As the national debate surrounding gun control continues, so does the epidemic of shootings.
What can be done to keep weapons—whether legal or illegal—out of the hands those who would use them to harm others? Tell us in comments.
Three horrific incidents of gun violence in February alone claimed multiple lives throughout the state.
A alleged gunman whose father described him as a “ticking time bomb” opened fire on two Santa Cruz Police officers Feb. 26, killing both the detectives who had gone to Jeremy Goulet’s home to interview him on a misdemeanor sexual assault accusation.
Goulet killed Police Det. Sgt. Loran "Butch" Baker and Det. Elizabeth Butler using a .45-caliber gun that was registered to him, according to Santa Cruz County Sheriff Phil Wowak. He died during a shootout with police.
Goulet, 35, had a history of sex-related arrests, including a rape arrest in the state of Hawaii, Wowak said.
In Encinitas, CA, a man suspected of shooting two deputies Feb. 20 before apparently dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound was deemed to be suicidal during a psychiatric evaluation in December, according to San Diego Sheriff’s Captain Duncan Fraser.
Evan Kim Tian Kwik, 22, is accused of using a 12-gauge shotgun to shoot two deputies from an attic crawlspace , prompting a 10-hour standoff. Officials said Kwik's mother, Michelle Kwik, reported he was upset that she filed a restraining order against him.
Law enforcement officials have not yet said how Kwik came into possession of the shotgun.
And an international manhunt for suspected murderer Christopher Dorner was triggered when the disgraced former LAPD officer went on a rampage of revenge killings throughout Southern California starting in early February.
Dorner died of a self-inflicted gunshot to the head, according to the autopsy report, after a shootout with police that resulted in the burning of the snowbound cabin in which he was holed up.
Dorner was armed with multiple powerful weapons, including an assault rifle.
A recent Gallup Poll shows a majority of Americans favor the nine key proposals made by President Barack Obama to address gun violence. Poll results show:
- 91 percent of Americans are most likely to be in favor of requiring background checks for all gun sales
- 82 percent want increased funding for mental health programs aimed at youth
- 79 percent want increased funding for programs to train law enforcement and schools in responding to active armed attacks
- And 75 percent want to increase criminal penalties for people who buy guns for others—so-called straw purchasers.
Are Carmichael and Fair Oaks safe from this kind of gun violence? Do you support the Obama plan? What kind of gun control would make a difference? Tell us in comments.
Two reasons people have guns: 1. They feel safer. 2. They want to. Why do people have cars that can go faster than 75? Why do people have cars faster than a 68 VW Bus? All riles killed less than 400 of about 7000 gun murders in 2010 Of the 400 the vast majority would not have been effected by any law under discussion. We talk about background checks but that assumes that there is a computer system with good quality information about everyone who should not be able to get a gun. Far from reality. Do you want a national database with all kinds of hear say evidence or guesses like they may be violent? Do you want to be put in that database with no way to contest the data. The cheapest way out is to have the national credit scoring companies add a new field to their database. After all we are almost all in there anyway. Did you see the 60 minutes program about credit scoring accuracy and how easy it was to get anything changed. 10% of all accounts had an error and 5% were serious errors, about the only way to get errors changed was to take them to court. If the government was running the database it would be worse.
We could have cars that would read the drivers thumb print and drivers license for a match to start the car. No car theft or car jacking. The cars computer could make sure the car was driven smoothly, did not exceed the speed limit, make sure all turns were legal and keep an appropriate distance from the car in front. The driver could be warned and if that did not fix the situation the car could call a violation in which would add points the the drivers license and make a debit charge from their bank. It there were not sufficient funds in the bank or if the insurance was not paid up the car would not start. Erratic driving could be amused to be a DUI. Such a system would reduce accident and traffic enforcement costs more than the system would cost and save about 20,000 lives a year. If your car did not check in with DMV for an extended period of time its registration would be suspended. Your insurance co would know how many miles you were driving and adjust your rates accordingly. They could also see were you went and how fast you accelerate and brake as other data points to change your rates. Intersections could have automatic plate readers to identify any cars moving that had not checked in with DMV first. DMV would send a code to match the vin / DL month so the computer could control the engine. No code no start.
If they did flag all 10 how many of them would not be able to get a gun? Only the ones that are locked up on some other charge. Oh wait if they were locked up the could not be one of the ten. Even if there were no guns gasoline bombs and a knife could kill more.
I want a few tons of gold but I am not willing to pay for it. If you ask me if I wanted a few tons of gold I would say yes.would you be willing to pay your fair share to have me a few tons of gold?
(1) these are NOT "automatic" weapons that are being discussed. (2) you really need to read The Constitution! you are currently allowed to post/express your opinion, under the protection of the First Amendment. when the constitution was written, "common" citizens, had the same, (and some better) firearms, as the military possessed. the second amendment, was put in the bill of rights to PROTECT, the first amendment, and all following amendments. it would be rather difficult to protect your freedom of "opinion, with a musket, against a machinegun.
you need to read, its Kirsten, not Kristen, my point was that I think automatic (and apparently "semi-automatic" weapons) need to be considered as part of the problem, I still can't see why anyone needs any type of "automatic" weapon... and Paul, excuse the misuse of "automatic" and "semi automatic"...the knowledge I have of guns would fit on the head of a pin. I like some of the traffic ideas noted by John but I think even you know how financially "un"feasible that is in this state for sure. but good ideas anyway.