Well, if the media reports are to be believed, the San Francisco proposal is not to license but (according to NPR) to completely ban possession of handguns by anyone except for “police, security guards, and military personnel”.
I agre with you that the intent of gun control advocates is noble – they want to cut crime. However, there is no way that you can design a gun control scheme that will actually do this. Guns are easily obtainable regardless of their legal status. There is no way to pass a law that will actually prevent a criminal from obaining a gun if he wants one. The only thing a law will do is make it harder to get a gun for someone who is willing to follow the law (and, by that indication, not a threat to society).
It’s easily seen in D.C. Handguns are banned and yet the criminals have no trouble getting handguns. Hell, I’ll bet I could go get a handgun in an hour if I wanted to do so. Of course, I don’t, because I’m a law abiding citizen. I’m the one paying attention to the law, not the criminals.
I was merely making a statement based on my reading of the news. The circumstances of a lot of drug related deaths and the background of the people killed leads me to believe that many of these deaths were drug dealers shooting each other. It is likely that if this is the case, many of them were defensive use of firearms. Of course, since drug dealers operate outside the law, there is no way to prove this. However, it is interesting that recently a high school kid who shot another here in D.C. was acquitted of murder because he claimed that acted in defense of himself.
If you care to look at some world-wide statistics, you will see that there is in fact a correlation between poverty, availability of hand guns, and shootings. The whole concept of Washington being full of liberal softies not willing to defend themselves if their lives depended on it is ridiculous. Rather, they recognise that owning a gun is more likely to add to the gun-related death scoreboard because of gun related accidents (children getting their hands on them, parents shooting relatives mistaken for burglars, and so on).
I have lived here for 30 years and I have never seen a real gun. Ever. Do you think there is a correlation between that and gun-related deaths where I live? If so, you are correct. Taking guns away will take a while to have effect, but eventually they will be harder to come by. This will take some time, it is definitely time worth taking.
Having said that, there is nothing like fighting crime than taking away the cause for it, and that anyone that doesn’t yet understand that the number one cause for crime is poverty, should open his eyes and kick-start his brain. If you’re open to scientific evidence, you can come to no other conclusion.
Perhaps, but correlation is not causation. Poor people are more likely to engage in violence, but does that mean that being poor made them engage in violence, or does it mean that the same factors that made them poor also make them prone to violence?
I grew up in a poor rural area that had lots of guns. There was very little gun violence (although there was a lot of physical violence – spousal abuse, fights at school, etc.). Simply being poor and having guns available does not lead to the type of violence that plagues D.C.
No, it’s not. D.C. is full of liberal softies who are afraid of guns. I’m friends with a lot of them.
Actually, that’s completely false. Gun accidents among children is exceptionally rare, as is accidental shootings of the sort you describe.
What part of DC do you live in? That’s a bit odd.
Do you mean to say that there are few gun related deaths in your area of town? I’m a little confused by this statement. Could you plesae clarify.
I must disagree. Perhaps if we had a national ban on all gun sales and a wholesale confiscation of guns, and if everyone actually turned in their guns, your scenario would play out. However, the number of guns in circulation in the U.S. today, and the fact that they will never be banned (leaving aside the whole debate that arises about whether or not they should be banned), makes your scenario wishful thinking, at best. As it is, D.C. will never see a reduction in illegal guns because guns are so easily obtained from outside D.C. and brought in. D.C.'s gun ban has had almost 30 years to work. It clearly hasn’t reduced gun violence at all. It’s time to repeal this ineffective law and let law abiding citizens like myself own a means to defend my home.
Again, I don’t think that’s scientifically proven at all. Sure, poor people are more likely to commit crime, but it doesn’t logically follow that they commit crime because they are poor. Correlation, as I said above, is not causation.
You really don’t see any other difference between DC and West Virginia? I repeat, you really need to come here and check things out. I’ve been through West Virgina a handful of times in the last year or so, and there’s quite a few things that stick out in my mind:
- I’ve yet to see a high-rise housing project in West Virginia. These projects are breeding grounds for drugs and crime.
- For all the problems with WV’s economy, the unemployment rate is 50% higher in DC than it is in WV. Cite.
- I’ve never heard of West Virgina having a crack smoking governor, nor any crack smoking mayors. I really haven’t heard of them being reelected to office… twice.
- West Virginia has among the lowest overall crime rates in the nation. DC has among the highest. If there’s not a lot of street crime – burglary, thefts, drug dealing, etc, I’d say odds are good that there aren’t going to be a lot of violent crimes, regardless of whether there’s a lot of guns on the street or not.
- Further, there are states that have just as liberal gun laws as West Virginia, but have a much higher crime rate. For example, Texas’ murder rate is roughly twice that of West Virginia.
Again, I don’t think the gun ban has done DC any real good, but saying that it has caused more crime just doesn’t hold water. My last piece of evidence: the murder rate in DC didn’t explode until the late '80s – the number more than doubled between 1986 and 1989. Cite. But the gun ban was enacted in 1976, if memory serves. It seems to me that the crack epidemic has much more to do with the murder rate than the gun ban. Otherwise, why did it take more than 10 years between the gun ban and the leap in violent crime? And why would burglaries trend downward over the last 25 years if criminals would, in your terms, be less afraid of entering the house of an armed person?
The heart of the problem here is constitutional, not practical. The end of DC’s gun ban would have a better effect on freedom than it would on crime. I don’t have a doubt in my mind about that.
Bitch set him up! 
Seriously,
As I’ve said before, I was born in northern VA and lived there until I was 16 or so. I don’t recall DC’s homicide rate falling out of the top five nationally in all that time. I do remember it being #1 quite a few times. Some combination of factors in DC causes homicides. Whether guns are illegal or not seems to have little effect.
But during the great depression there was many poor people, and a very low crime rate. Another myth shot to hell, that is if you can still get a gun to shoot it.
Do you have a cite for that? I’m genuinely curious as to how the crime rate during the Depression compares to now.
How touching to encounter someone who still believes in such strong correlation between what people preach and what they would practice if given the opportunity.
Wouldn’t it be more useful to examine the average citizen’s need for a gun. I go to school in DC, and it seems to me like there are pretty clear lines of demarcation when it comes to where many of these crimes occur. I don’t hear fo many people being robbed or murdered in Georgetown. Having a gun doesn’t automatically make it any safer to live in a crappy area because the chances that you would have to use it (and have the use result in a positive outcome) are slim.
As someone esle mentioned, the murder rate in DC seems to be related mostly on the prevelence of drug sales/use and poverty. If that is the case, it would seems that arguing that the law is ineffective based on the murder rate is specious. Also, if the majority of these murders have to do with people who are engaging in illegal activities like drugs sales, then it doesn’t present a strong case (aside from constitutional issues) for why the average law-abiding person needs a gun to protect himself/herself. If the average person doesn’t have a rational legitimate concern of being robbed, assaulted or worse, then it seems pointless to repeal the law.
I don’t know if the statistical data exists but I would be curious to know the answers to the following questions: Where does DC rank in terms of home invasions?, the percentage of robbers/burglars who carry weapons, the percentage of burglaries where the home is occupied by its residents, and any reasonable estimates as to how many of these crimes could have been prevented if the victim had a gun.
As far as I know, most robbers/burglars avoid confrontation and don’t carry weapons. The average burglary lasts only a few minutes and doesn’t typically result in violence. In addition, one of the most common items stolen from unoccupied homes are guns (according to this site). If allowing homeowners to have guns carries with it the reasonable expectation that many of them will be stolen, then I find it hard to see how repealing the laws could result in a net positive.
If people just want to own a gun to feel safer, then I can understand that. But I don’t see how one could argue that they need a gun for protection.
Okay, so the claim is that there is no link between guns and crime. Why then does the government arm our police officers and military?
Why don’t we just give them nightsticks? If we outlaw guns, they won’t need them anymore, will they?
The truth is, guns are a deterrent. Most people won’t mess with a police officer or any authority figure in matters of law because they are law abiding citizens. There are some who will protest, yell, and will stop at that because they know that they cannot carry it any farther without the possibility that force will be used against them.
Once the gun is used to take life, it has failed it’s primary purpose. Self defence is the secondary purpose of a firearm.
Once upon a time, a gun was absolutely necessary to make sure that your family did not go hungry. It will still ensure that, should you need it to do so.
I ask you to look at 9/11, the four hurricanes that rocked Florida and the current earthquake/tsunami disaster in Asia. Do not make the mistake of believing that your government can fully protect you from natural disaster or terrorists, because they can only do so much. They are not all powerful.
If you ever find yourself out of doors with only what you can carry with you, you will want a gun very badly. I loaned one to my mom and her husband for a while after her condo got destroyed by hurricane Ivan. They were glad to have it.
It is a deterrent, it will offer you some small sense of security, and it will keep you from starving to death in addition to being useful for self defense, should everything else fail.
I dont understand the Lefts desire to get rid of peoples right to keep and bear arms either; the existance of the religous Right is more than enough reason for people to keep their right to bear arms.
I thought changing the name of the NBA team from the Bullets to the Wizards was going to fix the murder problem. I have a carry permit and over 30 guns. “From my cold dead hands”
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
And I know of people who live 50 miles from the nearest full-time law enforcement officer, and in an area where the wildlife watches you – and to restrict their possession of firearms is tantamount to tying them naked and outstretched to four widely-spread stakes, rubbing them all over with raw beefsteak and catnip, and leaving them to be preyed on.
[QUOTE]
heh… You now know another one. The 30-30 or .357 makes enough noise to scare of nosey bears. And gives me a bit of protection when I have to do it.
First, I don’t believe that "most of the people in D.C. are liberals – unless you mean that everyone who votes Democratic, or anyone who stands for civil rights, is ipso facto a liberal. A quick look at the 1950s would speak volumes on this subject in a contrary sense.
Second, I am a liberal – and a strong rights advocate. I stand for the entire Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.
I personally do not own or want a gun, and am somewhat gunshy – and if we ever become close enough friends, I might consider explaining the reasons from my past underlying that feeling. But my son is an avid hunter, I have a number of friends who own firearms of various descriptions, and I am not about to impose my personal reactions on any of them.
Finally, I’m aware that gun control laws as presently imposed are less than effective and might be considered counterproductive. As I said back in post #2, there is an answer, but it’s not obvious to me what it is, and it’s not going to be found by knee-jerk reactions at either end of the spectrum.
Very well stated Polycarp. I too am a liberal. I believe that folks should be able to make their own decisions (within reason). I choose to own a gun(s).
What seems odd to me, is that the usually pro-gun conservatives are the ones that will eventually chip away at the 2nd.
The National Academy of Science issued this report just a few days ago.
Comment on Paul Harvey news indicates that many involved in the study had a bias against gun ownership and were pro gun control.
Is anyone who votes Democratic automatically a liberal? No, but since the Democratic Party is the liberal party in America, it seems safe to assume that many who vote Democratic are indeed liberals. And, when you consider that over 90% of D.C. votes Democratic, then it seems fairly obvious that the city is full of liberals. And when you further consider that the one Republican we have in the City Council is pretty liberal, and when you also consider that the other Council member who was a Republican quit the party over the gay marriage issue and champions various liberal causes such as an increased minimum wage, I would say that D.C. is certainly populated by liberals. If you live in the city, see the people who live here, and see how local politics are discussed, you’d have no doubt in your mind that most of the people in D.C. are liberals.
As to your point about civil rights, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. My characterization of D.C.'s population had nothing to do with civil rights.
Sorry, that link was not the report but a Lott op/ed column.
Here’s the NAS press release.