News

Editorial: What we need is more gun control

 

Gun ownership is a right in this country. A few recent incidents close to home prompt us to remind gun owners about the responsibility that comes with this right.

It started a couple weeks ago when a 13-year-old student at Willow Oaks Elementary School in Menlo Park was arrested when police found the student off-campus in possession of an unloaded, concealed gun -- which the student admitted taking to school. A 14-year-old was arrested last week on suspicion of bringing a firearm to Milpitas High School; the handgun wasn't loaded but the magazine in his backpack was, police said.

And last week here in Pleasanton, a Village High School student was arrested after Pleasanton police allegedly found them in possession of a loaded handgun at the campus Oct. 23. The following day, an 8-year-old reportedly took his father's loaded gun -- a stolen gun, according to police -- to Twin Creeks Elementary School in San Ramon.

We are all fortunate that these incidents didn't have more tragic outcomes, and kudos to the people who were aware enough to report the gun presence to authorities. As it is, three teenagers and one father were arrested, and four communities were once again reminded how fleeting the idea of safety can be.

In California, keeping or leaving a loaded firearm in a place where a child under 18 can find it is a crime. More importantly, this negligence can be deadly.

According to a June report in the American Journal of Pediatrics, firearms are the second leading cause of death for children age 1 to 17 in the U.S., only behind auto accidents. Nineteen children are seriously injured or killed by firearms every day.

Gov. Jerry Brown last month signed a bill authored by local Assemblywoman Catharine Baker focusing on firearms warnings. In addition to a specific warning being given to all people who take a firearms safety certificate exam in California, the new law will require firearms packaging to include a warning that reads:

"Warning. Firearms must be handled responsibly and securely stored to prevent access by children and other unauthorized users... Prevent child access by always keeping guns locked away and unloaded when not in use. If you keep a loaded firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses it, you may be fined or sent to prison."

But it is not just children who find unsecured guns.

In the case that's grabbed national headlines more so because of the defendant's immigration status and prior convictions, Pleasanton native Kate Steinle was shot and killed in 2015 in San Francisco with a gun that had been stolen from a U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger's SUV, a backup duty weapon the federal agent said he stored in a backpack under the front seat.

The gun taken to the San Ramon elementary school by a third-grader is alleged to be stolen, which, if accurate, means someone at some point found that gun unsecured.

Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley launched an awareness campaign last week focused on gun violence and the safe storage of firearms with the message "Save a Life! Lock Up Your Guns."

With gun ownership on the rise, making all gun owners aware of this very good advice is more important than ever. The number of background checks to purchase a firearm increased by 10% between 2015 and 2016, according to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. According to a 2016 Gallup poll, there are guns in approximately 40% of U.S. households.

We commend our elected officials for increasing awareness of the necessity of safe storage of firearms and the unfortunate consequences, legal and otherwise, for non-compliance.

However, we aren't lobbying for more laws, restrictions or regulations. We are simply asking gun owners for more responsibility, accountability and common sense.

Stolen guns are being used in crimes. Children are taking loaded guns to school.

Here's a little elementary math: A curious child or thief plus an irresponsible gun owner equals potentially deadly consequences.

Moral of the story for owners of firearms: Practice gun control -- take control of your guns.

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

8 people like this
Posted by Greg d
a resident of another community
on Nov 2, 2017 at 12:20 pm

"Gun ownership is a right in this country. A few recent incidents close to home prompt us to remind gun owners about the responsibility that comes with this right."
So when some nutjob kills people with his own legal guns you need to remind (blame) people who had nothing to do with it to secure their guns..
I know this is mostly referring to kids bring guns to school, but us it funny that if you Googled gun control from trumps election until the Las Vegas shooting there where almost no recent results


"The gun taken to the San Ramon elementary school by a third-grader is alleged to be stolen, which, if accurate, means someone at some point found that gun unsecured."

This if such a fail. Many times national guard armoryies have had mutiple fire arms stolen. Were these left unsecured?
Read actual account of firearm theft..often times the whole safe is stolen.
Were these left unsecured?


"19 children shot a day"
How many live in areas where safe storage laws are on the books?
How many of these "children" (18 or 21 and under) are in gangs or have gang ties? Or injured during the commission of a crime?
Of these 19 a day how many were injured with illegal guns?


21 people like this
Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 2, 2017 at 1:50 pm

What it appears you are simply asking for are law abiding people legally owning guns (in a state with some of the strictest regulations already on the books) to shoulder the blame for the illegal/irresponsible acts of others. Par for the course from the gun control movement.

Baker's legislation does nothing to address criminal possession or misuse of firearms. Exactly what is "common sense" about passing it? Will members of gangs read the warnings on guns before committing acts of violence? Will they choose bats or clubs instead?

This is just more of the irritating blame society/collective guilt mentality that will eventually make criminals out of any law abiding person who legally owns a gun in this state. Gun control advocates will repeatedly claim more regulations are needed/will never be satisfied. Ben Tarver and the city council already ran all of the firearms vendors out of business in Pleasanton back in the late 1990s to supposedly "reduce violence".


9 people like this
Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 2, 2017 at 2:46 pm

"Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley launched an awareness campaign last week focused on gun violence and the safe storage of firearms with the message "Save a Life! Lock Up Your Guns.""

Allow me to launch my own "awareness campaign".

"Gun violence" is a political propaganda term used by the left wing to shift the debate away from people who abuse guns (already a crime) and on to society to justify more restrictions on/stigmatize legal ownership. Someone may use (misuse) a gun to commit an act of violence - but it is not the gun that does/causes it.

Something that seems to be lost on too many people who claim only to want "reasonable regulations" on firearms.


22 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Nov 2, 2017 at 2:48 pm

“However, we aren't lobbying for more laws, restrictions or regulations. We are simply asking gun owners for more responsibility, accountability and common sense.”

Simply asking irresponsible gun owners to be responsible isn’t going to work. The circumstances under which these young students brought these guns to school need to be fully investigated, and any adults who are believed to have been negligent in keeping these guns out of the hands of children need to be aggressively prosecuted according to the applicable California laws.


Like this comment
Posted by Pointless Hand Wringing
a resident of another community
on Nov 3, 2017 at 9:25 am

When I was a kid, people brought guns to school all the time - no one got shot no one was threatened, the boys were just showing off their guns to each other.

I was listening to an interview with Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, and, when asked about allowing a person with a concealed weapon permit to take a gun to work, Newsom, granted not the sharpest knife in the drawer - expressed great surprise that the interviewer would not be upset with a person who had the permit actually having the gun at work - and that there ought to be laws against that.

Gavin and all the other hysterics - if they guy wants to go on a shooting spree at work, do you8 really think the laws against bringing the gun to work are going to hold more sway than the laws against MURDER? IT's idiocy really - if the kid who brought the gun is unstable or has some anger at some other person such that the gun might be used - then take some serious action - otherwise, punish him of course but get a grip on how much.


16 people like this
Posted by Spudly
a resident of Laguna Oaks
on Nov 3, 2017 at 9:34 am

Regardless of an individuals opinion on gun control, I have a question around the wording of the amendment. It states verbatim "A well regulated Militia..."

I understand there are 300 million guns owned by residents of this country but I have not heard about any Militia's, well regulated or otherwise.


13 people like this
Posted by Ken
a resident of Birdland
on Nov 3, 2017 at 9:36 am

Certainly something has changed in our society, that mass shootings and other gratutious gun crimes have increased. Rather than "more gun laws", I think the real question here what is going on in our culture that makes more and more people think it's ok to attack innocent mobs of people? As other posters have notices, people have had guns since forever, and ownership used to be more widespread, without as many mass shootings.

My own opinion is that the moral compass of our society is seriously broken. Currently, we are blockading Yemen, where over 100,000 babies and children are expected to die of starvation or cholera. Yet what CNN tells me to be outraged about is that Trump made an insensitive tweet.

Until we have a culture that actually thinks mass murder is a bad thing, I'm afraid we'll have to deal with more violence.

I do, however, think we need "more truck laws". It's insane that people can just buy a 2500 pound truck that can be used to kill dozens without a government mental health evaluation. :-)


9 people like this
Posted by Gun Owner and Parent
a resident of another community
on Nov 3, 2017 at 9:53 am

As a gun owner and a parent to three kids under 7 years old, I am all for more gun control. My only reason to own a gun is to protect my family. I have no interest or believe that automatic rifles have any use other than for the military and law enforcement.


2 people like this
Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 3, 2017 at 9:59 am

@Gun Owner and Parent

"Automatic rifles" (machine guns) have been strictly regulated since the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The average person can't just go out and purchase one unless he/she has a federal permit to do so and lives in a state that allows possession.


3 people like this
Posted by What we really need is...
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 3, 2017 at 10:04 am

...systematic implementation of safeguards to keep all weapons out of schools.

We need metal detectors in schools so that kids don't bring in guns, knives/switchblades and stun guns to school.


7 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Nov 3, 2017 at 10:44 am

@Pointless: “IT's idiocy really - if the kid who brought the gun is unstable or has some anger at some other person such that the gun might be used - then take some serious action - otherwise, punish him of course but get a grip on how much.“

Do you really not realize the extreme danger to all the children in a class if a child brings a loaded gun to class? Are you not aware that children often do not exercise state-of-the-art judgement and engage in pranks and horseplay in class and that adding a loaded gun to the mix could have fatal consequences? Are you not aware of the fact that the child who would bring a loaded gun to a classroom of children displays much less that state-of-the-art judgement himself? I suppose that according to your logic that such a child should only be severely punished after there is an accident with a gun going off in the classroom and a dead child lying on the floor, as if that was some completely unforeseeable event.


6 people like this
Posted by Oliver Heaviside
a resident of Val Vista
on Nov 3, 2017 at 10:53 am

Oliver Heaviside is a registered user.

To "What we really need is" parents who will make it 100% clear and them some that even so much as touching a gun without the parent's permission and presence will result in punish so severe there are not words for it. And I ain't talking about a "time out"...

I was not an especially obedient child, but my Dad made it clear to me that if I _ever_ touched any of his firearms I would rue the day in ways I could not imagine. And I never touched them.

Laws requiring secure storage are not a perfect solution. Neither is disciplining your children. But we darn wll ought to do both. The parents of the children involved are guilty of negligence, and should be (a) fined; and (b) sent to a psychologist who can teach them how to discipline their children.


4 people like this
Posted by Brian
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Nov 3, 2017 at 6:16 pm

"Those who make laws for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor freedom" A phrase made by Benjamin Franklin. The creation of more laws to that protect no one but create a larger police state of fear, serves no purpose.
The Syltate of California already have gun laws that do little to protect anyone from crime. What is gun violence-"should it not be called projectile violence, what about knife violence, as we all just witnessed this week, a rental truck killed multiple people with not a shot fired.
Our Country is not a monolithic country, we are a country made up of independent States represented by the people with certaint rights given to us by a Federal Constitution that our Stare recognizes as the Law of the land. Many Americans do not even understand the Bill of Rights-the second amendment is written in two parts, first giving the States the right to form Militias and the second part separated by a coma-the right of the people to bear arms and have adequate arms and ammunition, and shall not be infringed upon. There are no assault rifles only semi automatic rifles. Guns are not the enemy-it's a Liberal Population from outside that have created our problems. We use to have guns in our vehicles and never had a mass shooting, bullies were taken care of through simply standing up and occasionally taken a lick and showing no fear. Criminals are given shorter sentences and being given the ability to vote. This is counter what is right, if you cannot abide by our current laws, such as robbery, murder-regardless of method-gun, car, knife, strangulation or poisoned its still murder-it is still violates our established laws. The purpose of our government is to protect our Freedom and secure our rights, not imprison ordinary citizens for horrible mistakesZ. The Dad in San Ramon was a criminal and illegally obtained the gun. The majority of gun owners are responsible and more laws like this are of little use. I agree education of ownership of first time gun owners are necessary and so is preparing parents on how to safe guard there weapons and teach kids early on of the dangers of guns through NRA trainers would be a better method and allowing gun stores to be the best way to purchase and educate-stop being so scared. You have a greater chance of being killed by s drunk behind the wheel or killed by a family member in an argument.


4 people like this
Posted by Patrick
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Nov 3, 2017 at 8:58 pm

Editorial board/Jeremy:
Shakespeare said "brevity is the soul wit" so this will be brief. More gun control laws? Sure, check Chicago. How's that going?


2 people like this
Posted by Patrick
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Nov 3, 2017 at 9:12 pm

Didn't want to leave my comment with a butchered Shakespeare quote. Brevity is the soul OF wit. Same Chicago argument still applies. Discuss....


12 people like this
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Nov 3, 2017 at 11:08 pm

@Patrick

Many of the guns used illegally in Chicago come from Indiana where gun laws are much more lax, and were not illegally obtained from within Chicago or Illinois. All that the case of Chicago demonstrates is that in order for gun control laws to be effective, they have to be applied uniformly and consistently throughout a region.


Like this comment
Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 4, 2017 at 7:51 am

@Sam

Gun control laws are not "effective" because criminals ignore them. Gun laws are "lax" because of the 2nd Amendment.

Sounds like more of the same that we've heard before - guns "cause" violence, the people who abuse them/violate current laws are just "victims", and the only way to address it is to ban gun ownership for those who wish to own them legally. I'm sure the criminals are just terrified of this.


16 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 4, 2017 at 9:26 am

BobB is a registered user.

I think it is worth looking at what was done in Australia, to see if we could do something like that in the US.

Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by Lawabiding
a resident of Amador Estates
on Nov 4, 2017 at 9:44 am

Is heroin use illegal? How about cocaine? How about the newest craze opioid addiction? Prostitution? Etc. Pass all the laws you want. Unless they are enforced nothing happens. All kinds of people are stopped in the bay area illegally carrying and they simply are let out with a slap on the wrist. New laws are worthless if the existing laws are not followed.


6 people like this
Posted by Rider
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2017 at 2:31 pm

Rider is a registered user.

In my opinion, the 2nd amendment has been misinterpreted.

The amendment states, "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."

To me, that means the right of the people to keep and bear arms only applies to civilians who are part of a well regulated militia i.e. active members of the national guard, state guard or reserve. For all other civilians, keeping and bearing arms would be a privilege subject to whatever safety regulations are deemed necessary by federal, state and local governments.


4 people like this
Posted by Billie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2017 at 4:32 pm

Rider,

The Supreme Court has rules on multiple occasions it pertains to the individual.

Since all of these shooters seem to have a history of mental instability and treatment we probably need a list of people who either are or have been inder mental health care and they should prohibited from ever owning a firearm. Just add that to list of disqualifers


16 people like this
Posted by highdiver
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2017 at 5:59 pm

I agree with BobB above, lets try the Australian way of handling gun control. No automatic firing weapons or shot guns, while allowing single shot weapons. The 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms was written when the only weapon that used bullets was a musket. I still have my musket, lol.


3 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 6, 2017 at 6:49 pm

.....good on the limit to ARs no reason for high capacity rapid fire weapons in civilian hands.
Shotguns though.....keep clay shooting an option


5 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm

BobB is a registered user.

I believe you can still get shotguns in Australia, just not semi-auto or pump action.


3 people like this
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm

BobB is a registered user.

Unless you are a farmer.


Like this comment
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 6, 2017 at 8:50 pm

Fine with me.


2 people like this
Posted by Rider.
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 6, 2017 at 10:06 pm

Rider. is a registered user.

@Billie

While the supreme court has ruled multiple times that the 2nd amendment pertains to an individual's right to bear arms, I believe the court has for some reason ignored the first part of the sentence which says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ..." This qualifies the 2nd part of the sentence which says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "The people", in this case, refers to the people who are part of a well regulated militia. You cannot have a well regulated militia that consists of an individual. This seems so simple and obvious to me.


2 people like this
Posted by Billie
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2017 at 6:32 am

Let’s be informed here. Please look up Heller ruling by Supreme Court and especially justices comments pertaining to the ruling. In discussing the 2nd amendment it’s important to keep in mind that they are safeguarding against a government becoming to dominant. Like the British or our own. Pertaining to Australia I lived there for 6 years and there are plenty of guns. Ibjad a class H license so I was able to have semiautomatic handguns. I joining a shooting club. The difference is they adhere to their gun laws and we do not. They have all the restrictions we do and then some. For instance if you have been treated for mental health issues you will not get a gun, if you are taking Prozac or any behavior modifying drugs you will not get a gun. If you have ever written anything in your social media threatening either verbally or physically you will not get a gun. If we were to do that here we would weed out all of these crazy people. We have a significant mental health issue in this country


1 person likes this
Posted by Rider
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 7, 2017 at 8:29 am

Rider is a registered user.

@Billie

I believe the 2nd amendment safeguards against a government becoming too dominant in that it allows for well regulated militia made up of people (plural) that have the right to own and bear arms.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against civilians owning firearms. I just believe the RIGHT to own and bear ares should be limited to members of a well regulated militia. For everyone else, owning a firearm would be a privilege not unlike the privilege of driving a car. The government could then license and regulate civilian ownership of guns in a manner that is sensible.


23 people like this
Posted by JT
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Nov 8, 2017 at 9:51 am

Web Link
An ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion. The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns. Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns.

After Britain had a mass shooting in 1987, the country instituted strict gun control laws. So did Australia after a 1996 shooting. But the United States has repeatedly faced the same calculus and determined that relatively unregulated gun ownership is worth the cost to society. That choice, more than any statistic or regulation, is what most sets the United States apart.

"Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges stated, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school.

“Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”!!!!!!!!!!


4 people like this
Posted by What we really need is...
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 8, 2017 at 12:47 pm

The only variable that can explain the increase in the number of mass shootings is the U.S. is "media contagion" brought about by continuously looping 24-hour news channels that fixate of each and every mass shooting and the internet that in effect makes anyone who perpetrates such a heinous crime a household name Web Link

When there was just the 6 o'clock news on either CBS, NBC or ABC and one or two newspapers being delivered to the doorstep once or twice a day, this proliferation of mass shootings did not take place.


25 people like this
Posted by Erin
a resident of Del Prado
on Nov 8, 2017 at 1:30 pm

@what we really need is....
Have you ever been to Britain? They have the same continuous news cycle over there. So does Australia. They also have the same amount of mental health issues. They do have better health care, but to blame differences in shootings on news or mental illness is false. Other Western countries have the exact same things but they do not have open access to guns for all, nor do they allow people to buy ar-15's. Just ridiculous.


2 people like this
Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 9, 2017 at 10:35 am

@Rider

Nothing "sensible" whatsoever about letting gun control supporters (in the government) deciding who can own guns.

This would be the equivalent of female employees having to report to male chauvinist bosses. No matter what the employee (gun owner) did or was willing to do the boss (gun control advocate) would endlessly find fault with them/never be satisfied.


2 people like this
Posted by MichaelB
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Nov 9, 2017 at 10:54 am

@JT

There is no "right to bear arms" in Britain or Australia.

The 2nd Amendment is overwhelmingly supported in this nation and is unlikely to be repealed. Most firearms in circulation are never misused and used responsibly or for defensive purposes. The "cost to society" that you want to impose is to disarm/criminalize millions of law abiding people doing nothing wrong - because of a few well publicized acts of violence? Really?

Time to examine the "cost to society" of so called progressive politics where the criminals are treated as victims, society is to blame, etc. We've had fewer guns laws in the past when they were easier to obtain - and less acts of violence/mass shootings. The "wild west shootouts" that gun control supporters guaranteed would take place after more states issued permits for people to carry guns never happened.


11 people like this
Posted by JT
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Nov 9, 2017 at 3:54 pm

“A well-regulated militia” Second Amendment rights are reserved to states and their militias – nowadays, the National Guards.
The truth is— that since the Supreme Court’s unanimous Miller decision in 1939, all federal appeals courts, whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second Amendment DOES NOT confer gun rights on individuals.


2 people like this
Posted by Pete
a resident of Downtown
on Nov 9, 2017 at 6:07 pm

JT,

You are fake news and spreading misinformation. Everyone should read the Heller ruling by the Supreme Court which upholds the individuals right. You should debate here but not mislead people.


Like this comment
Posted by Pete
a resident of Downtown
on Nov 9, 2017 at 7:57 pm

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense


21 people like this
Posted by Erin
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2017 at 10:59 pm

@Michael B,
The 2nd amendment in reference to muskets or rifles may be supported but the right to carry around semi-automatic weapons is overwhelmingly NOT supported. No, guns are rarely used effectively for defensive purposes. People justify them for that reason but statistically, in the home,they kill people much more often accidentally than defensively.
Only insane people believe that the "few well publicized acts of violence" are that. Way to try to minimize so many deaths.


Like this comment
Posted by Egas
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2017 at 10:25 am


2 people like this
Posted by Egas
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2017 at 10:27 am

And there you have it folks. Pearls of wisdom from someone who thinks anyone who disagrees with her opinion and no facts is insane.


26 people like this
Posted by Erin
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2017 at 3:19 pm

@egas,
Yep, people so in love with their guns that they are willing to write off 1st graders slaughtered while at school, concertgoers slayed while watching music, and people killed at church as just "a few well publicized acts of violence" are in my book insane. All of these unnecessary deaths by semi-automatic weapons designed only to kill quickly and easily. (removed)


Like this comment
Posted by BobB
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2017 at 4:11 pm

BobB is a registered user.

I don't think the we need to resort to language like "insane" and "fake news". We stop talking to each other at that point and real problems don't get solved.


Like this comment
Posted by Egas
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Nov 10, 2017 at 7:54 pm

Pretty much killed all conversation. Later.


Like this comment
Posted by Mike
a resident of another community
on Nov 11, 2017 at 12:01 am

Erin:

You do realize most guns are semiautomatic. The guns the cops have on their person are semi automatic, capable of firing 15 rounds as fast as the shooter could pull the trigger. The old revolvers in westerns were semi automatic, could fire six rounds as fast as the shooter could pull the trigger. Now I know what your going to say, people should not have guns. Should cops carry guns? We have all seen some of their questionable shootings. If you say yes, why should cops carry guns? If you say no, watch the crime rate go up and violence increase against the police. should cops carry guns off duty? You might say the cops are better trained. Not really. After about 30 hours of weapon training in the academy, all they have to do is qualify once a year firing 50 or 60 rounds and getting a score of about 70 percent. Guns don't kill people, people doing bad things kill people.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

"Better" Dads and "Re-invigorated" Moms: Happier Couples
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,548 views

Alameda County Grand Jury calls out supervisors
By pleasantonweekly.com | 3 comments | 840 views

 

Nominations due by Sept. 16

Pleasanton Weekly and DanvilleSanRamon.com are once again putting out a call for nominations and sponsorships for the annual Tri-Valley Heroes awards - our salute to the community members dedicated to bettering the Tri-Valley and the lives of its residents.

Nomination form