Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
you prove my point saying that making legal handgun ownership does not reduce crime, but in fact crime INCREASES!!! Why on earth do you want to subject law abiding people to be victims?
|
D.C. made a ton of mistakes. They assumed that they could just say no more guns and leave it at that. SF is not D.C. They see the track record of gun bans, and will have to build on what cities have done before. It is possible to learn from history.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Don't infer that. Thats like Bush calling it 'healthy forests' or 'clean air act'. You know thats not what I said just like I know thats not what you said.
|
Let's not be unplesant. I'm not comfortable being equated with Bush, at all. Guns aren't defensive. It's that simple.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
why? a bat or knife can be turned against you alot easier than a gun. with a gun, you can stop the intruder or aggressor with one shot. do you want criminals to have a better chance to win?
|
But as you said it's easier to defend against a knife or bat.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I misstated myself. The 'image' I was referring to would be the aggressor, not the pacifist.
|
A criminla cares about the element of fear (didn't you watch Batman Begins?). If you take an element of their tool of terror, they are less functional as a criminal because of it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
no its not.
|
Murder is the crime where one human being causes the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill or with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm (traditionally termed "malice aforethought") (see attempted murder where the mens rea (the Latin for "guilty mind") requirement is limited). The only arguable point in there is 'without lawful excuse'. In some places you are legally allowed to shoot someone in your house. In San Francisco, you are not. I should have been mroe specific in that I meant in San Francisco.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
"If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft" (Exodus 22: 2-3.)
|
That's OT, I'm all about the NT. I was just trying to tell you where I was coming from, not trying to make an argument about philosophy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
if they turn to run out the door or window when they see my gun, i'll try not to shoot but if they aren't fast enough, then see above.
|
In Texas, that's fine. In San Francisco, it's not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
why does a law enforcement officer wear a sidearm? Is it to kill a criminal? or is it to defend themselves?
|
They have a sidearm to defend themselves by shooting or shooting at criminals. I'd say at best it's both, and at worst it's the former.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
whats equally absurd is passing a law that criminals have no intention of following since the gun they already have is most likely illegal anyway and disarming the public in the process. The government does not have the authority to disarm the public en masse and most especially the government does not have the authority to force the people to not defend themselves. The people have the inherent and inalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.
|
This isn't the government disarming the populace. This is the populace disarming the populace. The government didn't pass this behind closed doors to the detriment of Constitutional rights, the people came out and voted to remove as many guns as possible from their community. We have the right, in addition to the rights to life, liberty, and the persuit of happieness, to VOTE. This was the dicision of the people. What you are talking about is actually very much authoritarian. The populace doesn't want guns to be legal, but you do.