.
Feedback

Sheriff Gore Calls for Gun Control, Universal Background Checks

Bill Gore also asked for a public discussion on mental health—hours after an Encinitas standoff left one man dead.

San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore said Thursday that he favored universal background checks for gun transactions—hours after an Encinitas standoff left one man dead and two deputies shot.

Gore, a Republican, called for a "common sense" discussion on gun control and mental health at a . Officials said he was diagnosed as suicidal during a psychiatric evaluation in December but are unsure how Kwik obtained the 12-gauge shotgun he is accused of using.

“At what point, do we have some sort of a dialogue and address some common sense responses to the violence we’re seeing in our society?” Gore said. “I think we can have that conversation without talking about people’s second amendment rights, but having some common sense solutions.”

Gore cited recent high-profile shootings in Southern California, such as those suspected of involving Christopher Dorner and the Orange County shootings this week.

Gore also said 25 percent of the 5,500 inmates in the county are on "some type of psychotropic drug."

"That tells you the type of mental illness we’re dealing with out there,” he said. “To not start addressing those issues looking at the mental health care we have in this country, and leaving those very significant societal problems to law enforcement is a tremendous mistake and we’re paying for it, I think, with the violence we’re seeing in our communities right now.”

Which do you think is more important, gun control measures or increased mental health services? Tell us in the comments. 

C.J. Minster February 22, 2013 at 11:57 am
It's a false choice. They are equally important.
Jay Berman February 22, 2013 at 01:39 pm
We already have background checks ... and what the hell is a "universal" check ? We have the strictest gun control in this state, more laws will do absolutely nothng - criminals don't follow laws ... Maybe if Gore would ease up and issue more CCW permits there would be less crime ..
Emmett Moore February 22, 2013 at 02:12 pm
Who wants to live in an Encinitas where your kids need armed guards at the school, where I have to carry a pistol out to dinner with my wife and kids? Where you have to always be fearful of what you say, what you do, or how you drive because it might provoke an unstable gun owner.
Isolde February 23, 2013 at 01:52 pm
Both are equally important... But, still it seems that anyone, including a heroin addicted, bipolar youth, w/ a police record, can get a gun somehow!
I would tend to rely on the mental illness system to provide more vigilance and support for the family and the patient. NAMI offers free Family Training Program of 12 classes. Why was PERT not called?
joe russo February 25, 2013 at 11:44 am
Emmett Moore: DO you carry a pistol out to dinner in Encinitas? If so, then I assume you MUST have a concealed carry permit. Do you believe that that is YOUR right, but should be denied others? If your statement was merely rhetorical then it smacks of paranoia. If you're really that fearful in Encinitas, perhaps you should consider moving to Chicago, which has pretty much the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Oh wait... It also has an astronomical murder rate. How's that 'gun control' working out?

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Encinitas Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Vicki Campbell June 17, 2013 at 04:42 pm
Prop A will help residents and stop greedy developers from buying city council. Vote YES
Rick Moore June 18, 2013 at 09:27 am
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that folks read the initiative. When you readRead More sections 6 and 9, you will see that Prop A sets a 30-foot or 2-story ceiling across the entire city, overriding lower height limits in many areas. The Downtown Specific Plan limits residences to 22-26 feet, as detailed on the DEMA website, so Prop A would actually allow the building of taller homes. It makes no exemptions or allowances for historic buildings like La Paloma, church towers or other structures over 30 feet high; the only exceptions are medical complexes and public high schools (see clause 6.2). Rebuilding or renovating (more than 50%) would require expensive public votes. Should the SRF be required to pay for an election to rebuild the Lotus Tower? Such contingencies are allowed for in our Historic Overlay Zone, which would clearly be overridden by Prop A. So is the Encinitas Preservation Association's plan to convert one of the boathouses to a museum. Again, Prop A would require an election (see section 4.1, clause e), which the EPA cannot afford. Prop A would thus favor large developers who have the money, time, lawyers and other resources to campaign for their project. How many nonprofits and small businessmen can afford to spend a minimum $30,000 just to get their project on a general election ballot (upwards of $300,000 for a special election like this one)? Yes, folks, please read the initiative, especially Section 9, which lays waste to anything that conflicts with it. That's why this has been dubbed Propzilla. I trust that most Encinitas citizens are smart enough to see that this meausre is deeply flawed, problematic and counter-productive. We can find much better ways to limit growth and preserve community character.
BlueAngel2 June 18, 2013 at 10:20 am
SAVE ENCINITAS FROM RANCID DEVELOPERS. VOTE YES ON PROP A!
BlueAngel2 June 15, 2013 at 09:47 pm
It would NOT surprise me. I thought we dumped Stocks. Why is he still around?
Encinitas YES on A June 16, 2013 at 02:44 pm
My YES on Prop. A sign was stolen yesterday. Other YES on Prop. A signs are disappearing. YetRead More another deceptive and untruthful mailer from the opponents of Prop. A was in my mail box. There's a shrillness and desperation in their opposition. They can't rely on facts and fair play. Polling data not looking good?
BlueAngel2 June 16, 2013 at 03:17 pm
YES ON PROP A will be victorious!
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
It just goes to show if Stocks or any of his puppets are involved, you will not hear the truth aboutRead More this proposition. They continue to confuse the issue. Please do not throw your vote away to ruin our city and enhance the developer's pockets who do not care what they do to our beautiful Encinitas. Vote YES on PROP A!
TB-ENC June 7, 2013 at 02:01 pm
How is this not a racist group with Hispanics in California at 14 million second behind whites atRead More 14.8 million. We only need one chamber to represent all Californians.
BlueAngel2 June 8, 2013 at 02:09 pm
So any group other than white is a racist group?
Miranda Klassen June 5, 2013 at 10:39 am
Congrats to all on the groundbreaking. Reesey has done an incredible job with making Lux what it isRead More today!
BlueAngel2 June 4, 2013 at 10:40 am
Vote YES on PROP A! The City Council is not experienced in real estate, zoning, construction orRead More development to make decisions for us.
CardiffCreature June 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Prop A will not control growth. It will make sure that BOTH the council and the public get toRead More directly weigh in on the deals being brokered between big developers and the city. This won't end the indirect developer subsidies, but it sure will help.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:26 am
Yes, it will help to slow growth, by making sure that the public approves raising height limits orRead More upzoning, for developments over the parameters of a MAXIMUM of 30 ft. and two stories. Lower set height limits will not be repealed, because they are not in conflict with the initiative or the General Plan. David Ahlgren's fear and speculation is not backed up by one single fact. He just raises the usual building industry "mantra" of alleged risks created by unnamed "unintended consequences." Council's attempt at a preemptive ordinance does NOT guarantee that will be placed on the ballot in 2014, and does NOT eliminate other loopholes such as the "less-than-5-acre" exception, the "categorization of intensity of use" exception, and the height limit exception. The only loophole that Council's drafted ordinance affects is Council's ability to vote by a 4/5 supermajority on upzoing if it is done with respect to a "significant public benefit." Not only is Council's recently drafted ordinance NOT guaranteed, in that a future Council could reverse it, if it is not enacted through a public vote, but also Council's attempt at preempting the "right to vote on upzoning and raising height limits initiative" DOESN"T eliminate the other loopholes that still exist in our General Plan, Policy 3.12., which exceptions I've spelled out, here.
Lynn Marr June 6, 2013 at 02:37 am
An initiative to Prop A has worked in Escondido, without any lawsuits. "In the 26-yearRead More history of Encinitas, no council has ever used this provision to approve a major project without first a vote of the people." That's completely untrue. The North 101 and Downtown Encinitas Specific Plans were pushed through by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and a supermajority of past Council AGAINST the wishes of citizens, against years of feedback from Specific Action Review Committees (Sparc)s and Community Advisory Boards (CABs), who wanted to stay with the limits of the General Plan of two stories, 30 ft, MAX, with certain exceptions, consistent with the Initiative! Just posting your opinion without any supporting evidence, Mr. Stocks, is only hurting your "cause." We and everyone we know, all our friends and neighbors, are voting YES on A! Voting YES is best if you want to take back your ability to help slow growth and to take back local control. Yes on A is a vote for Democracy and against insider influence and spinmaster jive promoted by marketing masters of misinformation, attempting to manipulate the uninformed masses with distortions of the truth. We don't need to be spoon-fed our opinions, but can think for ourselves, and act to protect and preserve our community character and our quality of life.
Greg Hay June 6, 2013 at 07:19 pm
Lies, lies and more lies. That's all the supporters of "No on Prop A" can come up with.Read More Even their slogan is weak and devoid of anything of substance… "It's not what it seems"… Really, THAT'S your argument against it?
BlueAngel2 June 6, 2013 at 07:22 pm
YES on PROP A which is NOT deeply flawed and very well written.