Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
resurrecting this post at the invitation of willravel:
I'm going to try to stake this out in a point by point argument.
1) San Fran votes to ban handgun ownership.
Will this get rid of all handguns in San Fran? very doubtful. You will end up with 2 reasons why handguns will still exist in San Fran.
1-criminals who want to use them will still get them. they will be more emboldened by knowing that real law abiding citizens will not be armed.
2-Some people, though law abiding they want to be, will refuse to give up what they see as a means, maybe their only means, of home/personal defense.
|
The only way to get rid of all handguns is with the end of the world. We all know that. Ending shipments of guns into San Francisco will lower illegal gun sales initially, as many guns that end up on the black market come from reputable sources (gun corporations). It is probable that Gun runners will see a quick boom in buisness. Of course, San Francisco has the somewhat unique position among places that have banned guns of being on a pinnunsla, which means that either the runners will have to use boats, or they will have to try and get in the guns via the various roadways (hwy 101, 280, etc.). This will become problematic, as gunrunners usually have police records, and often sell from stolen vehicles. In a city like San Francisco, which has an obscene amount of police presence on the major highways, it will be extremly difficult for the average gun runner to move goods into the city. I've also heard rumors that rewards for information about illegal gun sales will be announced within the next few months, making squeeling a very profitable and fesable action. The city of San Francisco is taking every step possible to avoid a repeat of what happened in Washington D.C. As I've stated before, San Francisco already has one advantage over D.C.: it is not right next door to a county that has extrtemly lax gun laws. West Virginia has been a bain for the D.C. gun ban, theoritically supplying over half of all guns in D.C. San Francisco is surrounded by California waters, and several counties, all that already have fairly strict gun laws.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
2) The Bill of Rights. Now I know that there are two different end arguments about what this means to people but I assure you that if you look at the BoR in an objective and logical manner you will see that the 2nd Amendment is a guarantee of the individual right to keep and bear arms. The objective look at this is to understand that the BoR was written to let the government, and the people, know that, in no uncertain terms, the people had inalienable natural rights and these were to be guaranteed above all else. That is what the BoR does, protect the natural and individual rights of the people. That means that the 2nd cannot be misinterpreted to define a 'collective' right referring to the national guard, especially considering that the national guard did not exist at that time. That being said, a handgun ban would be unconstitutional.
|
This is a dangerous topic, because the supreme court has had several different interpretations since the Amendment was ratified. Several justices have sided with my thoughts, in that the second amendment is intended as a guerentee that the government shall remain democratic, and that any force, foreign or domestic, cannot enslave or take the rights from the citizens of the US. This is supported by the mention of the militia, the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service or an army composed of civilians rather than professional soldiers. Other justices support your claim that this means that among the inaliable rights, such as freedom of speech, press, and religion, is the right to bear arms. The line of logic originally was to defend the populace from an oppressive government, but umbrellas out over self protection as well. Who's right? I'm not qualified to say, and I suspect that very few people are (none of whome are alive). This will have to remain unresolved, at least in my mind.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
3) Now, say San Fran wants to try this grand expiriment of a handgun ban.....what will it accomplish? some say it will result in fewer gun related deaths. That may be, however, what a criminal cannot accomplish via a handgun, it will accomplish via another weapon. Case in point, look at Great Britain. With the firearm ban, more criminals are resorting to other weapons like the katana. Yes, you read that right....the katana. Do we ban katanas then? or start to regulate their purchase in a restrictive manner? then the machete? and the bowie knife? you see where this is going?
|
I don't equate the danger posed by a gun to the danger posed by a katana, speaking as someone who is familiar with the idea of range, speed, acuracy, and mortality rate. There is simply no parallel between these two weapons in this argument. The gun ban will, only if successful, begin and end with firearms. Even an expert marksman with a bow or crossbow cannot match someone with a gun.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Weapons bans will not work because people intent on using them for villainous means will always, and I mean always, find alternative items to use as weapons. Whether those weapons are used to kill or not is irrelevant anymore. Some people will want to argue that 'life' is more important than protecting a valuable item, but it is at that time that we just become slaves to small bands of thieves or worse. If your sole intent is to limit the deaths by handguns, you may accomplish that, but violent crime will continue unless you start dealing extremely harsh sentences to them.
|
I am not against extreemly harsh sentences (ironically, I would support cainings and such as punitive measures in dealing with perpetraitors of violent crimes), in fact I believe that our justice and correctional systems are lax at best and broken at worst. Unfortunately, with the privitization of much of the corrctional system, a change in the status quo would be all but impossible. I hope that someday corporations realize that profit today, can sometimes mean trouble tomorrow. Foresight is the greatest ability for any organizaion or individual.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
There are some people in this world that just don't think and probably don't care. The animal that murdered wills friend is one of them. It would not have mattered whether it was a handgun then or his bare hands later in life. It would have happened sooner or later. It managed to just find a very easy way because of an irresponsible handgun owner. A very tragic loss for all involved and my heart goes out to the family and friends of that young man. What we need to consider, though, is that the handgun is a tool. A tool for defense with the capacity to kill. Some people wish to call it nothing more than a killing tool and I have to admit, theres not much in the way of physical evidence that shows otherwise, but we must not take that as face value. In todays world, when we have 250 lb men invading the homes of 80+ year old people in order to steal what little they may have left, and possibly brutalize them physically, a handgun may be the only thing left to provide a defense for these older individuals.
|
It's not as simple as calling a gun a tool that is for both defence, and killing. I'd like to examine the defensive capabilities of the gun for a moment. I remember my old football coach telling our team, "The best defence is a good offence". It's a mericle we ever won, but anyway...Even as a defensive 'tool', the gun is still at it's core an offensive weapon. The primary defensive use of a gun is not to deflect an attack, but to counter it. At it's best, the only defensive function of a gun is prevention and that can be said of any weapon. As I stated in the other thread, why buy a weapon instead of taking truely defensive measures? I have security doors on my house. I have triple pain glass which is more difficult to break. I lock the doors every night before I go to sleep. I even considered getting an alarm installed. Guns are hardly the only choice of someone wishing to defend his or her family.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't make sense to remove handguns from law abiding citizens so you can eventually whittle away at the illegal use of handguns over the next several years.
|
In an ideal world, one could cut off the supply. We don't live in that world, so the voting citizens, such as myslef, are trying desperatly to do whatever we can. If the experiment fails, then it will be a tragedy and we will have to take other syeps to try and reduce gun violence. If, by some chance, it is a success, then we can act as a model to other places that might have a rising gun violence problem. We'll have to wait and see.