longbough

You mention the effects on "gun violence," but isn't our concern specifically about the effect on homicide rates? Most gun-control advocates would argue that stronger gun-control legislation creates a reduction in homicide as well ... After all, in Japan and Great Britain, gun ownership is very restricted, and handgun ownership is prohibited. In the United States, guns are kept in about half of all homes. In 1996, handguns were used to murder 15 people in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, and 9,390 in the United States.

But the world isn't that simple. The effect of gun legislation on a country must be weighed against a cultural context. The homicide rate in Japan is similar to the homicide rate for Japanese-Americans, which suggests that the Japanese culture must be considered as well.

The restriction of legally purchased firearms doesn't necessarily translate into lesser homicide rates. It's easy to think it does if you restrict your comparison to GB and Japan. You should note that Switzerland has similar crime rates to Japan and Great Britain. In Switzerland, the purchase of semi automatic rifles and shotguns requires no permit, and adults are free to carry them. Handguns can be bought with firearm purchase permits, which are issued to all adults without a criminal record or a history of mental illness. About 40% of Switzerland's cantons (states) do not require a permit to carry a handgun.

Also consider that the number of firearm homicides in Great Britain has doubled since they imposed their current restrictive gun laws.

Also consider that Italy has the most restrictive gun laws in Europe and the firearm homicide rate remains twice that of Switzerland's.
---

"Gun running in the US would be extremely difficult"? I disagree. How did you come to this conclusion? Did prohibition work for alcohol? Is the current "war on drugs" working for heroin, cocaine, amphetimines or weed? Are immigration laws and Border Patrol enough to keep illegal immigrants out of the US? Since when has it been "extremely difficult" to smuggle anything into the US? The US is notoriously "wide open."
---------

If it was a test - what would your conclusion be if violent crime were to rise instead of fall? Would you be in favor of repealing that law?

In the eyes of people who follow the history of gun control this test has been done before. Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the national rate rose 12%. (you check the public record on www.fbi.gov).

Willravel

If gun violence were to rise after this law I'd surely consider repealing it. I want people to be safer, whether my way is right or not. San Francisco is not Washington D.C. The results may be different, and it's definatally worth a try.

Chilek9

In the District of Columbia, the gun ban was proven to be a failure, did they rush to restore the rights that they took? No. Unless the courts strike down the San Francisco law, which I believe they will, they will never give back the rights that they have taken. With the exception of Prohibition, the government has never given back rights that they have taken. Even when the intended purpose for the taking of those rights has not been achieved.

Nothing is worth a try when it has already been a proven failure everywhere it has been tried.

longbough

Thanks for making that point for me. I was going to follow up with the same statement, but I didn't feel like carrying on the discussion. It was enough for me to get the other fella to concede that a ban might not work at all - and may even be irreversably harmful.

Chilek9 you've given me a "second wind."

I'll make an analogy with car seatbelts in Hondas. If I were to argue that seatbelts don't save lives - one would point to the statistics (just as we have done with examples like D.C., Florida and other places). It'd be easy for me to say those cases aren't relevant to Honda drivers because they're completely different cars (e.g. SF Bay Area is a different city).

Can I say that we can "test it out" by MANDATING Hondas to be sold without seatbelts? What if you're wrong and lives are lost? Can you give those lives back? In the face of evidence of seatbelts with other "vehicles" is that a chance you can take?

To a person who never wore a seatbelt or has never been in an accident it really doesn't make a difference - just as the ban makes no discernable difference to a non-gun owner.

But if you happen to believe in the need for seatbelts you'd be very afraid of such a law - just as gun owners are worried about a ban.

Chilek9

What kills me is that people use these statistics or those statistics to prove their point when statistics don't even tell part of the story. In Switzerland, not only is possession of an assault rifle permitted, it's required for every single able bodied man. But we can't compare the two countries because of the difference in the way that people behave. According to the British Police union www.polfed.org the gun and knife crime rate has DRASTICALLY increased and they are calling for a huge uptick in the number of armed police. This isn't because Brits are engaging in more criminal activity, it's because of the immigration of large numbers of people that do not share their belief system and the perceived ease of victimizing an unarmed populace.

The seatbelt thing is pretty good, though. The logic just isn't there, anymore. The ONE thing that people forget is that, even if we managed to get a nationwide ban on guns and prevent them from ever being imported, anyone with a lathe and other tools can BUILD a gun, the formula for propellents can be found on the internet. People could be armed to the teeth, with no repercussions, in a few days. That doesn't count knives, chains, and whatever else the creative felon can come up with.

edited to correct a spelling boo boo that I found. Forgive the ones I didn't find.

Willravel

Irreversably harmful? A gun ban? This should be interesting.
All I've seen is Washington, and that has [I]always[/]I had a much higher crime rate than SF. I have not seen any evidence that this is not a case of apples and oranges. Is it not possible that this could work, simply because it has not worked once in the past?
I think it's obvious that as far as safety, these comparisons are not apt. We all know seatbelts save lives and there is irriputalbe evidence supporting that. Guns do not save lives. They are weapons intended to do harm or cause destruction. There is no way to test the no-gun scenerio in SF without putting the laws into effect.

I'm arguing this wrong. Let's start at the beginning. I say that guns are too big a liability to have at all, and even if they are available elsewhere, we should restrict the ownership of guns as much as possible. The people of S.F. agree with me. One the flip side, you say that because the gun ban might have given rise to a higher murder rate in places like Washington D.C., it might not only not help people, it could actually hurt people. You argue that those who legally own hand guns are now safer because of those hand guns and taking them would put them at a greater risk.

Here's why I think you're wrong. In the past 26 years, America has only seen an average of no more than 300 justifiable homicides a year by civilians. This stands in stark contrast the the NRA's quote that there are "as many as 2.5 million protective uses of guns each year..." Does this mean that the bad guy never dies? Searching online, I've found a great deal of research coming from websites that feature picutres of guns in their logo, but very little coming from reputable sources besides 2 big cases: Washington D.C., and Australia.

Let's break the Washington D.C. situation down. The big problem here is that Washington DC is right next door to Virginia, with very leanient gun laws. Because you have a gun ban right next door to lenient gun laws, of course you have a problem. The same is not true of San Francisco. California on the whole has pretty serious gun control. San Francisco is surrounded by either the rest of California, or the pacific ocean. It is not mear miles from an area with lax gun control. This is an of itself makes the SF/DC comparison that of apples and oranges.

Australia: Two years after the Austalian ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.Of course, those statistics weren't specific enough to let you know that almost all of those crimes were committed with guns that were STILL LEGAL. The Aussi gun ban banned 60% of all guns, leaving the market with 40% of guns still legal to purchase and own.

longbough

I don't expect my analogy to put the issue to rest nor would I expect it to change your mind, will. - It's simply a description of my personal rationale.

Willravel

I was simply responding to your second wind. I wanted you to know I was still up for a good debate.

EDIT: One thing I want to make clear. I know the the single most effective weapon against gun violence and murder is a high employment rate. If San Francisco were to put the gun ban money into a citywide employment program, in order to take the pressure off many low income and jobless families, this would be MUCH MORE LIKELY to recude gun violence and hiomicide. My argument is simply that the gun ban very well could reduce gun violence. We voted, it's law. Let's do our best.

longbough

you mean I couldn't sneak that last jab "under the radar"? damn

Chilek9

The single most effective weapon isn't employment because we have the highest employment rate, right now, in a long, long time. There are some people that, no matter how good the job is, find it easier to steal and they pay less taxes that way. So, I don't believe your solution would have enough success to be a factor in the equation. The trick to getting people employed is to dump the more ridiculous rules that keep a business from succeeding (excessive regulation, environmental documentary and operational requirements and taxes), this would make it easier for employers to pay a higher wage and keep his/her business operating longer. Gun restriction laws have NEVER proven to reduce violent crime. Does it reduce gun crime? Sure, but it has the effect of INCREASING other forms of violent crime. It emboldens criminals who KNOW that their victims are unarmed. So violent assaults, home invasions, carjackings, robberies, rapes, murders all go UP, but gun crimes do go down MARGINALLY. We also voted in Prohibition in in the 20's, how's that for a roaring success?

Willravel

Actually the employment rate is misleading. As unemployment goes down, so also are wages (at least in Cliafornia, mirrored locally in San Francisco).
Also, many people are now working at less secure jobs such as part time or contract work, or are now self employed. These jobs are linked to high stress and instability.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...UGQ08OAV61.DTL
When I said unemployment, I was being too vague. What I mean is employment, paired with fair wages and stability, in other words, a happy workforce. With a happy work force comes a dropping and low crime rate.
Well, if people stop paying taxes and working within the confines of environmental law, our deficit would skyrocket (even more so than it is now), and we could do irreperable harm to the environment. If we hurt the environment too much, it won't matter if you have a good job because you'll be dead.
I'd fact check that statement if I were you.
Is there an AA for gun owners? Hvae guns been a part of society since before written language? Do people go to bars and shoot guns to relax?
Again I say apples and oranges.

pan6467

I feel the exact same way about this as I do Gay marriage and I have been very consistent on my posts with it.

It is the community's right to vote and decide what they want. If they vote against gay marriage or pro gun, it is not up to me to say I disagree. And vice versa, if they vote pro-gay marriage, anti-gun. The voters know what is best for their community and how they want to live. So long as it is not discriminatory against race, religion, etc.

And where I differ on the Constitution than then NRA is I believe that the Constitution says the "federal" government cannot pass laws on weapons but it doesn't say the states or individual communities can't.

On the other hand, I do believe that if you live in SF and own a handgun as long as it never leaves your house you're ok. In other words if an intruder breaks in, threatens you and your family, and you shoot them, I believe you have every right to protect.

But if you walk down the street, and you have a handgun and get caught for some reason, then you should face some punishment.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

cj2112

So are you saying that if I were in SF on my way to the range to shoot my handgun, and i get pulled over, I should be arrested?

pan6467

If that's how the people voted. Personally, I don't care, never have about gun issues (except semi-autos and autos).

But I also think if you have it in your trunk and therefore not possibly within reach that's a different story.

You may not like it, I may not like some laws local governments make, but if it's that important to me I can move.

A couple questions I would have to ask you about your scenario is, if SF bans handguns then wouldn't it follow they wuldn't have any gun ranges?

As pointed out earlier if the community banned gay marriage would you approve the majority's decision there? SO what's more special about your rights as opposed to someone else's?

If you are driving down the road obeying the laws, then why would you be pulled over to begin with? And if your gun is in your trunk and 100% out of reach why would you be concerned?

Do you live in SF if not then why are you pissed over what a majority wants in a community YOU do not live in?

That's one of the huge issues, people (esp. NRA buffs) claim they want less federal government or government period, but yet when a community's majority votes for something, those people begging for less Fed interference are the first to demand Fed involvement. And in most cases they don't even live in that community, have very little support until they pump money and fear into it, and threaten lawsuits that the community cannot pay for.

So groups like these who supposedly stand for the rights of the people, say FUCK YOU VOTERS OF WHEREVER, WE SAY WHAT YOU CAN DO.

And yes, both left and right have groups doing the same thing and it is extremely wrong, the voters voices should be respected (so long as they are not prejudicial against race, religion, sex, etc.). The community doesn't want guns, then they should be allowed to decide that, they vote they don't want public smoking so be it (that would personally affect me, and I don't like that but if the majority says no, the people have spoken.)

Let the states and communities govern themselves, let the will of the people who live in the communities vote for what they believe they need. Noone in NC should be yelping about SF voting for something that doesn't affect them.

Same with abortion, gay rights, whatever, the communities should be able to decide what best suits them.

The second you demand Fed. interference you take rights away from not just that community but EVERY community. Then you complain the Fed has too much power..... so which do you want? More interference or communities to be able to vote for what they believe is best for them?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ziadel

guns are tools, and tools have been around before the advent of language.

monkeys are starting to use tools.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

Willravel

Guns are not tools. Guns are weapons. I'm not sure one can say that weapons (in the same way a gun is a weapon) have been around since before language. Where alcohol represents decadence or addiction, guns represent cowardly combat. Guns are the modern equivelant to blinding powders and poisoning. Apples and oranges.

Chilek9

I have checked the statistics, Great Britain, Australia and Canada have all seen a reduction in GUN crime but a catastrophic increase in all other violent crime to include home invasion robberies. It is to the point in Great Britain that the British Police union have called for a large increase in the number of APO's (armed police officers). More British cops with guns after a ban on guns. What does that tell you?

The federal tax revenue has increased with lowered taxation because of the increase in spending associated with people have more money in their checks (Americans can't save a nickel if they have it to spend). The problem isn't that you can't lower taxes, which every government can, but the inability of politicians to lower spending on commitments that they shouldn't have made. Federal education spending, not the fed's business. Federal spending on local police (community oriented policing, etc), not the fed's business, that's the state's responsibility. Welfare? Not the fed's business, that is state business. Medicare? Not federal, but state. By putting all of this spending on the fed's doorstep, it encourages a GROSS lack of efficiency and the unwillingness of states to increase their revenues by encouraging employment and business. If local entities were responsible for generating their own revenue, without IMPROPER influence of the federal government, they'd learn to become MUCH more efficient and responsive to voters. On that hand, it would greatly increase business opportunities and employment.

Gun owners don't need an AA. We aren't "addicted." Though I LOVE to shoot competitively. Guns haven't been a part of society before written language (what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?), and we don't sit around at bars shooting to relax, we do it at weapons ranges and it's a lot more fun and healthy than drinking. My point with the Prohibition thing is that you can make them as illegal as you want, Americans WILL have guns. You just have to decide if you want someone like me to have one to defend not just myself, but you, too, against the criminal that will always have one no matter how many laws you pass.

Chilek9

Guns most certainly are tools. They are an inanimate object designed for different purposes (despite what others would say). Many are designed for target shooting and target competition, some for hunting, and, yes, some for killing. There are many implements that were designed for one thing and later made into a weapon (the nunchaku of Japan for instance). What makes a weapon a weapon is the intent of the user. Police can charge someone for using a weapon when they use a beer bottle. Why? Because of the INTENT of the user and the capability of the "weapon."

"Guns represent cowardly combat." Interesting phrase, may I inquire as to your line of thinking with that? As a law enforcement officer, I have always viewed it as the last line of defense of life. During my time in the military, I viewed it, and myself, as the instrument of government policy. I don't view a firearm as a representative of anything. It is a tool that follows the intent of the user and nothing else. Guns are the modern equivalent of bows and arrows, there is nothing "sneaky" about their use and it sure served our purposes when we needed to put Hitler out of business or hold Joe Stalin at bay.

Willravel

You can't build a house, dig a hole, or cut wood with a gun. Guns were invented as a means to injure or kill. They are destructive, not constructive. How many people go hunting within the city limits of San Francisco?
As someone who has been shot, and who has seen others shot, I understand guns pretty well. They are easy to use projectile weapons intended to keep your enemy at a distance, injure or kill quickly and easily, and need little dicipline to use. Compare that with other hand weapons. Compare that with a sword or bow and arrow. When you can kill someone who has spent his or her life dedicated to combat with little or no effort or training, that's cowardly. I believe the same about bombs, missles, and other military technology.

Chilek9

I disagree that a firearm isn't a tool because, as with a hammer, shovel or saw, it ALL depends on its use. As a law enforcement officer, I don't use it to kill, maim or wound, I use it to STOP an assault, therefore to protect the lives of others. Yes, the immediate use is to harm another, but only to stop an unlawful assault of that immediate person. Just like SWAT is not a killing team, it's a life saving team, so is a firearm. SWAT saves lives by stopping a deadly assault. Sorry, I just see it differently about firearms not being tools. I think they are, just like a baton, OC spray and handcuffs.

Firearms are not easy to use, try hitting someone at 25 yards while under fire, that requires the discipline to aim, steady, maintain a sight picture and roll the trigger. That requires patience, discipline and training. It isn't cowardly when the OTHER person has the same level or more of lethal capability as you do. Tell the cops in Los Angeles that they were cowards for standing toe to toe with men with automatic rifles while they used pistols and fought those guys to the death and won. That isn't cowardice. Courage and cowardice are measured not by the tool, but by the actions of the person bearing the weapons. Knowing when to resist and when resistance would create more problems than solving them takes MORAL courage. Knowing not to draw and fire and instead being a good witness is frequently what I do when I'm armed. I KNOW that I won't use deadly force on a car thief, but just be a good witness because I know that they can make another car and there's no real harm. But if someone tries to take the car by force from another person during a carjacking, I would probably use deadly force if I believe the victim has a high risk of being injured or killed in the assault because there is no easy way to replace the person. Again, the firearm is then used as a tool to SAVE life, not take it.

Willravel

Agree to disagree since it's starting to seem like a threadjack. I suppose it's moot in this discussion.

Going back to San Fran...do you agree that San Franciscos gun ban could go differently than Washington D.C.s? Is it even posible that we might see positive change?

Chilek9

The difference with the Frisco ban is that it contradicts state law. Because of that, it doesn't stand a prayer in court. A change in state law permitting municipalities and counties to override the state on this particular issue would validate the law and make it harder to challenge. So, strictly on technical grounds, I don't see the law standing up in court. I see it as a way to enact a larger ban on handguns throughout the state by enraging anti-gun folks that the law is overturned, when it is, and thus motivating the state to make a state-wide ban. But I don't know of a single state in the Union that would like a law that overrides state authority in favor of a municipality.

Charlatan

I can agree that rifles are a tool but handguns sole purpose is anti-personnel. The average citizen has no need of these sorts of tools.

Access to them should be strictly controlled and punishment for those found using them should be unusually severe.

Sadly, given the number of handguns that have been produced and are readily available, I don't see this ever happening.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

longbough

It's pointless for a gun-proponent to explain their perspective on guns to someone who is decidedly anti-gun. The fact is that 99.9% of gun-control/ban advocates have already made up their mind about the issue - even though their experience with it is essentially non-existant.

Ironically, a gun-control/ban advocate will regard everything a gun-proponent says as biased and unobjective - even if that person happens to be a law enforcement officer, statistician, sociologist or university law professor.

It's as pointless to discuss this issue as it is for a self-aknowledged homosexual to explain their perspectives to a homophobic skinhead.

Consider this hypothetical scenario:
If the example of Washington D.C. showed a decrease in violent crime instead of an increas - gun-control advocates would be exclaiming that this is definite proof of the effecacy of gun-control - and the example would probably be implimented in many more cities.
Do you think, in such a case, a gun-owner could get away with saying, "Washington D.C. is different than SF - that's why it won't work here."?
Heck no. They'd be immediately be branded as a self-serving, unrealistic lunatic.
In these politically-correct times the same can't be said when the opposite is true.

Charlatan

I disagree.

I have come to understand the gun-advocate's point of view quite well (mostly from reading posts here). I still see no need for allowing handguns into the hands of people.

What it really comes down to is, I want them and no one should tell me otherwise. The truth is people are dying in very large numbers from handgun use. If the manufacture and sale of these weapons was strictly controlled it would be a different scenario. The fact that I can go to a gun show and purchase a handgun, legally, in the parking lot without having to go through any paperwork (i.e. criminal check, etc.) is just wrong.

I can see "collectors" getting upset about their "rights" but you know what? I don't care about those rights. Someone's rights to not get shot trumps your right to collect a hunk of metal. Yes, you may be a careful and safe collector but I believe in the greater good. You could argue that making it illegal to shout fire in a crowded theatre, when there is no fire, takes away your freedom of expression too...

There is no way to defend the handgun as a tool. It's simple one use task is for killing other humans and the entry bar for attaining them and the punishment for using them is set WAY too low.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

longbough

Consider this hypothetical scenario:
If the example of Washington D.C. showed a decrease in violent crime instead of an increas - gun-control advocates would be exclaiming that this is definite proof of the effecacy of gun-control - and the example would probably be implimented in many more cities.
Do you think, in such a case, a gun-owner could get away with saying, "Washington D.C. is different than SF - that's why it won't work here."?
Heck no. They'd be immediately be branded as a self-serving, unrealistic lunatic.
In these politically-correct times the same can't be said when the opposite is true.

Charlatan

Yes, there could be a drop in violent crimes if everyone had a gun. That's besides the point.

If there were few to no guns there would few to no deaths by handguns. There is nothing politically correct about this.

The problem isn't who owns handguns. The problem is that they are manufactured en masse and readily available to anyone who wants them. You toss these into the socio-economic stew that is "wrong side of the tracks" America and is it any wonder there are so many gun related deaths?

Sure you will still have some knife deaths... you will still have some beating deaths. You aren't going to ever eradicate murder.

Like I said earlier... this is all just imagining though. It is too late. That pandora's box was opened long ago and there is very little that is going to fix it. The part that pisses me off is that the vast number of handguns available on the streets of Canada are brought across the border from the US.

Our laws do not prevent you from owning one but they do make it difficult enough to get one... that is, unless you cross the border.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

longbough

these posts arent' the best source of information. The most informed people don't necessarily post here. You get a mixed quality of opinions and information/disinformation

Despite what some media commentators have claimed, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its "instant" background check (which often takes days to complete). As a result, firearms are the most severely regulated consumer product in the United States -- the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.

Conversely, people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the FBI before completing the sale. This is not exclusive to "gun shows."

The buzzword "gun show loophole" is a myth. If you have a problem with the private sale of firearms that's a different issue. But those who refer to "gun show loophole" only demonstrate that their sources of information need to be reconsidered.

I am neither a collector nor a hunter. And I do consider the gun as a tool - it is a tool I have trained to use to protect my life and the life of my family should that need arise. It's sad that you view someone like myself as a danger to society.

I have many friends in law enforcement and, believe it or not, the majority of LEOs I am aware of (and certainly ALL the LEOs I have known) support the private ownership of firearms for self protection. Furthermore they make it clear that the duty of police officers is not to prevent crime - and that if your house is being invaded they're unlikely to be around to save you.

I won't try to convince you that you'd be safer if you had a gun - but that's your decision, not mine.

I didn't say everyone should have a gun. But don't discount the power of knowing that citizen may be armed as a deterrent for criminal activity. Conversely, knowing that guns are explicitly illegal for citizens removes a level of uncertainty to the potential mugger/rapist/criminal. But I know I can't convince you of that - so let's just agree to disagree on this point.

Willravel

The internet is bursting at the seams with pro gun information, just google it and you'll see. That's where a great deal of the figures and facts in this forum come from.
Where do criminals get their guns? Does this gun ban effect that source, at the very least within city limits? If so, why is this such a bad thing? If criminals are less likely to have a gun, guns become less necessary in the home for protection.
[QUOTE=longboughThe buzzword "gun show loophole" is a myth. If you have a problem with the private sale of firearms that's a different issue. But those who refer to "gun show loophole" only demonstrate that their sources of information need to be reconsidered.[/QUOTE]
If we (those not so keen on guns) need to be educated about something, let me request that you educate us. What are the rules and laws surrounding gun shows? Where did this misconception of a loophole come from? Is it easier to get a gun at a gun show?
I know you are almost certianally not a danger to society, and I suspect that Charlatan agrees. There are people out there that are dangers to themselves and others, and they are the focus of our fears and aprehenshions.
Protection has to begin at prevention (not that I'm telling you how to do your job, just in general). If for example, you get a tip from a reliable source that a large consignment of cocaine is being transported up the coast in a boat, you try to stop the boat, that way the drugs never get to the people they would hurt. Isn't that the ideal solution? Much the same, wouldn't you want to make sure that criminals can't get guns (outside of the gun ban argument, let's say better gun control, things like better tracking and such)? If you were able to keep the guns from being distributed to 'bad' people, then wouldn't that be ideal?
I've never had my house broken into. I've had my car broken into a few times, but nothing serious. I don't fear criminals to the point where I'd try to fight back, espically with guns. If someone were to break into my housre, I'd probably confront them and offer to give them cash. Why? Because a criminal is likely someone who is desperate and ahs been drivin to doing something that most consider wrong. The average criminal is not a carreer criminal, as far as I know.

Edit: thank you for being an excelnt advocate. Your civility is refreshing. Also, welcome the the discussion, Charlaton.

Charlatan

From what I hear from both the media and Canadian law enforcement, it is the "gun show loophole" that is providing my streets with guns. Private sales of handguns to individuals who are not tracked. These guns have become quite a problem.

I recognize your desire to protect your family. When there is a flood of handguns out on the streets, one feels the need to arm themselves. This is a race to the bottom and given the current state of affairs why wouldn't you?

I am trying to suggest another way of looking at it. What if we take handguns completely out of the equation? What if no one can legally have them but law enforcement? What if those who are caught using them are subject to some very severe punishment?

Suddenly the need to arm yourself in response to an armed criminal presence isn't neccessary. Not that I believe there really is any need at this time but who am I to argue with how you percieve things?

What I am trying to say is that we would all be safer if there were no handguns.

Again, I get this. I can even see how it can psycologically make sense. I can also see how it leads to an arms race. How long before body armour is readily available to criminals? How long before it is a gang with guns robbing you or individuals with a bigger more powerful gun...

Yes, arm yourself makes sense in this climate but are you not just adding to the problem?



I'd also like to second willravel's question: where do criminals get their handguns from?


By the way, I swore I'd never get involved in one of these debates but this one seems to have remained rather civilized.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Willravel

Do you have any gray poupon?

Chilek9

For what it's worth, you asked if it wouldn't make sense to keep the criminals from getting guns and wouldn't that be preferable. I agree, it would be, BUT there is no way, ever, to achieve that aim. Guns are forbidden to private owners in quite a few countries, to include Mexico and look what has happened, Nuevo Laredo can't keep a chief of police because the drug gangs keep assassinating the new ones. Gun control/bans do not prevent armed crime, it only prevents armed defense. Tracking a gun only works AFTER the gun has been recovered so that we can get the serial number and the gun is already out of circulation.

The laws we have are perfectly capable of achieving the best form of control anyone can get. Enforcing the laws on the books and increasing penalties for unlawful gun use would go a long way. Instead of fining or pulling the licenses of gun dealers that permit or don't work to prevent straw sales isn't working, start arresting and jailing them. Put people that use guns away for a LOT longer than we have been. Quit accepting excuses for criminal conduct and lock these people up!!!

longbough

If I had to defend myself against someone weilding a knife or a bat, should I be expected to enter a knife-fight? If my life is in danger I will use a gun. What could an 85lb old lady do?
This is already the case. I think it's safe to say we still have a problem.
A ban changes nothing in this regard.
I don't understand how I, as a gun-owner, am adding to the problem - unless you see me as a threat. As a slogan it sounds superficially rational - but think about what that statement is really saying.

-----------

If you want to have an idea of the typical sociopath or criminal mind you ought to consider the opinion of most LEOs. I used to work as a community primary care physician and now I'm working as a physician for the California Department of Corrections. I have some familiarity with the socioeconomic issues of the underserved community as well as the needs of the middle and upper-middle class.

My experience doesn't trump your opinion - but I would beg of any neutral reader to consider my opinions seriously.

Willravel, you should know better than to misrepresent my statement that, "these posts aren't the best source of information." I had written that in response to a comment from Charlatan that he/she has "come to understand the gun-advocate's point of view quite well (mostly from reading posts here)." Are you defending the idea that these forums are sufficient resource from which to understand the gun-proponent argument? While much of what is written on these forums are sourced from the internet - so is much disinformation. Unless you check the facts for yourself there's no way to distinguish the two from just reading the forums. Honestly, how can you possibly argue against conducting independent research through alternative sources? That's like marshalling a defense for perpetuating ignorance. I credit you with more insight than that.

Unless you believe that "gun shows" and legal gun transactions are the main source of criminal firearms then how will a ban on firearms affect the criminal?
Even so, is it not conceivable, that this will just bring more business to the black market?
Did prohibition work for alcohol?
Does the war on drugs affect marajuana, heroin, cocaine or amphetamine use? I work with substance abuse patients so I can tell you that the problem is as alive and well as it always has been.

Even if the effect of a ban on criminal activity is debatable - one thing for sure, if I were living in SF proper, I would certainly be affected by it. While you may not regard me as a danger - a law banning firearms would say otherwise.

----
Prevention may be the ultimate solution. I agree. But that isn't an immediate solution for an active problem. The horse is out of the barn - fixing the door now will help in the future but we have things we must do here and now. The ability to defend onesself with deadly force doesn't displace the need for prevention - nor does the focus on prevention address immediate concerns for self defense.

As I mentioned I work with hardened criminals in the overcrowded California State prisons - I don't envision these people, all at once, becoming "born again" in the near future despite whatever social programs and psychological, occupational and educational resources they might have at hand. Spend a day at work with me and you'll realize that there are many people released into society who are hardened "predators." And as much empathy as I have at my disposal I prefer to retain the ability to defend my loved ones if I have to.

If you have never been assaulted, burlarized, had your life threatened, raped or otherwise brutalized consider yourself lucky and count your blessings. Ignorance is bliss - it happens in the best neighborhoods to the most unsuspecting and compliant people. I'd rather be prepared.

My uncle owned a grocery store and was robbed at gunpoint. Being an unassuming, peaceful man he was compliant with the criminal completely handing over all the cash in the till. It just so happen the man decided to shoot my uncle in the face anyway. In the face of uncertainty I'd rather be prepared. And please don't even suggest that a ban would have prevented that from happening.

I've never had my house burn down or destroyed by earthquake - but I carry insurance.
I have never lost a limb - but I do carry disability.
I have never gotten Hepatitis B but I have my vaccinations.
I have never been in a situation that required my need to take someone's life - but I do own a gun and know how to use it - psychologically as well as physically

- Again, I don't expect you to see things my way - you've already made up your minds. But know this. Just because I'm a gun owner doesn't mean it'd be my first resort if I get robbed or that I am quick rely on deadly force as a solution to most adverse encounters. If my car was being stolen I'd let them take my car (that's why I have insurance) or my house were being burglarized I'd stay in my bedroom, lock the door and call 911 with gun in hand.
But if that carjacker was thinking of dragging me to the pavement to beat me in a riot or if my neice were screaming in the next room because the invader decided to do harm to her (heaven forbid) I wouldn't (and shouldn't) hesitate to consider the use deadly force. It doesn't matter if the invader has a gun, a knife, a pipe wrench or a baseball bat.
But if the law were to disarm me I would be absolutely powerless ... In a matter of life or death it's unreasonable to think a knife-fight is an appropriate alternative.

They are not unrealistic scenarios - they happen all the time. I was living near the city at the time of the Rodney King riots. Luckily I was already safe at home and not in my car on the roads at the time.

Willravel

I absolutely do. I recognise that you know more about firearms and the firearms industry than I do. I recognise that unfortunate circumstances have made it necessary for you to carry a firearm in order to protect yourself as a last resort. I respect the fact that you would use your gun responsibly. Now that I know that you work with the CDC (not Centers for Disease control, but California Department of Corections, funny that they share an acronym), I would assume that your knowledge of criminals is quite reliable. Just so you know, I have experience in psychology and sociology ( as well as managment, accounting and fatherhood, though those seem less relevent). I am also what most would call an activist. I've been involved in dozens if not hundreds of legal protests.
I think you misunderstood me. I was simply suggesting that the arguments of most on this forum are only as good as their sources, and I would assume the main source for many people here are other intenet sites. As for the quality of these sites, after doing quite a few searches, I've found that there is a great deal of misinformation and a great deal of flat outwrong information out there. I know that I have to double, triple, even sometimes quadruple check my sources online because I don't want to aid in misinformation. I actually prefer that people get their information from legitimate sources (meaning no websites with guns in thier logog, and likewise no peace signs, sugesting that the information from such sites is almost certianally spun). My sources on gun regulation, gun bans, and other gun facts are limited.
Again I must ask...where are the criminals getting their guns? If we can limit or even cut off that suply, then gun bans won't be necessary. Where do criminals get theri guns?
I can't use illegal drugs. If it were legal to take all currently illegal drugs, I might occasioanlly use one such drug responsibly. Of course, there would be many who abuse that substance and could be hurt or killed by it (much like alcohol). I understand that I am making a sacrafice for the greater good.
I admit that most who voted for this probably know about as much as I do, I don't think there is a big secret in San Francisco about how a gun ban will work. It's possible that this could be a failure, in which case the citizens of San Francisco will apologize and ask for our guns back.
I respect that completly and I hope that you and yours are always safe, but the same company that made guns to protect you and your loved ones is making guns that could be used to hurt you and your loved ones. The function of this law at it's core is to prevent the latter. If it cannot do that, then what can>?
I've been assaulted, burglarized, had my life threatened, and a few other things (not rape, though *crosses fingers*). I used to be the kind of person who would stand up and take the guy down. I hold a high ranking in martial arts and boxing, and I've used both to defend myself in the past. After a while, though, I came to the conclusion that the old philosophy is true; violence begets violence. I live by that philosophy now. I've never had my house broken into, true, but I do understand what it is like when someone attacks me or tries to hurt or steal from me.
I won't suggest that because no one could know that and it would be disrespectful to both you and your uncles memory. I see myself as being like your uncle in that I look for both the good and the logical in people. I know that there are people out there who would kill me in a blink of the eye. I hope to never meet them. I also seek to take their power to kill, and possibly help them to understand empathy. This law, whether misguided or not, was intended to take the power from bad people, and is asking that good people make the sacrafice of their power in exchange for it.
Wouldn't you prefer to activly work to prevent bad things instead of somply preparing for them?
I think you know better than that. I rarely make up my mind 100% on anything. I am willing to open my mind and be open to possibilities.
That is one of those super rare situations where I agree that you are alowed to use whatever force is necessary to defend yourself and those who are defenceless. If, heaven forbid, I was in a similar situation, I am willing to do perminant physical harm to someone in order to prevent him or her from harming or killing the helpless. I personally don't ever see any reason to use deadly force, but I respect your opinion and I would support you in it if it ever came to pass.

longbough

Of course you don't use recreational drugs, since you're a law abiding citizen - but the people who continue to use them to the point of personal destruction have no problem obtaining them.

In an analogous scenario with guns - the law abiding citizens like yourself and me will have no weapons - similarly it will be the criminals who fuel the black market - just as they do with recreational substances of abuse. And there is no reason to suspect that the ability to stop illegal gun trafficking would be dramatically different from our current ability to stop the trafficking of illegal drugs.

If this were the case I wouldn't be as passionately concerned. But laws of this type rarely work in the other direction. I and many others believe an increase in violent crime will be, paradoxically, interpreted as a rationale for applying even more strict control measures. Take a look at Washington D. C.

It's a no-win situation for law abiding gun-owners. If violent crime decreases - stronger laws will go into effect. If violent crime increases - stronger laws will go into effect.

I don't question the intent of legislation - I only question its methods.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I have had similar experiences - including an incident where I was randomly pulled off a San Francisco Muni Bus on 19th Avenue in broad daylight and beaten in the street by a 7-9 gang members. I was kicked and bludgeoned in the face and body - nobody, even the bus driver, did anything. The police eventually arrived and they fled - but not before I was beaten beyond recognition. I couldn't recognize my own face which was just a cut-up, swollen and bleeding mass of flesh to me. I had kept my mouth closed and teeth clenched so I wouldn't bite off my own tongue while being hit. I said nothing through the whole assault and just kept covered and curled up as I was kicked and hit. 19th Avenue is not a bad neighborhood at all - it's a wide open place full of activity. They had no reason to attack me, not for money or for anything - it was entirely random - and it's pointless to try and make sense out of it. I have no doubt that I would have had more permanent injury if the police hadn't arrived because the beating just kept escalating. I was lucky that the police arrived - but is luck something I have to depend on in the future?

If I got into a car accident and was lucky enough to escape unharmed even though I didn't have my seatbelt on - I'd be a fool to keep driving without a seatbelt.

I understand the principle of "violence begets violence." Like yourself I have studied martial arts since I was young. I have studied TKD, Choi Le Fut and Shin Moo Hapkido for years - mostly for personal interest. Understanding and mastering my personal space through martial arts just gives me the peace of mind to know I have nothing to prove through confrontation.

It is "uncertainty" that creates nervous and provocative "energies" that stimulate adverse confrontation. Martial arts, for me, is a remedy for "uncertainty" and has empowered me to actually diffuse several confrontations before they escalated to violence by maintaining a peaceful "aura." This is a real phenomenon and, as a martial artist yourself, I presume you know what I'm talking about.

In other cases, my training allows me more aware of my surroundings and to avoid situations before they happen. If something doesn't feel right I have no problem changing my walking route or stepping aside to where I'd be farther away from potential danger.

But the utility of a firearm has nothing to do with emotion or anger. It is something I regard in scenarios like the ones I described in my last post. (for brevity I won't repeat them)
It's not an "either-or" situation. I'd like to think I'm doing both.
I'm a physician and I can say my interpersonal skills are excellent. Many patients - even sociopathic ones trust me as someone sincerely interested in their wellbeing. But empathy and social activity doesn't require that I surrender my abilty to protect myself. The use of deadly force does not detract from my social responsibilities to make the world a better place.

It might surprise most people to know that every major Emergency Department has a firearm available for the physicians in case of emergency. That option is very rarely even considered but it is within reach. It makes sense since hospital security is not armed nor do they even posess the authority to physically restrain or assault in the vast majority of circumstances - and police officers (in most EDs) aren't immediately available.

Well, I consider my position similar to that of the ED. It's not an ethical dilemma to have a gun available to ED physicians - nor is it and ethical dilemma for me to both work towards prevention and to be prepared for the worst type of encounter.

I appreciate the candor.
I'm sure you're quite capable of defending the ones you love or yourself with the materials at hand if the situation arises - but the majority of victims aren't physically capable of confronting another person - let alone a violent criminal.

And, as physically prepared as I might be, I can't say with confidence that I can reliably disarm an opponent weilding a knife on a consistent basis - or even the majority of the time - I don't know of a single martial artist at any level who could make that boast.

While the characterization of "super rare" is debatable. It just has to happen once in your life or in the life of a loved one.
-----

I'd like you to consider another type of crime - that is, rape.

I have treated rape victims when I used to work in the Emergency Department on the east coast. Just about every one of them wished to forget about the incident and move on with their lives. Every habitual rapist is aware of that - and it works in their favor. It shouldn't surprise you to know that the vast majority of rape cases will never get reported or recorded in the statistics.

I have yet to know of a single rapist caught who didn't have a history of multiple rapes that were never reported.

In cases of rape, the term "just give him what he wants" doesn't make much sense to me. As a male the fear of being sexually harrassed or assaulted is foreign to me - but I know many women who are forced to consider that possibility every time they enter an unfamiliar place or situation.

My stomach turns when I think of sexual offenses committed against women (who remain in the majority). If I were a woman I would be even more passionate about my right to own and carry a firearm.

Willravel

Rape is truely a horriffic crime, one that statisticly can be protected against with the use of mase or a stun gun, both of which are still legal and will continue to be legal in San Francisco.

Back to Charlaton and my question: Where do criminals get their guns?

EDIT: Did a search and came up with this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ocon/guns.html
Some highlights include:
Sounds like we need better monitoring of legal dealers. With legal dealers shutting down in San Francisco, it's possible that the distribution within city limits will take a serious hit.

longbough

Straw purchases and illegal arms dealers are a significant source of illegal gun purchases.

Even if the majority of guns were purchased in this fashion, a complete ban on gun ownership doesn't selectively affect unethical gun dealers - it affects the ethical dealers (who are in the vast majority) as well as private citizens who happen to be gun-owners like myself.

A ban would probably make a dent in the availability of guns to criminals but it would certainly make an even bigger dent in the availability to law-abiding citizens (i.e. law-abiding citizens won’t have any at all). And if straw purchases and dishonest gun-dealers were eliminated as a source – do you, honestly, think the most problematic criminals wouldn't generate alternative means to obtain them?

When legal means of alcohol were eliminated during prohibition (where, undoubtedly, it was most readily available) did the use of alcohol cease? No. That just transferred existing demand to a flourishing black market of illegal smuggling. The same is true for marijuana, heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. There’s no reason to think that gunrunning wouldn't flourish as well. Gunrunning is as old as guns themselves.

I’ve made these points before and I will continue to say the same things as long as you ask the same questions.

Contrary to how it may sound, I’m not making the case to arm more civilians nor to make firearms more universally available to the public. Some degree of legislation is certainly in order as well as the funding for resources to address underlying social problems as well as the means to fight criminal activity – but a comprehensive gun-ban is NOT the solution. I think it’s important to enact laws that would have a more SPECIFIC effect on the availability of handguns to the criminal population.

A gun ban means that I, as a law-abiding citizen, will be required to turn in any handguns in my possession. Tell me specifically how that makes me safer? On the basis of principle you might believe that “society as a whole” is better because of “one less gun” in the world – but that has absolutely no relevance on my personal well-being within my lifetime.

Increasing the resources of law enforcement is important, but that also has nothing to do with my ability to protect my family against a home invader intent on doing harm. Ask any police officer and they’ll tell you that their job “isn’t to prevent crime.” And it's not realistic to expect that of them. In a home invasion scenario, for example, you’re on your own.

I don’t think a gun is only a neccessity when there are gun-toting criminals – I may resort to deadly force against someone armed with a knife, baseball bat or a tire-iron - if they represent a real and unavoidable threat. The elimination of guns among criminals doesn’t eliminate my need to have it as a means of self-defense. At face value that may seem like an excessive use of force against someone with a knife, but it is legally and realistically justifiable to use a firearm to defend my family against a home invader armed with a knife who is intent on doing harm. What is unrealistic would be for me to have to use a knife or club to fend off an attacker. That is also true if confronting a looter with a tire-iron or a baseball bat.

A point of contention is one we’ll never agree on – and that is the possibility of having to confront a life-or-death situation - that may neccesitate the use of deadly force. You might dismiss my scenarios above as unrealistic and unlikely – and only a possibility for the hopelessly paranoid.
I, on the other hand consider them unlikely, but not unrealistic - at least not so much that I can dismiss them altogether. With my history, my background and my experiences how would I think otherwise?

I am not going to convince you that you may have that experience (and I hope you never do) – that’s why I’m not even going to try. Conversely you can’t convince me that I will never need to use a gun for self-defense.

Contrary to what you may believe – pepper spray, stun-guns and tazers do not replace the utility of a firearm. I have had experiences with all three as well as benefiting from the experiences of my friends in law enforcement – and these devices, though useful, do not always work. Even a person’s response to tazering or stun-gunning is entirely unpredictable. There are people, for whom one or more of those methods is, surprisingly, ineffective – I haven’t researched the ultimate explanation, but it’s true.

I’d like to keep from turning this into a battle of facts and figures because it has been done countless times before. I’ve done it enough on enough forums to understand that an outspoken gun-control advocate will choose to dismiss any references and arguments I produce as biased and irrelevant. To your credit, willravel, I would consider you much more open to discussion and fair consideration than the vast majority of gun-control advocates – otherwise I wouldn’t be taking my time responding to you.

Willravel

Then the questions must change. What steps are being taken to prevent straw purchases? Why not simply hold both the seller and the purchaser responsible for a serious crime? Don't guns have registration numbers? Can't one track down both the retailer and the owner if a gun is used in a crime? If an honest person's gun is stolen, they report it immediatally, that way someone knows that the gun is missing and they are able to mark that guns registration number as 'stolen'. If someone doesn't report it stolen, then they are charged with an accessory type charge if the gun is used to commit a crime, or at least for a gun trafficing charge if the gun isn't used in a crime.
If that's true, then San Francisco has made a serious mistake. This wouldn't be the first time Americans have voted for something without researching it beforehand. Had it been on the San Jose ballot (my ballot), I would have done this research back in October. At this point it seems on the surface to be simply acedemic, but if I can get to the botttom of something, I consider it to be time well spent. I will always want to take all the guns away from all the criminals, then take all the guns from everyone else, but that probably won't ever happen. Of course, something being impossible has never stopped me before. I still think I can get the corruption out of both government and corporations.

MSD

I feel that under current gun control laws, the most effective way to prevent crime is to establish draconian laws to punish those caught using them in the commission of a crime. If you have a gun on your person and you commit a crime, you should be given double the maximum sentence with no chance of parole. Life in prison with no chance of parole for anyone who commits a violent crime while in posession of a gun, whether or not it is used, sounds reasonable to me. Anyone, dealer or individual, who illegally provides a gun to anyone who uses it in a criminal manner, should be prosecuted for any crime that is committed with that gun. I firmly believe that laws like these, rather than outright bans, would dramatically reduce gun violence.
A carried handgun (or a long rifle or shotgun in my home) and my proficiency are the most reliable way I know of to defend myself against an act of violence. Only a person who is willing to commit an act of violence against myself or those in my company needs to fear my guns and their owner. I will not carry when I will not be fully mentally capable of rationally deciding whether or not to draw and/or fire, and I would not fire if I felt that there was a risk of harming anyone other than an attacker. I will not allow anyone to touch my guns who I would not trust to do exactly as I would with them.

How is it harmful for me to own guns and be proficient in their use?

Charlatan

I don't disagree. Harsher punishments for the criminal use of handguns should be a priority. There should also be tighter controls on the manufacture and sale of handguns as well.

The fact is that criminals are getting their guns from somewhere. It isn't like the vast majority of handguns are homemade. They are manufactured by reputable corporations.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke