San Francisco bans ownership of handguns - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cobalt_60 · 11-10-2005, 06:45 PM

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

Quote:

Nov. 9, 2005, 9:23PM

San Francisco gun ban draws fire from NRA

By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - The National Rifle Association sued Wednesday to overturn an ordinance voters here overwhelmingly approved a day earlier that bans handgun possession and sales of firearms in the city.

A state appeals court in 1982 nullified a similar gun ban largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law, which allows for the sale and possession of handguns and ammunition.

The NRA filed its lawsuit Wednesday asking the same court, the 1st District Court of Appeal, to nullify the ordinance, which demands that city residents surrender their handguns by April.

"Cities do not have the authority under the state law to ban the possession of handguns," said Wayne LaPierre, NRA president.

The NRA also contends the new ordinance unfairly puts San Francisco residents at a disadvantage by denying them the means to protect themselves. The measure does not bar nonresidents from possessing handguns within city limits.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera said his office will vigorously defend the ordinance, which was approved by 58 percent of voters.

"The electorate sent a strong message that local governments have a strong role in curbing violence in our streets," Herrera said.

He said the 1982 measure was overturned because it applied to all people within city limits, regardless of whether they lived there.

Mayor Gavin Newsom has said the measure probably won't withstand legal scrutiny, but has symbolic value.

The NRA is not alleging the ordinance violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms, but it would in federal court if it loses the state case, LaPierre said.

Lebell · 11-10-2005, 08:31 PM

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.

Mordoc · 11-11-2005, 06:28 PM

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

Cynthetiq · 11-11-2005, 06:54 PM

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.

ziadel · 11-11-2005, 07:09 PM

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

Willravel · 11-11-2005, 09:38 PM

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.

ziadel · 11-11-2005, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

Willravel · 11-11-2005, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziadel

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?

cj2112 · 11-11-2005, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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?

im2smrt4u · 11-12-2005, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj2112

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?

aKula · 11-12-2005, 03:09 AM

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

(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).

Bill O'Rights · 11-12-2005, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aKula

Yes but restricted gun sales restricts criminals access to them. I So the punk is less likely to be bothered to get a gun.

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.

Dragonknight · 11-12-2005, 12:01 PM

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.

Lebell · 11-12-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordoc

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

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)".

Willravel · 11-12-2005, 01:19 PM

Double post, sorry.

Willravel · 11-12-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj2112

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by im2smrt4u

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?

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.

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.

Mordoc · 11-12-2005, 01:29 PM

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.

krwlz · 11-12-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordoc

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

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.

Willravel · 11-12-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krwlz

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?

Mordoc · 11-12-2005, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krwlz

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.

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.

Willravel · 11-12-2005, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordoc

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!

Dragonknight · 11-12-2005, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordoc

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordoc

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.

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.

Willravel · 11-12-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.

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.

cj2112 · 11-12-2005, 11:25 PM

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

Willravel · 11-12-2005, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj2112

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.

cj2112 · 11-12-2005, 11:45 PM

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.

Willravel · 11-12-2005, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj2112

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.

kutulu · 11-13-2005, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj2112

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

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

Dragonknight · 11-13-2005, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

cj2112 · 11-13-2005, 08:52 AM

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.

Willravel · 11-13-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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 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?

Dragonknight · 11-13-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's mot 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.

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.

Quote:

Hopefully gun violence in a home will drop, but will violence in a home in general drop? I think not, violence (in your home) in a different area will go up. Then you will have what I sated in my first post happen. Violence due to knives (just and example) will go up, and I doubt that a law requiring every one in a given area, will have to surrender any sharp object in there home will go into place. You MUST stop those who commit violent crimes in peoples homes, not the means they commit them by. Remember this is a law prohibiting home owners in a given city to own a hand gun, and gun shops in said city to sell hand guns. Not a law to stop guns sales completely, and not in the given state. You can still drive at Most an hour in Any direction and get a hand gun.

[/QUOTE=wilravel]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?

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)

Willravel · 11-13-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.

I'm speachless. I'll have to do something about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

Hopefully gun violence in a home will drop, but will violence in a home in general drop? I think not, violence (in your home) in a different area will go up. Then you will have what I sated in my first post happen. Violence due to knives (just and example) will go up, and I doubt that a law requiring every one in a given area, will have to surrender any sharp object in there home will go into place. You MUST stop those who commit violent crimes in peoples homes, not the means they commit them by. Remember this is a law prohibiting home owners in a given city to own a hand gun, and gun shops in said city to sell hand guns. Not a law to stop guns sales completely, and not in the given state. You can still drive at Most an hour in Any direction and get a hand 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

As a side not[e], 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 [feeling]. 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 couldn't agree more.

God bless America, and God bless communities and furums like TFP!

Dragonknight · 11-13-2005, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm speachless. I'll have to do something about this.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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 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.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I couldn't agree more.

God bless America, and God bless communities and furums like TFP!

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

Willravel · 11-14-2005, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.

Agree to disagree. Either of us could be right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.

We'll have to wait and see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonknight

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.)

Thank you very much for defending our country.

I suppose the only true test of anything is time.

Lebell · 11-15-2005, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Well at least silencers are illegal.

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).

Dragonknight · 11-19-2005, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

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

barenakedladies · 11-19-2005, 07:07 AM

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.

hunnychile · 11-19-2005, 06:01 PM

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

Mauser · 11-19-2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barenakedladies

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.

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.

11-10-2005, 08:31 PM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	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. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

11-11-2005, 06:28 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mordoc Upright	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 Last edited by Mordoc; 11-11-2005 at 06:36 PM..

11-11-2005, 06:54 PM	#4 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	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. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

11-11-2005, 07:09 PM	#5 (permalink)
ziadel Myrmidon Location: In the twilight and mist.	thought san fran was a shithole city when I visited. now all doubt has been removed. __________________ Ron Paul '08 Vote for Freedom Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

11-12-2005, 12:01 PM	#13 (permalink)
Dragonknight Insane Location: Hawaii	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. __________________ Freedom is NOT Free.

11-11-2005, 09:38 PM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

11-12-2005, 03:09 AM	#11 (permalink)
aKula Psycho	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 (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).

11-12-2005, 01:19 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Double post, sorry. Last edited by Willravel; 11-12-2005 at 01:29 PM..

11-12-2005, 01:29 PM	#17 (permalink)
Mordoc Upright	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.

11-12-2005, 11:25 PM	#24 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	So do you also believe that because I had a friend killed by a drunk driver that we should ban all cars?

11-12-2005, 11:45 PM	#26 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	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.

11-13-2005, 08:52 AM	#30 (permalink)
cj2112 Unbelievable Location: Grants Pass OR	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. Last edited by cj2112; 11-13-2005 at 09:21 AM..

11-19-2005, 07:07 AM	#38 (permalink)
barenakedladies Crazy Location: anytown, USA	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.

11-19-2005, 06:01 PM	#39 (permalink)
hunnychile Alien Anthropologist Location: Between Boredom and Nirvana	Men & guns..........when will it ever end? __________________ "I need compassion, understanding and chocolate." - NJB