-powered automatic weapons with 100-round clips, but do. Ot take away self defense.

BTW, how do you keep any weapon out of the hands of a psycho, as the Connecticut shooter clearly was?


Posted by gun CONTROL, a resident of College Terrace
on Dec 15, 2012 at 3:47 pm

Guns in the home are THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY to be used on a member of the home.

40% of guns purchased are done without a background check.

Some of the first graders in Newton were shot 7 times by an assualt weapon.

Almost all were shot multiple times.

With bullets specially designed to tear up the body.


Posted by Brad, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Dec 15, 2012 at 3:57 pm

Janet: how do ya keep assualt weapons out of the hands of a psycho?

First, stop selling them.

Stop your dumb fallacy about taking away constitutional rights until they bury the kids.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 15, 2012 at 4:06 pm

The tin foil hat crowd is convinced that banning assault weapons is a UN backed big government power grab, and is using fallacious "slippery slope" arguments that you will lose free speech rights, etc..

Look out Janet! The UN black helicopters are circling overhead.

To the serious reader: 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

Let's regulate. Start with a law that allows muskets and work from there.




Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 15, 2012 at 4:14 pm

>Go Gary! Tell us how we need more guns!

We need enough appropriate guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens to satisfy the desire of our citizens to protect themselves. These guns should be restricted to three-round clips, and should not be semi-auto. Please note that I have now alienated many who believe that all types of weapons should be allowed.

Prohibition of all guns will be a total failure, and it will put the bad guys in even more control of our streets and neighborhoods. A much safer condition would be where the bad guys need to consider that the law-abidng citizens are armed with sensible guns. If the school in CT had a couple of old guys, trained in weapons, and armed at the entrance, mostly playing gin rommey and telling old lies, this crazy may have been taken out at the entrance...or at least it would have bought time to bring in the police.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 15, 2012 at 4:28 pm

Gary now wants bigger government, and more weapons, putting guards at every school, every mall, every theater, every big box store, everywhere.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

*** Gun death rates are 7 times higher in the states with the highest compared with the lowest household gun ownership. (Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009).

*** "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" American Journal of Epidemiology


*** "An estimated 41% of gun-related homicides and 94% of gun-related suicides would not occur under the same circumstances had no guns been present"

*** The risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms (Kellermann, 1993, p. 1084).


*** Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17 (Kellermann, p. 467, p. Wiebe, p. 771).

*** The association between firearm ownership and increased risk of suicide cannot be explained by a higher risk of psychiatric disorders in homes with guns (Miller, p. 183).

Summary: Every time a gun injures or kills in self-defense, it is used:

- 11 times for completed and attempted suicides.
- 7 times in criminal assaults and homicides, and
- 4 times in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries.

Guns kill.

And they are more likely to kill someone you love, or kill you.

Start with the assault weapons ban, revamped and updated to be all inclusive with REAL penalties for dealers/manufacturers/merchants of death.











Posted by Gary, a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 15, 2012 at 4:56 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 15, 2012 at 5:12 pm



1/ The mentally ill shooter tried to buy an assault rifle on Tuesday and the gun store refused to sell him one-the current gun laws work

3/ ALL the recent mass shooters had very serious mental illnesses-we need to bring back institutionalization for the seriously mentally ill and get them off our streets.

4/ Most of the gun deaths in the USA are individual suicides NOT murder of others

5/ In Switzerland their are military grade assault rifles in most homes and many semi-automatic handguns-they do not have many mass shootings because they put seriously mentally ill people in mental hospitals and lock the doors-In Switzerland the mentally ill are not allowed to own guns.

6/ In Switzerland gun owners have to secure their guns against theft at home-the shooter in Conn stole his weapons from his mother-she obviously had not secured them.

7/ The issue is not gun control-it is control of the mentally ill


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 15, 2012 at 5:12 pm

"Just the opposite, actually."

No, Gary. Reality is, the more guns, the more likely you are to die by gun. Or someone you love.

Every time a gun injures or kills in self-defense, it is used:

- 11 times for completed and attempted suicides.

- 7 times in criminal assaults and homicides, and

- 4 times in unintentional shooting deaths or injuries.

Guns kill.

And they are more likely to kill someone you love, or kill you.




Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Dec 15, 2012 at 5:15 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


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

To post your comment, please click here to login

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.

Indian street food and ... bitcoins?
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 3,046 views

Most Seniors do not Need Senior Housing But Could Benefit from other Choice to Remain in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 26 comments | 1,120 views

"The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden"
By Anita Felicelli | 0 comments | 1,084 views

I Spy
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 933 views

The Cinderella ride
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 762 views