pan6467

I like your ideas.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

But I also believe a community has the right to vote whether they want guns in their community. Not everyone is as safe as you with their guns.

I am just of the firm belief a community knows what is best for it, moreso than the NRA, Feds or ACLU.......

__________________
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?"

longbough

The elimination of guns among criminals doesn’t eliminate my need to have it as a means of self-defense. It is legally and realistically justifiable to use a firearm to defend my family against a home invader armed with a knife or a pipe who is intent on doing harm. At face value that may seem like an excessive use of force against someone with a knife, but should I be expected to enter a knife-fight with such a person? What if I were an elderly person living alone? What if I were a woman about to be raped?

Taking guns entirely out of the equation doesn't eliminate the danger.

longbough

I don't want to take away from the democratic process - but I am obligated to speak out if I believe something isn't right - regardless of the majority opinion.

Historically, in the U.S. the community consensus once supported witch trials, slavery and racial segregation. If not for the efforts of a passionate and informed minority to relentlessly inform and educate the masses these "common sense" truths would have never been challenged in a public forum of free ideas.

Most people don't own nor do they wish to own a firearm. It is understandable that they would vote to restrict every firearm in circulation - but that doesn't make a comprehensive ban right.

I own a firearm for the protection of my family and myself - I am trained and qualified to own and operate a firearm for personal defense. A blind-comprehensive 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.

A blind-comprehensive gun ban will affect straw purchases of illegal arms - but it will affect the law-abiding gun-owners even more (since we won't have them at all). Do you believe 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.

But even the potential elimination of guns among criminals doesn’t eliminate my need to have one as a means of self-defense either. It is legally and realistically justifiable to use a firearm to defend my family against a home invader armed with a knife or a pipe who is intent on doing harm. At face value that may seem like an excessive use of force against someone with a knife, but should I be expected to enter a knife-fight with such a person? What if I were an elderly person living alone? What if I were a woman about to be raped?

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 criminal acquisition of deadly weapons.

pan6467

You make good points, but this isn't prohibition either. Nor are these witch hunts, or basing laws against race, sex, religion, ethnicity. These are laws that concern a voluntary privilege, same as drinking, driving and so on.

Carrying a gun is not a right, it is a privilege because not everyone is allowed to carry a gun. (Mental illness, or past mental problems, felons, and so on).

Prohibition was a national experiment that failed miserably, however dry counties, cities, townships tend to work very well.

Doesn't mean they don't drink (as they can go to another county/township/city) but the areas are usually safer and have less crime.

My point is unless you actually LIVE in SF, you really can't expect someone to go in there and sue them because the citizens of that city made a choice.

That is a serious problem in the US. People complain about the ACLU and trying to take the 10 Commandments out of a courthouse, yet they believe it is ok for the NRA to sue a city because of gun issues. I"m sorry both sides are wrong.

I'm sure if you live in SF and have a gun in your house they aren't going to bust your for it. Nor do I think if you are driving down the road and have your UNLOADED gun in the trunk or out of physical reach as you drive to Oakland or a suburb with a shooting range they'll do anything to you.

But it sounds to me like the citizens of SF have decided they do not wish to have guns in their community (in public). So let the voters have their voice, if it fails and there are more violent crimes and guns used by bad guys ..... then their experiment failed.

However, and this is what I think the NRA fears, if violent crimes go down, the use of guns in crimes go down, then other communities may decide to try it.

But, just because that worked in SF doesn't mean it will work in LA.

But the citizens should have the right. Like I said above, it's the same as smoking, abortion, same sex marriage, etc. The community should be able to decide and vote their wills.

I say let SF try it, see what happens and then judge. But that won't happen, the NRA will be in there by the end of the year, if they aren't now. And they'll sue. Voice of the people be damned.

Yet, when a state like Texas votes to ban gay marriage that is ok and people who fight saying that is prejudicial are crybabies and leftist pigs?

Same exact thing. People going into a community and dictating that they know better.

Neither of those groups are right. The voters who live and work in those communities and know the areas and are there daily..... they are the ones who should determine what goes on, not big self serving organizations.

__________________
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?"

Willravel

Pan, that's the best post I've seen on the subject yet. This IS a wait-and-see situation. If the crime rate goes up, then there are legal steps that can be taken to let guns back into SF, and I would whole heartedly support them. If it succedes, then we may have a new tool against crime and gun violence.

longbough

Thanks for your input. I appreciate hearing your views.

But I don't understand that line of reasoning. How does the restriction of firearms among the mentally ill and felons make the case that firearms possession is not my right as a law-abiding citizen?

Felons and mentally ill are restricted from owning guns, but, they are restricted from voting as well.

If your argument rests on the notion of gun ownership as a "privilege" then what you say should hold for the act of voting as a "privilege" well.

---------
Whether gun ownership is a "right" or "privilege" is a point of contention on which you and I will not, realistically, agree. It doesn't matter what argument I might introduce because it's just a fundamental difference between our views.

Truly productive discourse requires that involved parties share common premises. If the premises are fundamentally dissimilar then the remainder of discussion is pointless - and will amount to little more than "yes it is"/"no it isn't" exchange. In other words, we just disagree and I'd rather spare us both from having to argue that point.
A discussion about lawsuits filed is a separate issue.
But don't be quick to assume that people who oppose the principle of a gun ban also complain about the ACLU. That's a dangerous stereotype.

Are you insinuating that I, as a law-abiding citizen, should have no qualms about violating the law in this regard? ...or that I can be assured that I should not worry about arrest if caught under those circumstances? That's a bold and dangerous assumption by all standards.

As I said before - I'm not against the democratic process. I do not live in SF proper - but is it not my "right" to voice an opinion about the effecacy of such a ban?

I would also voice outrage about state laws that criminalize sodomy - I don't have to live in that state to have an opinion.
What happens then? Does the law just ... go away? will it be repealed? I'm not sure that would happen. If that were the case I wouldn't be as passionately concerned. But laws of this type rarely work in the other direction. I fear 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.

I fear a no-win situation for law abiding, responsible gun-owners (yes, many of us do exist).
If violent crime decreases - stronger laws will go into effect.
If violent crime increases - stronger laws will go into effect (conceivably with the rationale that guns from surrounding counties must be banned as well).
Maybe you and I differ in this respect. A majority can be wrong when it promotes legislation that selectively affects a minority in an adverse and unfair way. No doubt, advocates of anti-sodomy laws have little or no personal interest in the matter, but exercise their right to criminalize it in vote. That doesn't make it right IMO.

A law against "sodomy" is still wrong in my book regardless of the major opinion in the community. Pure democracy practiced in a vacuum isn't a flawless or even effective mechanism.

As one of many law-abiding gun owners I feel as if I'm a part of a similar minority whose position is in danger of being quashed by the opinion of the voting majority (who aren't directly affected by blind-comprehensive gun bans).
This has nothing to do with the gun-ban issue unless you think that people, like myself, actually hold those views.

Let's not reduce the entire issue to a matter of right vs. left. That would be unfair to the issue at hand.
Point taken.
Perhaps we're just focused on different ends of the subject, despite some overlapping discussion.

pan6467

Its nice to see true debate, and noone attacking the other.

I think basically your last sebtence is dead on.

You focus on one right and I am focussed on another. Yours being the right to bear arms, mine the right to allow a community to decide.

Both of us have good arguments for our side (although, I did jump to conclusions and stereotypes and I have no excuse, I appologize). In the end we are both right and we are both defending just causes. In cases like this it's hard to say where the center and compromise can be since we debate the same issue but in differing ways.

It kind of reminds me of my favorite line in "My Fellow Americans" (paraphrased I don't believe this is exact):

"You have 250 million people all wanting to be heard and all wanting something different."

__________________
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?"

longbough

pan6467, if only more discussions on these issues could end like this one. I'm glad we can find some common views ...

Telluride

Should our rights be determined by need? That's a dangerous road to go down, since there isn't much that we truly need other than food, water and protection from severe weather.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

hillbilly

What a great discussion. I've seen a lot of Pro/Anti gun stuff on the net and this is one of the best.
I am Pro gun saw this and thought it was funny.
...............................................................................................................


http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co....asp?aid=18036

Liberal's Dream.......

SAN FRANCISCO, California --- After San Francisco voters banned guns in the most recent election, city officials say they are struggling to keep up with the massive amount of guns being voluntarily turned over by gang members and other criminals.

"When I proposed this ballot initiative, I knew we'd rid the city of guns," said Supervisor Chris Daly. "I guess I wasn't prepared for the massive turnout by local gang members so eager to give us their guns. We're having to take away from resources in our pot farming initiative that passed in the last election in order to handle all of these guns."

Gang members were lined up for several blocks outside of a San Francisco police station in order to turn over their guns. "It's the right thing to do, yo," said a gangbanger known as Fizzle. "Da peeps in Frisco said no to guns, so we got no choice but to hand over that shizat. Now I gots to go be an organic farmer or some poop like dat. It ain't right. I stole this .45 two years ago, and now I have to give it to the police. It just ain't right."

The gun ban is so effective that police are reporting gang members and violent criminals from as far away as Bakersfield lining up to turn over their illegal and stolen firearms. "I've never seen anything like it," said one officer. "We've been talking about turning over our own guns, because we won't even need them any more. This is exactly what we thought would happen, and it's just so amazing to see it actually coming to fruition."
---------------------------------------------------------


Then the alarm clock went off!

pan6467

But should the voice of the majority be ignored?

It's a double edged sword, and a slippery slope that leads to more federal involvement and less freedoms.

__________________
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?"

Telluride

Yes, if that voice is calling for the violation of citizens' individual rights.

I don't really see that it's a double-edged sword. As I see it, the only real threat to freedom here is allowing the majority to vote it away from the minority.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

dksuddeth

I guess we should follow the example that the government uses in the war on drugs for this? Whatever attempt you make at cutting off the supply, those who want them will get them. If you built a 30 foot wall around the city of San Fran, they would dig a tunnel.

Simply reading the notes and quotations from the writers of the constitution should make it clear that it is intended as an individual right.

This argument alone should convince you that guns are a necessary part of self defense. Do you expect my 84 year old grandmother to wield a katana against a home invader? Or would you prefer that the homeowner first take stock of any weapon that an invader has and then duel them honorably?

not harsh enough, in my opinion. If you want to get tough on gun crime, start using the death penalty for it. If a criminal uses a gun during a crime and a person is killed or wounded during the commission of that crime, we'll see you strapped to a gurney with a needle.

Sure it is. Lets look at some common everyday items. A meat cleaver is used in the kitchen. It's a tool to help prepare a family dinner or for a butcher in his daily work life, but it has the capacity to kill when used in the wrong hands. Look at fertilizer? It's used to help farm crops grow to provide food to a large group of people, yet in the wrong hands can be used to blow up a federal building. A baseball bat is used in the sport of baseball, yet in the wrong hands can kill. There are lots of tools used in our lives that can kill, its how you use it that counts.

I have in laws that live in Dallas. One, a 30 something flight attendant, went to the grocery store one night around 8:30. Before she could make it in to the store she was accosted, from the front, punched in the face, kicked in the stomach, had her purse stolen and then her car. Now, in this situation we could talk all about hypotheticals like not enough time to react anyway, if he'd wanted to kill her he would have anyway, and even taking her weapon away and using it on her. All of it doesn't matter. It only matters that a person have whatever means necessary to provide for their defense.

Learn from history. Cutting off the supply does not work. It hasn't worked in the war on drugs, has it? You have to stop it at its focal point.....the criminal. There is no other way.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

longbough

Uh. I'm sorry but where do all these unqualified assumptions come from?

"California has an obscene amount of police presence on major highways?" Uhh. I take no comfort in that. Maybe it's obscene relative to another state but certainly not enough to stop this crime. Have you ever broken the speed limit? How many times were you ever ticketed? I'll bet you haven't been pulled over for every time you've broken the speed limit, have you? If you have a car full of guns that's the most likely time you're going to get your license and registration checked.

Contrary to popular belief, true criminals are not as stupid as you'd like to believe. I should know since I work closely with level IV state inmates. Serious gunrunners (not small time, stoners with "born to lose" tattooed on their foreheads) don't drive around in stolen cars full of weapons.

Illegal arms dealers have mules transport their weapons ... often times the guns are disassembled and allocated to several different vehicles to transport. (that's how they do it in the UK - oh - or is the IRA not supposed to have weapons?) Many mules are recruited from people with clean or almost clean records - payed a couple hundred bucks to drive from one place to another without any moving violations.
"feasable"?
I gotta tell you something. Rewards, as a rule, don't work ... not with drugs, the war on terror etc. If someone's in a position to know - even an anonymous tip is a death sentence. If you think drug smugglers are dangerous you have no idea how much worse gunrunners are.

I know a few things about organized crime, particularly in the state of California, and some of the gangs have histories dating back to the 1950s and developed remarkably sophisticated structures (frequently modeled after military heiarchy) and many with written constitutions and code of ethics. "Gang" life as depicted on
TV is the lowest level ... they are just the foot soldiers and have no power, knowledge or importance.

One thing I can say for a fact is that the highest level is rooted in big business ... mostly the entertainment industry. That part is, unfortunately, not a myth because most of the links are known. I have met some of the leaders - they don't look or act anything like what you might expect.

Mark my words ... if (God forbid) guns saw an honest ban ... you'll see more criminal activity, more crime and more killing than ever. Just try to stop trafficking over the border or across state lines (e.g. Nevada).

We're near Nevada. Trafficking isn't about a 30 minute drive - it's big business ... a day or two on the road is no different. Especially if you're from California.

I don't understand your point. Nobody is saying that a knife is equivalent to a gun. The fact that a gun doesn't require physical strength or martial arts training to be effective is what makes it an equalizer between a victim and a criminal.
Let me make this clear. Let's assume that all guns were successfully banned and, by some miracle, they were eradicated from the state completely.
1.) Is a violent criminal or sex offender going to say, "I can't get a gun now. I guess I can't commit crime now."?
2.) If someone was seriously threatening me or a family member with a knife or baseball bat (when I did Emergency Dept work back east these were popular weapons - on our progress notes we wrote "HIHBBB" for "hit in head by baseball bat" )... how should I defend myself or them? Am I expected to get in a knife fight with a violent home invader? Have you ever seen a knife fight? I have. I have seen and treated people who were cut up to pieces - the only winner of a knife fight is the one who is still alive even after being sliced all over their arms, neck, had their lungs punctured .... I'd rather have a gun.

what are you going to do about it?

Please elaborate on this idea because I don't know what you're trying to say specifically.

The purpose of a gun in "defense" is to stop an imminent threat ... note the operative words in that description. Regardless of whether you call it "defense" or "offense" is a pointless exercise in semantics. The use of the term "defense" refers to the relevent scenario ... it does NOT refer to the physical mechanisms of operation.

No more straw man, please.
By your rationale, since I have car insurance and life insurance ... I wouldn't need a seatbelt, right?
The gun does not replace the necessity of basic preventative measures. Nor do preventative measures replace the function of a gun in self-defense. I'm not saying that you, in particular, need a gun. But it's not your business to tell me I don't need one.

Willravel

Have you ever been to San Francisco? As someone who spends a lot of time there, I can tell you that the type of person who would run guns is a rarity. The type of person who would sell drugs, however, is everywhere.
It is perfectly clear to me that it's about protecting themselves from the government. It's also perfectly clear to you that it's the right to bear arms. I'm not a novice on the subject, as I studied it before for this very thread.
No, I expect your grandmother to get safety doors, just like I bought for my grandmother.
I will not support the death penalty for anyone, for any reason. I will support severe punishments, but not the deathe penalty. Stats have already shows that it's not a functional deterrant (see my lengthy post in the "why people hate texans" thread). The death penalty is state sponsored murder, and it's wrong.
A meat cleaver is not a defensive tool, so you're just making my point. Fertilizer is not a defensive tool, so you're just making my point. A baseball bat...you get the idea.
Yes, some situations are indefensible. Some situations only require a taser or mase. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Well then let's examine that. How can we keep the guns from criminals, but keep the pro gun people happy? I've suggested full gun registration before. Put a barcode on every gun. If a gun is used in a crime, they trace it back and punish eveyone from the seller all the way back to the manufacturer. Gun cimpanies will end up paying millions in fines, and they will be FORCED to take mesures to keep guns in responsible hands. Make the corporations responsible. Make the distributers responsible. The thing is, when I've mentioned this to my pro-gun buddies, they all groan and moan about how that's taking their right to bear arms. "Te government will know how many guns I have", to which I respond, "They already do, so what's the problem?" Let's concentrate on this, the proactive function of gun control and it's various pros and cons.
What you RELALY have to take int account is whether the demand will rise, and how much it will rise after the gun ban takes effect. This will be the best time for the police to cut down on all things gun. They will, as I suggested before, use extreme measures to show people that having a gun, espically an illegal gun, will ave dire consequences. I've seen what the SFPD can do first hand when they want their way. I used to go to these meet ups with other people where we'd try to do tricks with our cars (burnouts, doughnuts, etc). Once thew police found out about it, they went psycho. Not only did they seek out and impound tons of cars involved, but they beat several people who were involved. I don't support that in that circumstance, but in the gun situation, it wouldn't hurt.
The entertainment industry? I'd really like to hear about this. Please PM me with some names if you don't want to post them.
Well distance must play some role in the amount of difficulty or danger of running guns. There must be a higher risk moving weapons over a larger distance.
dksuddeth tried to make a katana equvelant to a gun, that's who.
1) It's about options. A criminal is exploring and option in being a criminal. The reason this is not an unreasonable option to them is that it's fast and it can be extremly profitable. With the aid of a gun, they see a higher success rate in thier criminal endevors. Take away that 'tool', and you'll see them get scared. As you said, other weapons don't have the same functionality or terror effect as a gun. Without it's aid, I suspect that many criminals will be less brazedn, and even some will give it up. Would you want to get in a shootout with the police if you have a knife?
2)Get security doors. Get thicker glass. Get bars on your windows (EXPO and Home Depot have some really nice ones). As long as you secure all entrences of your house, you have almost nothing to fear. Without guns, you really do have nothing to fear. A criminal isn't going to take welding tools to your house, as the policve don't usually take more than 15 minutes. The average criminal is not a mastermind. With a properly defended house, home invasion will be a thing of the past.
For now? Post. Eventualy? Well, I'm getting ready to run for office, in order to get in a position where I can actually have an effect on things.
I suspect that you can agree that quite often prison trains a criminal. The correctional system is nopt set up to correct problems, just hide them away in a dark place for a while. Also, the rich can buy justice in our system. Gun runners are very rich people. They can afford the best lawyers, and the best pleas. This represents a serious problem, as the guy at the top is usually the most dangerous.
Well, we were talking about semantics, as the word 'defence' was applied to a gun. If it weren't for semantics, we wouldn't be able to communicate verbally at all, so please don't downplay it's importance. It is an offensive weapon.
The seatbelt isn't used to hurt other peope, so the comparison is wrong.
You're not in San Francisco. If you were, then you'd be in a place where a majority of voters decided they didn't need a gun.

dksuddeth

You've clearly shown that you've fallen in to the trap of stereotypes. Do all gun runners wear cowboy hats out in San Fran?

yes, and bar the windows and all that other junk. It's illogical to put the onus on the law abiding citizen to do everything in the world to deter the criminal when it's quite simple to put a sign out front that says protected by smith and wesson...and mean it.

Thats too bad you don't support it. You'd get rid of alot of gun using criminals that way. You'd stand a better chance of reducing gun violence with the death penalty heavily used than you would trying to remove guns.

You missed the point entirely. Will, not being harsh with you but you're being obtuse about it.

that some situations REQUIRE a gun because some criminals aren't scared of a knife or a ball bat.

full registration might have its uses but you could end up with a new orleans type situation. granted, its hypothetical but I would prefer to err on the side of the citizen and not the government. advocating full registration is just making things one step closer to a totalitarian nanny state. Trying to hold the manufacturer liable isn't a brilliant idea either. For one, it's just another version of trying to bankrupt them out of business to push a 'ban guns' type atmosphere. Two, You still have to put the liability on the person that used a gun in a criminal manner and going after the manufacturer does not do it. Now, you have a case against the dealer IF, and only IF, you can prove that he knowingly sold the gun to someone that wasn't licensed for it.

The criminal is already NOT afraid of the police when he can break in and subdue/kill the victim without fear of being shot at.
I still don't understand why you make it the citizens responsibility to build a fortress to deter the criminal. You've said before that if a criminal is determined to, he'll make it happen. you say without guns that we really have nothing to fear. tell that to my wife when she's facing a man with a knife. tell your kids that they have nothing to fear when someone comes running at them with a baseball bat or an axe.

The gun is an offensive weapon in the hands of a criminal. It's a defensive weapon to someone who uses it to stop a criminal.

You're being obtuse again. The seatbelt is a device designed to help protect you in an accident. The handgun is a device designed to help protect you against a criminal.

No, it would be a place where the majority said nobody needs a gun. If they felt THEY didn't need a gun, then they wouldn't have one.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

A perfect example of why people should be allowed to carry concealed.

IndyStar

A 44-year-old man died of a gunshot wound after police say he stormed into his former girlfriend's Clermont home and charged her male companion.

The gunshot victim's name is being withheld until The Star can confirm his family has been notified. The alleged shooter, Aaron Sterling, 44, was not arrested.

The man knocked on the door to Marcelene Robinson's home in the 7600 block of Marabou Mills Way about 11 p.m. Wednesday, according to a Marion County Sheriff's Department report.

Robinson, 41, answered the door thinking it might be her daughter. The man, who police say was violating a protective order by visiting Robinson's home, saw Sterling and became enraged, according to the report.

The man pushed through the door, knocking Robinson out of the way, and charged Sterling, police said. Sterling produced a .44-caliber handgun and fired one shot that struck the victim in the groin, police said.

The gunshot victim died at Wishard Memorial Hospital. Robinson's 9-year-old granddaughter was in the home at the time and was not injured, police said.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Tachion

My two cents:

Can anyone point to any stats that compare the times a gun stopped a crime to the times guns were used in a crime? My guess its a 1:1000 ratio.

The US has the highest death by guns in the world per capita. That is a scary stat!

The US appears to be a nation of very frightened people who sees everyone as a threat. A gun owner is the most frightened of all and the one that feels most powerless in society, hense the need to have a gun.

A city (country) without guns has a chance to break the cycle of fear and teach people that guns aren't stopping the fear, they are helping to create it. They create the stats of gun related deaths.

If you make a law 'no guns' -then when you see one with a gunn, you know who the bad guy is and you can be assured the law can deal with him. Its tough at first because it is will maximize your fear, but like a child not wanting to go on the big slide, it is fear talking and not the reality of what really will happen. You have to replace your fear with trust that not everyone is out to kill you.

It will be OK to have no guns. Trust in the people that make up your country. They are frightened but they are good people who want to be living a life without fear, just like you.

Willravel

I suppose it's possible.
The odds of deterring MUST be greater with obvious defences, instead of hidden offenses. That only makes sense. If the law abiding citizen doesn't want to put up bars and security doors, then let them take responsibility for thier safty in another way, such as trying to push gun control legislation.
I'm not a man of weak morals. My moral code strictly forbids state execution (or any execution). If you want my thoughts on THAT subject, feel free to join me int he "why people hate texans" thread. I just keep inviting you into threads. Hehe.
Are you willing, then, to say that the only true defensive function of a gun is that it is in fact offensive? If not, then I'll have to continue to be obtuse about it. If you admit it, I'll be acute and move on. Yes, many things can be used as weapons, but their primary function is not as a weapon. More meat clevers are used on meat than on people. Fertelizer is more often used for crops or flaming bags on porches. A baseball bat is more often used for baseball. Guns are intended to put holes in people or animals, to the end of harming or killing. It's function is waht sets it apart from the above items.
Have you ever been tased or mased? They are really, really uncomfortable. Even guns with rubber bullits are better than the real thing.
Then we are stuck in a situation of escelation with the criminals. If neither the government nor the manufacturers can stop what's going, on then what cahnce do we have? We get a handgun, they get an automatic rifel. We get bulletproof vests, they get armor peircing rounds....etc. This is not a path to peace. This is not a path to a solutuion.
As we've stated, these weapons - knife bat, axe - are clearly less dangerous than guns. It's not a matter of having nothing to fear, but of having much less to fear.
Okay, time to argue semantics....
offence: is the action of attacking or engaging an opposing team or antagonist.
That's what you're doing. You're engaging a criminal with your gun. It's the very definition of offence.
Handguns are designed to protect you from a criminal? I'll need proof on this one.
They feel that no one in their city should have a gun legally, and voted as such.

Brilliant Idiot

Interesting discussion.

I was listening to a radio interview about the research behind what makes people be secure and what makes people feel secure. Here's what the guy was saying:

Proliferation of guns and security messures actually increases the sense of being insecure. From a psychological standpoint, it focuses our attention on our feelings of insecurity and heightens our awareness of gaps in our security, which, if you think of it, are ubiquidous and can never be completely filled.

I'd say your best protection is in shifting attitudes toward oneself and others. Let's put it this way: if you're a good person, looking out for others, making meanignful,respectful relationships all around you, you are more secure, because you are surrounding yourself with the same kind of people. Now, if we start to do that on a national level, what do you think will happen?

dksuddeth

I'm not aware of a specific one at this time. I've 'heard' that the number of times a gun was used to stop a crime can't be counted because over half of them are unreported, or something to that effect.

It's tough at first? you're asking law abiding people to go defenseless as you whittle away gun wielding criminals. how many deaths is an acceptable number before you declare the law beneficial or useless? also, how many of them have to become victims of brutalization by armed criminals before you declare the law useless or beneficial?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

which only disarms them and not the criminal.

For any defensive weapon to be effective it has to be used offensively. That is not to say that all guns are offensive by nature just as swords, knives, clubs, or even tasers are offensive by nature. They are designed to stop a threat.

yet you suggest people to not use guns, but use non weapon things like baseball bats for purposes they are not intended for.....to defend themselves?

But it beats being completely defenseless. what you're suggesting is for us to surrender to the criminal element. passive resistance only works to those that have an image to maintain. what does a criminal care about their image?

why should I give the criminal less reason to fear? I want him to be so damn afraid that he decides not to criminalize me.

If you engage in offense, YOU are the antagonist. If I defend myself, i'm the protagonist.

I gave you one up above.

and I see every criminal rushing to turn in their guns the first week. /sarcasm

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Not true. Even D.C. saw a decrease in illegal guns at first. The crime went up, but the amount of guns moving into the city is still less than before the ban.
Then we are in agreement that the term 'defensive weapon' is an oxymoron, or a contradiction in terms. S bulletproof vest is an excelent example of a defensive tool. A gun is an offensive weapon (which is a term that I can now admit is reduntant).
Yes.
Ghandi didn't have an image to maintain, and neither did I. This is less about image, and more about peaceful philosophy being applicable to reality (the ultimate test of a philosophy).
Then dress up like a werwolf. Guns aren't just to scare, they are to harm. If you kill someone who is breaking into your house, you are guilty of murdere, whether it is in self defence or not. This is where fact fades and philosophy comes in. This is on par with my philosophy about the death penalty. Only God has the right to tkae life, and anyone else taking life is disrespectful to life. Of course, this is my philosophy, not yours. I'm just trying to explain where my logic/hilosophy is coming from.
What if someone breaks in unarmed and you point the gun and they start to leave and you shoot them?
You misunderstand my question. When guns are deisnged, by gun designers, is their one and only concern to make the gun able to defend you from a criminal? Or do they also make it for military or police to kill people, or maybe to hunt. I suspect, judging by the availability of illegal arms, that the manufacturers don't care how their guns are used.
Well if they don't then they are breaking the law. You can't just not pass a lwa because people will break it. That's absurd.

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?

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.

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?

I misstated myself. The 'image' I was referring to would be the aggressor, not the pacifist.

no its not.

"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.)

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.

why does a law enforcement officer wear a sidearm? Is it to kill a criminal? or is it to defend themselves?

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.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Coppertop

You wanting it to equal murder does not make it so. The law is quite clear on this.

Tachion

I think your proving my point that you have a lot of fear and this is about fear.

As I said, everyone is not out to kill everyone else. You have to set aside your fear and see that this is true. The vast majority of people are good and wanting to help not hurt, like you. It your fear, not them, that is the issue.

dksuddeth

psychobabble mumbo jumbo. I'm not afraid of other law abiding citizens. I simply want to defend myself and my family from criminals.

thats not answering my questions anyway. are you telling the people that they just need to face the risk that they will be a defenseless victim, for a short time only, while we take care of criminals getting guns?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

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.
Let's not be unplesant. I'm not comfortable being equated with Bush, at all. Guns aren't defensive. It's that simple.
But as you said it's easier to defend against a knife or bat.
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.
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.
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.
In Texas, that's fine. In San Francisco, it's not.
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.
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.

Willravel

Well, as we covered in the other thread from whence you came, you almost certianally won't be victimized by crime, gun or not. Your fear of the criminal element does not acutarly represent the statistics that I threw at you. There is nothing wrogn with being afraid, btw. I'm sure this was not intended as an attack on your courage. It's a simple fact of life. Everyone is afraid of something. I'm afraid of stuff. You're afraid of stuff. We're all afraid of stuff.
Why is this so unreasonable?

dksuddeth

will, its obvious that because of what happened to your friend, that you've made up your mind and are deadset on removing guns from the face of the earth. Thats fine for you, but what I recommend you do is once you're in office immediately file a resolution to repeal the second amendment. Get the required amount of elected representatives and states to sign off on it. Once you've accomplished that, then you'll need to help form a federal task force large enough to start scouring the nation so you can start confiscating guns. On that note, I want to leave you with the following facts:

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million
Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-
millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1938 Germany did establish gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews, gypsies,
homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest,
were rounded up and killed.
In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20-million
dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million
"educated" people were rounded up and killed.
In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians
were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.
In 1970, Uganda got gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded
up and killed.
Over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century . . .338

338 Most of the genocide statistics were reported “Death by ‘Gun Control’: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament,
Aaron Zelman & Richard W. Stevens, 2001

Senator Diane Feinstein, speaking on "60-Minutes" said "if I
thought I could get the votes, I'd have taken them all."

Why does Senator Feinstein carry a concealed weapon?


SERIOUS QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF
• If guns are effective enough to be a criminal's preferred tool, why are they not good
enough to use for protection?
• Why do politicians insist their bodyguards be armed, but not you and I?
• If you and your children were face to face with a male attacker twice your size, what
would you do – If you weren't armed? If you were armed?
• If guns are "too dangerous" to be in our society, how come our leaders want to be the
only ones who have them? Do you trust our leaders implicitly to protect you at all
times?
• Which is better – more gun control and the eventual banning of all guns in our
society, or not sitting by helplessly watching as an intruder repeatedly rapes your 13-
year-old daughter?
• If we ever completely ban guns, do you think there will be no more armed criminals
in America?
• With so many gun laws already on the books, how come "gun crimes" still exist?

MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS
Number of firearms in America: 228,000,000339
Number of firearm owning households: At least 50,600,000340
Projected firearm owning households in America: 60-85 million
Number of guns used in crimes: 450,000341
Percentage of guns used in crimes: 0.09%
Violent crimes committed daily by paroled prisoners:
Murders: 14
Rapes: 48
Robberies: 578

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Tachion

I want to understand where you draw a line if any,

Do you carry a gun at your dinner table?
Do you carry a gun at work?
Do you carry a gun when at a childrens school?
Do you carry a gun on a bus?
Do you carry a gun when you go to the washroom?

I am trying to understand what motivates you to carry a gun. Assuming the benefits and threats you state, I assume all the above are places you carry a gun.

Is that true or are there places you feel safe from threat?

Willravel

I'm not just a flower farting, anti gun liberal, though. I do recognise the imporatnce of what todays version of a militia means. The government cannot be allowed to have more power than the people. The Second Amendment is of pivital importance because we are seeing Bush abuse his powers right now. What the forefathers saw as a well armed milita, I see as a citizens union of sorts. We need an invisible 4th power in checks and balances: ourselves. Going back to guns for a moment (wlel for the rest of the thread, probably), I do not want to make guns illegal. I'd like to see people responsible enough to use them get them, and those who are not to be kept from getting them. This isn't just a national issue, in fact. I suspect that international law would benifit from multilateral decisions about the legality of weapons in general. Supplying arms and such should be better regulated than it is. Gun regisration would benifit all. Make the list public (yes, I am insane). BUT make sure that everyone who checks the list is also monitored. If someone looks at a person not having a gun on the list, and then that person is robbed, we'll have a very, very likely suspect. Then that person is prosecuted and sentenced to the full extent of the law, and it is widely published that 'the system works'. This will put a quick end to people trying to abuse the list. Mind you, I am working this out as I write it, but at least I'm thinking about it instread of just thinking about escelation. I want to do everything in my power to keep guns from bad people. In that, I suspect that we are on the same side.
I know the stats and the history. I also know that this is a desicision for the people of SF to make for themselves, and I defend their right to make such a decision. I'm not stupid. I know that there is little if any prescedent for success in the gun ban, but I do know that it's possible.
That same question was once asked about nuclear weapons. No one came up with an answer beyond MAD.
They're hypocrites, but we alreay knew that.
I'd break him in two if he ever even thought about putting my daughter in any kind of harm. Even if the guy is an excelent fighter, I know can give my daughter enough time to run and hide.
Guns are too dangerous in general. No one should have them. Of course that's absurd asn they've already been invented. All we can do now is try to limit the destructive capabilities of guns, such as being available to criminals.
An intruder really would have a great deal of trouble getting into my house, so the question is moot. I'll play along anyway. No one will rape my daughter because I won't let them. I don't need a gun, and neither should anyone else.
There will be criminals, but they will be a hell of a lot less dangerous.
They are lax in some cases and practically non-existant in others. They are inneffective because of efforts by organizations like the NRA to prevent things like gun registration (which has been brought before the House more than a few times).

dksuddeth

If I had my way, there would be no restriction on where to carry at all.

Yes
work policy does not allow it
Texas law does not allow it
Dont ride the bus
just not in the shower.

Do any of you gun control people watch the news? gun violence can, and does, erupt anywhere at any time. The courthouse shooting in Tyler Texas last year woke alot of people up. The concealed license applications number jumped 100% after that.

Once again, its not about being fearful everywhere one goes, its about being prepared to defend yourself, if necessary.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

The people of S.F. do not have the right, nor the authority, to rewrite the constitution nor repeal the 2nd amendment. If that were the case, then locales around the nation could void the other 9 if they chose to do so.

has anyone ever told you the definition of insanity?

and so far thats been a pretty good deterrent.

But not everyone else can and that seems to be the point you're not willing to acknowledge.

and you take away the availability to criminals by making them illegal for all?

I hope and pray that nothing ever does happen to your daughter, but even criminals get lucky. Are you willing to bet her life on it?

All studies so far have proven differently.

They are lax in some cases and practically non-existant in others. They are inneffective because of efforts by organizations like the NRA to prevent things like gun registration (which has been brought before the House more than a few times).[/QUOTE]

Fact: During the Clinton administration, federal prosecutions of gun-related crimes dropped
more than 44 percent.132
Fact: Of the 3,353 prohibited individuals that obtained firearms, the Clinton administration only
investigated 110 - or 3.3% of these individuals.133
Fact: Despite 536,000 prohibited buyers caught by the National Instant Background Check,
only 6,700 people (1.25%) have been charged for these firearms violations. This includes 71%
of the violations coming from convicted or indicted felons.134 None of these crimes were
prosecuted by the Federal government in 1996, 1997, or 1998.135Fact: During the Clinton administration, federal prosecutions of gun-related crimes dropped
more than 44 percent.132
Fact: Of the 3,353 prohibited individuals that obtained firearms, the Clinton administration only
investigated 110 - or 3.3% of these individuals.133
Fact: Despite 536,000 prohibited buyers caught by the National Instant Background Check,
only 6,700 people (1.25%) have been charged for these firearms violations. This includes 71%
of the violations coming from convicted or indicted felons.134 None of these crimes were
prosecuted by the Federal government in 1996, 1997, or 1998.135
Fact: In 1998, the government prosecuted just eight children for gun law violations.136 In that
same year, there were:
• 8 prosecutions for juvenile handgun possession.
• 6 prosecutions for handgun transfer to juveniles.
• 1 prosecution for Brady Law violations.
Fact: 1/2 of the referrals of violent criminals were closed without investigation or prosecution.138
Fact: The average sentence for a federal firearms violation dropped from 57 months to 46
months from 1996 to 1998.139
Fact: 18-20 year olds commit over 23% of all gun murders.140 None of these criminals are
allowed by law to purchase a handgun, and the Federal government under Clinton rarely
enforced this law.
Fact: Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia prosecutes felons caught with guns using Federal laws
that require mandatory imprisonment. The first year result was a 33% drop in homicides for the
Richmond Metro area in a year where the national murder rate was climbing.141 This shows that
enforcement works. And according to Andrew McBride of the Richmond Justice Department
Office, these cases are as easy to prosecute as "picking change up off the street."

132 - Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University covering 1992 through 1998
133 -General Accounting Office (GAO) 2000 audit of the National Instant Check System between 11/30/98 and
11/30/99.
134 - Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, June 4,
2000
135 - U.S. Justice Department statistics, 1999
136 - Ibid.
137 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, June 4,
2000
138 General Accounting Office report on the Implementation of NICS, February, 2000
139 Ibid.
140 United States Treasury and Justice Department Report, 1999
141 FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1999

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

I'm completely flabbergasted that anyone who says they value life so much would actually demand that any percentage of people allow themselves to be sacrificed for such an expirement.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Dunedan

See, this is where people make mistakes. I have done with 99% of all gun debates because I have come to realize that hopolophobes are not going to be persuaded. They are so convinced that they are correct that even when their "facts" ( like the hyperinflated US gun-death bodycount ) are shown to be misrepresented, manipulated, or just plain LIES, they persist in using them. They are convinced that we ( gunowners ) ARE the rediculous propaganda charicatures they like to paint. Logic, statistics, example of history...none of this will sway 99% of these people, so I have largely given up trying.

Instead, I refer them to this:

If you leave me alone, I will leave you alone. If I am left unmolested, you will never know I am a gunowner, you will probably not even be aware of my existance. However, know this;
I believe that my Rights are mine simply by virtue of being Human. No Government, no agency, and certainly no hopolophobic do-gooder is going to take them away from me, short of killing me or locking me up. I will resist, by any means needed, warranted, or possible, such incursions. I do not care if 51%, 75%, or 99.9% of the world thinks I'm crazy or selfish or delusional or scared. MY Rights are not subject to THEIR review or modification. The practical upshot is this:

If you come for my guns, my body, or my property, I will shoot you. I will shoot anyone you send in your place. End of story. Period. Might get me killed, might not. One way or another, any survivors will damn sure think twice before trying it on the next guy, because even if I never even wing 'em, they'll find my corpse equipped with enough foot-pounds of muzzle energy to let 'em know I meant it. 7.62x51mm Ball has a way of doing that. My FAL isn't for deer hunting, or target-shooting, or even criminal-shooting. It has only one purpose. Shooting tyrants and their agents. Yes, strictly speaking, it is a single-purpose weapon, and that single purpose is killing people. Sometimes, in the defense of Life and Liberty, people need to be killed.

And here's the REALLY fun part...if even 1% of the 80,000,000+ -known- gunowners in this country thinks this way...you're going to have to kill or imprison upwards of 800,000 people. That's getting into the lower tier of Genocide. If the figure is 10% ( which is still low, IMO ) you're looking at 8,000,000 people dead or jailed. Beats Pol Pot, Saddam, and almost beats Hitler. Do you REALLY want to wade through that much blood?? We won't strike first, but we will strike back. Hard. Killing us will not be easy, or quick; you think IRAQ is trouble? Try getting a handle on an EIGHT MILLION-person insurgency. Are you people REALLY willing to go to lengths like that, just to satisfy your own prejudices?

Think about it.

Tachion

Again you appear to be making my point is that you want a gun based on fear, and from your own example it appears from being shot as you mention 'gun' violence can occur at any time.

If you didn't have the fear you wouldn't feel the need to defend yourself.

People are already dieing because of the experiment of letting everyone have guns so lets try another experiment that has proven to work in other countries with far fewer deaths due to crime and gun shots.

You are afraid when eating dinner you are going to be facing a criminal. A society that has that, shows there is something terribly wrong.

You should have the right to feel safe where ever you go, not just full of fear and feel you can handle it. There is a big difference.

I know I can't change what you feel but at least realise my goal would be to make you happier and not dead.

More guns just doesn't make any sense if happiness is the goal.
More guns makes a lot of sense if death is the goal as that is what a handgun is designed for - to kill people.

Willravel

You mean that they are rewriting your interpretation of the Second Amendment. If it were so cut and dry, then the vote never would have occoured.
Well I am getting my masters in psyc, so I'd probably know. Prescedent provides for the educated guess that this could fail, but not a certianty.
And how many times have we been told that terrorists, or Iran, are a nuclear threat? How many times did school children from the 50s through the 80s have to practice nuclear blast tests in school? How many nuclear missles does Israel have? MAD is a eprfect acronym, in that it represents the madness in the ultimate form of escilation.
You're taking the scenereo farther than it needs to go. SECURITY DOORS, BARS ON WINDOWS. These are true deterrents from crime, and more specifically home invasion. No one will rape my daughter because they can't get to her without serious welding tools, and a lot of time and effort.
If we lived in a hypothetical world in which I had the power to do something of that magnitude with a 100% success rate, then yes, I'd take every weapon and destroy them. You would not have a gun, nor would anyone.
I seeimgly do every day. It's the same as the meteor insurance I talked about in the last thread. I see the odds of something like that happening as so minute that it would be ludicris for me to take steps to prevent such an occourance. I don't have volcano insurance, and I don't have a gun.
So if criminals had no guns, then they would somehow be MORE dangerous?

Like I said, the system is broken, or at least limping towards an early death. Instead of arming ourselves, we should concentrate on fixing the preventitive and punitive measures.



EDIT: BTW, I hope you don't think that becuase we are on seemingly oppositional sides of the discussion that I don't enjoy hearing every response. Thanks for the excelent discussion, and I look forward to page after page of further discussion.