San Francisco bans ownership of handguns
 

Not sure if this can be read without registering with this newspaper, so I quoted the article. I think this is pretty sad. San Francisco has banned ownership of handguns and the sales of firearms in the city. Their logic is that it will curb violence.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3451020

I see people on both sides of *x* issue pulling out the constitution when voters approve crap like this.

For gay marriage inititives, the pro-side (read liberal) side will say that it doesn't matter how many voters vote to ban it, you can't legally vote for discrimination.

Yet here they are trumpeting about the voters "sending a message" which completely flies in the face of the 2nd.

Of course, the argument cuts the other way when conservatives use it.

I know I'm in the weaponry forum, so this probably isn't the smartest post I could make...

Discriminating against a group and banning hanguns are completely different animals. Equal treatment is set in stone in America- or should be, for obvious reasons. The second amendment, however is not. If the Constitution was unchangeable, alcohol would still be illegal and blacks would count as 3/5 of a person.

Also, I keep getting more and more concerned about how people conveniently forget that the second amendment provides the right to arms for the purpose of maintaining a militia. When's the last time the militia protected our shores from invaders? And how many gun owners are in a militia?

Just my .02

Since I live in a major metroplitan city that has mulled this idea...

I don't agree with it, but I can see the practicality of it. I do also think that it's unconstitutional on it's face. There are already laws about discharging firearms in city limits that encompass the safety issue I illustrate below.

The density of the population so close to each other with thin walls and doors sometimes makes one feel quite unsafe. There's lots of instances where people are just sitting in their homes and killed by stray bullets that happen to pierce the wall and kill them as they sit in their living rooms innocently watching TV after going to work, paying taxes, and playing with their kids.

That said, I happen to also live in a large housing complex where the walls are concrete so that I don't have to worry about some moron who left the oven on. When the fire engulfs his home, mine isn't really in any true jeopardy from immolation, just smoke and water damage.

http://4rwws.blogspot.com/Molon%20Labe%202.jpg



thought san fran was a shithole city when I visited. now all doubt has been removed.

My buddy was shot in the face in Santa Clara. He died instantly, leaving his wife and son. I've been shot in the leg. One of my best friends lost his leg in Iraq not 4 weeks ago to gunfire. I honestly don't care that the constitution gives the people the right to bear arms. I don't care that there are studies that suggest that having lots of guns is safer (which is completly absurd). The less guns that are in the world, the happier I'll be. Charelton Heston has never been shot. I realize that I'll probably get shot down for posting something like this in weaponry, but I think it needs to be said every once in a while. Fire away.

you are more likely to get shot in D.C. (where guns are banned) than you are in Iraq.

I'll bite. Do you have stats on Iraq vs. stats on DC to back that up? I'd like to see them. Thank you.

How can you prove that the gun ban in DC causes the higher gun shot rates? What if it is actually safer than it would be with guns?

So are we to believe that the punk who shot your buddy was a fine upstanding citizen who had not only jumped through the hoops to legally buy the gun, but also the hoops to legally carry it, then because he was such a fine upstanding citizen he figured murdering someone with his legally obtained and legally carried firearm was a good idea?

Right on the money. It is unfortunate that anyone gets hurt with guns, but preventing law abiding citizens from owning handguns only puts people more at risk.

If a lowlife knows that average joe isn't allowed to have a gun, he's not going to be afraid of being shot. Stun-guns are worthlessly underpowered in CA, pepper spray can be blown away in the wind, and Tasers cost too much. What does a criminal have left to fear?

Yes but restricted gun sales restricts criminals access to them. I'm not talking about people who are planning to rob a bank, they'll probably be willing to get them, I'm talking about "punks" on the edge of society. So the punk is less likely to be bothered to get a gun. But don't listen to me I'm a liberal/socialist European :D
(yes I am aware that countries like Australia have a high gun ownership but less deaths but I don't know anyone who has a gun, I think that most gun owners here live in the country).

Sounds good, in a perfect world...but very, very wrong. Stolen, and otherwise "illegal" guns are routinely sold, out of the trunks of cars, in the "seedier" sections of quaint, quiet, and otherwise "homespun" Omaha, Nebraska. Restricted gun sales does not, in any way, restrict access to those that want them. And by "those that want them", I am refering to the little street thugs, and punks, that most definately will be bothered to get a gun, by any means possible, because it's a status symbol in their little subculture.

To this day (and I've been around for more than a few years), noboby has ever been able to present, to me, a valid argument as to how resticting my (a law abiding citizen) access to firearms, will restrict access to those who clearly could not care less about laws. It just makes no sense, and demonstrates, in my own opinion, a head in the sand attitude.

For the record...I do not own any handguns. I do, however, own two high powered hunting rifles, and a shotgun. I have no need for a handgun. However, should I ever feel the need...I do not want that right (and it is a right) to be restricted.

It never seams to amaze me how people always blame the means to and end rather then those who seek the end. Why oh why are you going to blame guns for hurting people instead of people? Lets just for kicks say that guns were completely illegal in homes period. Now lets say death due to guns goes down, hell lets even say the percentage goes down a lot. What will happen next? I think deaths due to other means will go up, hell I'll even say deaths due to other mean will go up a lot. Now you have someone who wants to make a law saying that knives (for example) are no longer legal in a home because of how high the death rate due to knives is. What the hells next then baseball bats, forks, heavy objects? Guns are only the easy means to an ends. This doesn't even account for the instances when it's just someone who doesn't know how to handle a gun killing themselves or others. That's just plain ignorance on there part for playing with something that 1 they shouldn't have been playing with, because guns are NOT toys. 2 never should have been handling the gun in the first place because they were never properly taught how. NO matter what any one says a gun NEVER not EVER has hurt anyone on it's own accord. Not once in the history of guns has this happened. It's always been at the end of an o so intelligent persons. I don't mean to come off like a dick and I'm Very Sorry if I have, honestly I didn't mean to. The simple fact is that guns do not hurt people, people do. If not with a gun then a person will find something else that will get the job done just the same.

Also Willravel I'm very sorry to hear about your losses, I truly am. Like Cj2112 said it most likely wasn't a legally acquired weapon, nor was it a legally carried one. Another thought, I've been to Iraq twice and shot at more then a couple of times. Now I went with the military knowing FULL well that there was a damn good chance of me getting shot at or shot. Now if your friend was in the military when he was in Iraq, he knew that getting shot was a hazard of the job, bottom line. Even if he wasn't in the military or working with them he was in Iraq, not one of the safest places in the world right now. He's very lucky he only lost a leg. I've see the coffins of a few friends who never left alive and guns didn't kill them IED's (improvised explosives device) did. On top of all that, the explosives didn't kill them, people did with what ever that had at there disposal. I'm quite sure if the people that were trying to kill us could do it with just a knife, they'd be just as happy to use that.

Finally, because of the fact that I want to have the means at my disposal to protect my family in my home I own a legal and registered gun. I keep it because if anyone ever comes into my home and threatens my wife's or my own life I will do what ever I have to do to see them stopped. If they come into my home with a gun, I will have a pretty good feeling that it will not be a completely legal weapon and will be on equal footing. If they have a knife or some other weapon then I will have a foot up on them and a better chance to stop them. (and know it doesn't always have to mean there death, but it can) If someone tells me that I don't have the right to be able to protect my family and myself to the fullest, then to me they are wrong. I don't want to live in a city that (like Im2smrt4u said) any criminal knows the average person can't have a gun. Now they have nothing to fear in breaking-in to steal, do harm or what ever they hell they want to. They will know that there's little chance of someone being able to protect themselves against a gun.

I would consider the right to protect oneself to be as fundamental.

And not agreeing with the liberal's interpretation of the wording of the second is different than "conveniently forget(ing)".

Double post, sorry.

I have the unique perspective of knowing both victim and murderer in that case, actually. The man who did the shooting went to a local high school around the same time as me. I actually lost a few games of football to him and his team. After asking around (and informing the police, of course), I found out that the gun belonged to his father. Legally. The upstanding citizen, the murderer's father, was lax in his hiding of the gun from someone who was clearly not responsible with it. Therefore, the father was not a responsible gun owner. The father was an accomplace to murder because he was no careful enough to hide his gun from people who would misuse it. The bullet was traced back, the son charged, the father was stripped of his gun license. Now, if guns had been banned, the father wouldn't have had the gun, the son couldn't have taken the gun, and my friend would still be alive and his family would be well taken care of.
Gangs regularly fire on members of other gangs, while knowing full well the other gang member might have a gun. If someone wants to shoot you, there is no sure way to know whether they know you have a gun or not will even cause them to hesetate (if that makes sense). It is harder for a criminal to be armed in a place that has banned guns. If that criminal does happen to arm his or herself, he or she will become more obvious to others. If 12 people in a gun-free city of 5000 have illegal guns, word wil spread fast if they choose to use it. If 120 in a city of 50,000 have guns, word will sporead quickly when and if they use it. Am I making sense?
I thank you for your symapthies, very much. Yes, I'm sure my friend knew full well what he was getting in to. He has no illusions about war. My friend that was shot in the face was not at war. He was racing his cheap little rice rocket and happened to beat the wrong person.

While it isn't possible to get rid of guns completely, I don't agree at all that the murder rate would be the same or even nearly as high without them. To kill somone with a gun, you press a button. It takes a lot more will and effort to kill someone with a knife, a baseball bat, or what have you.

Like it or not, the easier guns are to obtain, the higher the gun-related death rate will be.

Furthermore, if the argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from criminals with guns keeps being taken so far, eventually escalation is going to be a huge problem. Once small semiautomatics become as widely owned as handguns, homeowners will need weapons at least as powerful to guard their families. Once the criminals' are converted to full autos in response, well, we'll have to compete with those. Gun ownership as a protection from or deterrent to crime has always seemed self defeating to me.

Just to point out a few things. If the constitution was unchangeable, alchohol never would have become illegal in the first place, and there was no law that said black had to be slaves. The practices were there none the less, but they were never part of the constitution. In fact, freeing them, was in part, a recognition that we were defying our own constitution.

Secondly, on the point of militia... The second ammendment states that there needs to be a freedom to own and operate firearms, needed for a well regulated militia. Translation from the language of the time reveals that the militia CAN NOT be part of the government, as they are in place to prevent ANY OPPRESIVE GOVERNMENT from violating the rights of the people. Wether that government be ours, or an invading country.

The militia need not be organized and practiced as the army, because then it becomes, basically, another army. There does however need to be trained and competent firearms owners, whom in a time of need, can band together to form that militia.

Also included in that ammendment is the need to have the means to protect yourself, and your own. Meaning your life, the lives of your family, and your property.

There are a ton of books out there that detail where the second ammendment came from, which previous laws it was based (Indeed, laws and ideals going back to the greeks, and running through Britains entire history if you care enough to take the time to read it), what ideals it was designed to protect, and how it was intended to be interperated.

Go find one. Read it. Then come back with a more informed opinion. I wish only that I could remember the title of the best one I ever read... I know my father has it somewhere, when I find it I will post it.

That said, I feverantly hope this city law ends up where it belongs, in the trash can.

Why? I realize you have a decent knowledge of the reasoning behind the legality of guns in the Constitution, but what particularly about the current situation do you have to say?

Yeah... that's my point.

How can anyone know what the amendment was designed to protect? I don't think anyone today had much of a say in creating it.

All I'm saying is that in the law, it says that the weapons are for the purpose of a well regulated militia- one that has not been necessary in the over 200 years of this country, unless you count the civil war as a good use of militia.

Also, please don't deride my knowledge of the situation. I've studied history, and all the arguments concerning it don't change the fundamental purpose of weapons: to kill things.

By the way, I wasn't talking about slavery. I was talking, as I thought my post made quite clear, about the three-fifths clause- which indeed was in the constitution. Read it. Then come back with a more informed opinion.

OH SNAP! :thumbsup:

I agree on with the fact that that yes guns are an easier way to kill people, because flat out they are. However how easy is if for a law abiding citizen to get a gun. Now I realize that I don't know the gun laws in every state, but in California to get a gun you have to go though a 10 day Honey Moon period before you can pick up your gun. During this waiting period a background check is done and you can't get the gun if you have a criminal record. Also during this 10 days your name gun and said guns serial number are registered with the local police. I'm willing to bet that 90% of the guns that are used in violent crimes are the ones being sold out of the back of cars in dark alley's. So how is this law going to affect those sales? Very little if not at all. I do see the fact that some of those guns sold out of that car are guns that were stolen from someone who had it carelessly placed in there home where some miscreant who's robbing them can find it. Honestly how many of lets say 100 guns sold out of the back of a car come from this kind of theft, one, two maybe. If you want to remove even those two guns then make a law stating you MUST put your gun in a locked safe, and enforce that. I still have every right to own a gun, but now I have to take extra measures to keep said gun safe from the rest of the world. I have my rights, you have one or two maybe even more guns off the streets.

Not necessarily true, this is going off the line of thought that I'm going to get into a "gun fight" with that individual who is breaking into MY home. It's only a competition if I plan on "shooting it out" with him/her. A 45 (what I own) in a home will do quite nicely against even a fully automatic rifle. Why you ask me, because I know my home, he doesn't. Even if he has cased the place he now knows the room locations, I know the layout of everything in those rooms. In the space allowed in a home (max dist being what 10-15 feet average) one shot in the chest, even to someone wearing enough armor to stop the round will put that punk down long enough to disarm him/her and call the police; and yes if I see a gun in his hand there's NO doubt that he/she will take the bullet square in the chest if not right in the head. No need to get a bigger faster gun, because I don't intend to A let him see me and B fight fair against him. He came into my home, not the other way around. Take my gun away, and now I have to resort to a knife or bat. If I'm going up against a gun it's going to be pretty tough, but there's still a small chance I can get him. If I'm going up against and unarmed person or someone with a bat/knife (what ever) I still have the small advantage of knowing my surroundings. Now in either of these situations someone will seriously get hurt, guns although lethal are clean. Meaning this, I can put one in his leg its a small painful wound that can be healed and gotten over. I put 190 pounds of nervous energy into a swing of a bat and someone is going to have broken bones at the very least. While this can also be healed, I have little chance of aiming for the most humane spot as I have to get close. This same swing will now be better put to use to a vital area that might not allow for such a easy finish, and will cause either A death, B a lot of pain and a wound that might not heal right (bones don't always heal right, and if this person broke into my home I'm sure they don't have good, if any health insurance) or C lasting damage that can't be gotten over i.e. brain damage. Now this person is going to be taken care of by tax payers money because he/she can't function properly. I must admit that this sounds cold, and I am sorry for this I don't want to be. The fact is though that if someone breaks into my home, I will not hesitate to defend my family with ANY means and to ANY lengths necessary. I could live with this persons death or lasting injuries, I could NOT live with my families knowing I had a chance to stop it. All I ask is don't limit my chances of defending by taking what is mine by right and is completely legal and registered.

Just because you're willing to bet a statistic doesn't make it so. You're willing to bet 90% of the guns that are used in violent crimes are the ones being sold out of the back of cars in dark alley's? I'm willing to bet you're wrong. Guns come from gun manufacturers. Gun manufacturers sell those guns to gun dealers, and those dealers are required by law to have a license to sell guns, no matter what state you're in. There is no way to circumvent those two steps. All the guns on the street, legal or illegal, come from gun manufacturers, and thus gun dealers. If you're talking about people that steal from gun ships....sorry, they wouldn't exist in a place where guns are illegal. The supply would dissapear. The only way to get guns would be to import them from elsewhere. That's the only catch to outlawing guns in San Fran. If Guns were outlawed in California, and the borders were monitored, then gun violence would go down. It's that simple.
May I put fourth a hypothetical home invasion with a gun scenereo?

A man breaks in through my bedroom window and shoots me in the head in about 2 seconds.

How did this happen? I included the element of surprise. If someone wants to kill you with a gun, they will. I'll bet your gun is in a drawer or under a bed or in a closet or something, yes? Well, a criminal with more than two brain cells will know this too and will bet on it. They'll probably hit you, the man of the house, first and as quickly as possible. They'd probably break in at night when you are going to be waking up groggy. They'd shoot you quickly then move onto the next most likely person to have a weapon: a spouse or oldest child.

Goping back to my friend who was shot in the face...even if he had a gun in his car and had years of training, he still would have died. The murder pulled out the gun and shot in less than a few seconds.

So do you also believe that because I had a friend killed by a drunk driver that we should ban all cars?

Are guns used for transportation? No? Then the comparison is not apt. Cars are made to transport, guns are made to harm. There is a clear difference. The more I hear the arguments for guns, the more sure I am that San Francisco was right.

Not all guns are made to harm, just as not all cars are made for transportation.However both have the capacity to cause great harm. Far more people are killed each year by motor vehicles as a direct result of somebody violating the law, than there are killed by guns.

Not all guns are made to harm?! Unless you're talking about water guns or other toys (which are not really guns), I'm afraid you're quite wrong. NO cars sold puiblicly are made to harm. ALL guns sold publicly are made to harm. What use are guns if you can't shoot it at people, animals, or objects? The primary use, and intended use, of cars is to transport people and goods. The primary use, and intended use, of guns is to shoot at a person, a place, or a thing. Guns are tools of destruction. Cars are tools of transportation. Apples and oranges.

Comparing gun violence to car accidents is such a tired cliche.

True and not true at the same time. ""A federally licensed firearms dealer has to fill out paperwork and submit forms to us," Steel says. "They can make illegal sales and, obviously, some do, but they run the risk of getting caught and we usually catch up with them."

Most licensed dealers who sell illegally do so in large quantities and attempt to mask their sales. ATF records show that most of the recovered guns that have obliterated serial numbers and that were used in crimes originated from an illegal sale by a licensed dealer.

Dealers with no license usually don't go to that much trouble. They leave no paper trails and just how far within the law they operate is unknown In states such as Texas, where there are no civil restrictions on gun sales, the question rarely arises." (http://www.chron.com/content/chronic.../gunpart2.html)

Also as the topic of choice (I admit that I've gotten off track a little myself) is "San Francisco bans ownership of handguns". This only applies to the residences of San Francisco and only the within the city limits. Now Frisco residents look like easy targets to any criminal with half a brain cell. Now Joe Shmo as a criminal has no worries about breaking into a home, because there's no chance that he/she can die from it. If this person is intent on breaking and interring they are not worried about driving 30 minutes out of town to buy a gun.

Okay this is a hit, not your average murder out of anger. This was planned and then executed. No defense to this, I die. Now is this the case all or most of the time, I say no. Most likely your murder out of anger involves breaking in finding the person you intent to kill then killing them. Are most criminals going to break into the bead room with the smaller windows that are harder to get through or the larger more accessible windows i.e. living room dinning room; or there going to come into the house via a route that offers the least resistance like a back door. If myself, my wife, or my security system (hell even a dog) hears any of this I know. That gives me all the time in the world to get and load my gun. Now the story ends differently, if I die in this story I died with that one more defensive measure. That one more measure means that much to me.

[/QUOTE=willravel]Goping back to my friend who was shot in the face...even if he had a gun in his car and had years of training, he still would have died. The murder pulled out the gun and shot in less than a few seconds.[/QUOTE]


This was just a senseless murder and I'm sorry but no amount of preparation can stop that. Now does a law that bans buns in homes or the sales of guns in a single city have anything to do with this? No. There’s no telling where this gun came from. Also is California going to ban handgun sales in the whole state, not if I live to be 200. As long as there's a state that still sells hand guns there will be handguns in every state. Yes some guns are banned across the nation but will all guns be banned ever? I think not.

Finally I do agree with you that guns have no practical purpose other then destruction. Even if there shot for sport at non living targets those targets are destroyed. Honestly I wish guns were'nt necessary, but I feel that they are.

I really don't understand your logic here (and honestly i really am trying), maybe I'm missing something. It sounds to me like your trying to say that by banning handguns in SF, that there will be a significant reduction in handgun crime in that city.

I admit to being ignorant to many factes of the gun industry, but how in Gods name can law makers let this slide? Manufacrurers should only be able to sell to people who have gone through strict licensing and a record of every gun should sold or traded be kept, les the distributer lose his license, and be investigated for being an accomplice to murder. There should be NO dealers without a license. I naturally assumed (obviously a mistake) that those in charge of the gun industry would be responsible. Silly me.
I't not necessarily a hit. If someone who has sociopathic tendencies (someone who is capable of murder) really wants to rob a house without trouble, he'll kill everyone in the house as quickly and quietly as possible. Do you need a license to own a silencer? (I'm honesly asking, I don't know) He'll kill the man of the house first, probably in his sleep, and then kill the wife, then the oldest child, etc. Once they're all dead, he can take what he wants. Yes, this is not likely to be the norm as far as theft or home invasion, but it'll happen. If you're talking about someone who's willing to have a gun fight in your home, this is what you could be dealing with. Having a gun won't stop someone ready to pull the trigger.

In actuallity, most home invasions happen when the house is empty. Rarely will a home owner be in the house when the theif is in the house.

This is a test. If San Francisco sees gun violence go down, then maybe Oakland and surrounding areas will join in. Then a larger area, etc. etc. If you can get a large enough area to have gun bans, then gun violence will drop. Gun running in the US would be extremly difficult.
I appreciate that. We do live in a world of necessary evils. If, hypothetically, there were a way to have all guns dissapear at once, would you be for it?

I agree with you completely, honestly I really do. The fact sadly is, is this the case in point, NO. In a perfect society yes this would be a completely safe assumption, but in the real world this Sadly is not a safe bet. That's all there is to it. No one is above doing the less then reputable thing, No One. That is life as we know it. I can't be sad about that, because no one is perfect. Every one has there flaws and some ones' flaw is this. Is it expectable NO, but is it probable that at least some one is going to do the less then right thing in this given situation....Sadly, Yes. We are human, and because of this imperfect.

If you think that, 1 a person comes into my home in a manner that will allow them to kill me first is not a Hit you are sadly mistaken. I say this, because 1 a silencer is COMPLETELY illegal in EVERY STATE in the US; because they're sole purpose is to kill with the utmost amount of stealth as humanly possible. This robber is not here for the valuables (because as you said most thefts are done when the home owner is not at home) they are here for the purpose of murder. How are you going to give the example of a simple robbery taking place with the home owner home? A simple robbery will yes take place when the home owner is not home why, because if you get caught you are only facing a robbery charge not a double or even triple homicide charge, and this is the easiest time to commit a robbery, no one is home; no witnesses no hastle no problems. You even admitted this yourself by saying, "In actuality, most home invasions happen when the house is empty. Rarely will a home owner be in the house when the thief is in the house." Any one who has sophisticated tendency’s (as you yourself said), will rob a home at the easiest time humanly possible, when NO one is home with the smallest amount of trouble. Hell to even get a silencer is one completely hard task, but to get a gun capable of fitting a silencer is even harder. You have to get the barrel of said gun machine cut to have the grooves to fit a silencer. Silencers screw on, NO gun in the US comes manufactured to fit a silencer NO gun that was ever designed for the general populations use. Yes guns for Special Forces/ FBI/ or any government agency are outfitted for this purpose, but NO gun for the general population is outfitted to handle a silencer. You have to specifically look for a gun capable of handling a silencer. Yet another reason for this being not just your average robbery but a Hit.

[/QUOTE=willravel]This is a test. If San Francisco sees gun violence go down, then maybe Oakland and surrounding areas will join in. Then a larger area, etc. etc. If you can get a large enough area to have gun bans, then gun violence will drop. Gun running in the US would be extremly difficult.Honestly Wilravel, Yes I will Completely and Utterly will be for this world. Wars will cease to happen and I will be out of a job. I will happily look for a new job just to lower the chance of my friends or my own death to be drastically lowered. I am more likely to die before my 50ith B-Day because of my given profession, should I chose to stay in this profession. My job in a nut shell is to kill people should the need arise. That's the sad, but true truth. Any one in the military should realize that. If your in an organized Fighting force, your Primary job is to fight; bottom line. The people that Most often Wish for the need to fight and have guns go away, are the Very people whose jobs it is to be proficient in using those guns. We all wish for a better world every time we wake up in another country away from our family, friends, and homes. Will that world come to be a reality any time soon......I (with the utmost confidence and Sadness) think not.

As a side not, I'm Very happy to live in a country that will allow me to have a conversation about conflicting ideas with another adult without violence or any derogatory remarks. I thank every one who participated in this discussion, especially you Willravel as you are the one who is the most opposed to my opinion. I'm very happy to find a website that will support this very action. This gives me a warm fuzzy. Keep them coming Willravel, I look forward to waking up in the morning and seeing what you or any one else has to say.

Dragonknight (Frank for those who know me)

I'm speachless. I'll have to do something about this.
Well at least silencers are illegal. Factoring that into the equasion, it would be more difficult to kill someone in their sleep, but that doesn't change a whole lot. The murderer would still surely know that the man of the house would be the one to offer the most resistence. The only change to the scenereo is that the kids might be able to escape, and the neightbors might hear it. Even with those adjustments, you would have been killed without being able to get your gun.
It will become more difficult to get a gun in the city, even if that difficulty is simply driving down to Burlingame or over to the Eastbay. It will at least slow the traffic. And now if you are caught with a weapon, it's all over. The gun will be taken and you will be charged. There is no longer a 'defending mysle' excuse by either those who use guns responsibly or those who have dishonerable intent. That's a big difference.
Do you mind if I ask what your profession is? I admit to having a general idea (soldier, policeman, Bureau, etc.). With any of those, your first job, in my opinion, is to protect and serve the people of your community, state, or country. Any of those jobs has a primary use as saving lives, giving aid, etc. BTW, kif you are in any of those groups, I apprciate that you put your life on the line to help others. Defending the defenceless is a great calling.
I couldn't agree more. :thumbsup: God bless America, and God bless communities and furums like TFP!

I'm wondering if this is a good thing or bad......

I still say that it will not be so easy to get into a persons home and kill them, but that's okay a difference of opinions is all.

This is true, but what’s one more law to a criminal who is already decided that it’s okay to break the law? All this accomplishes is making breaking and interring and murder easier for those who already don't care about the law. Like I said before they now have even less to fear in going into someone’s home with unlawful intent. I'd like to see the stats concerning the crime rate in Frisco in the next couple of years and see where things go with this.

I mind not at all. I'm a Marine, and I agree with you that my primary job is to protect and serve the people of my country, state, and community. (In that order, because I can't do the federal marshals job, or the local police. Not to say that I won't happily help if the need comes up.)

Just didn't feel like taking this part out is all. I like the truth of the statement. :D

Writing my congressman is a past time to me like baseball is to others. I wrote a sample of gun regulation legislation and sent it with a few statistics about guns. Don't worry, I never work outside of the law.
Agree to disagree. Either of us could be right.
We'll have to wait and see.
Thank you very much for defending our country.

I suppose the only true test of anything is time.

Just an FYI, silencers are not illegal. They fall under the same classification as fully automatic weapons.

That you don't hear of a lot of crimes being commited with either testifies to the fact that the controls in place for them are working (although I disagree strongly with the 1984 law).

Sorry I should have said this. Silencers are illegal in most states and illegal for individual owners in even more.

"To the best of our knowledge, silencers are legal for private ownership in the following states: AL, AR, AK, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MS, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY. Additionally, they maybe owned by Class 3 dealers and Class 2 manufacturers (but not individuals) in: CA, IA, KS, MA, MO, and MI."
http://www.gem-tech.com/legal.html

Its illegal to own a handgun in the city of chicago as well.

This has been a law for QUITE some time.

You can see how well that lowered crime in the city.

Men & guns..........when will it ever end?

Mind you the "gun grabbers" or "anti's" see what they want to see and are masters of altering statistics to say what they want.

They're probably seeing and touting Chiciago as a great success and example.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

monkeys are starting to use tools.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :thumbsup:

Do you have any gray poupon?

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.......

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.