# San Francisco has banned handguns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 9, 2005, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254 "2005-11-09T18:54:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/101 "2005-11-11T22:07:29Z")
Typical of what? ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Daddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Bruce\_Daddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Daddy)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/102 "2005-11-11T22:31:15Z")
> [@](#): > > put a ban on something specifically designed to kill human beings (there is no other use for hand guns) The primary purpose of a gun is to shoot a bullet/lots of little bullets. I have been enjoying guns all my life and have never shot/killed a person. What you choose to put little or big holes in is completely up to you. CCW/CWP holders are the most law abiding citizens in the country (I am very short on time, no time to find the stats). Taking guns away from law abiding citizens does not reduce crime. If you can’t understand the above sentence, you are beyond help. :makes sure the PM40 is not showing as he gets up, leaves work for the weekend. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/103 "2005-11-11T22:44:12Z")
And yet, just because that’s what _you_ do with a gun does not mean that is what it was designed to do. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens does not reduce crime; making it a crime to own a hand gun might help reduce crime becauuuuuuse… anyone? anyone? riiiiight. Being found in possession of a hand gun where hand guns are illegal (inside the city limits of San Francisco) makes you _not_ a law abiding citizen. Get it now? If it’s illegal, and you do it…wait for it… you’re NOT a law abiding citizen!!! _Stands back, looks to see if 2+2=4 is written in large enough font_ ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/104 "2005-11-11T22:46:47Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Fuck Kellerman. There’s not a single study he’s produced that hasn’t been discredited. He’s a compromised source. But that blog you cited is the soul of objective information. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Daddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Bruce\_Daddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Daddy)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/105 "2005-11-12T01:46:26Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > And yet, just because that’s what _you_ do with a gun does not mean that is what it was designed to do. > > Taking guns away from law abiding citizens does not reduce crime; making it a crime to own a hand gun might help reduce crime becauuuuuuse… anyone? anyone? riiiiight. Being found in possession of a hand gun where hand guns are illegal (inside the city limits of San Francisco) makes you _not_ a law abiding citizen. Get it now? If it’s illegal, and you do it…wait for it… you’re NOT a law abiding citizen!!! > _Stands back, looks to see if 2+2=4 is written in large enough font_ You win the prize. I am delivering a cake to you personally. You get it. Criminalizing guns makes law abiding citizens criminals. Making guns illegal guarantees that the only people with guns are criminals. 🍰 ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/106 "2005-11-12T16:08:48Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Taking guns away from law abiding citizens does not reduce crime; making it a crime to own a hand gun might help reduce crime becauuuuuuse… anyone? anyone? riiiiight. Being found in possession of a hand gun where hand guns are illegal (inside the city limits of San Francisco) makes you not a law abiding citizen. Get it now? If it’s illegal, and you do it…wait for it… you’re NOT a law abiding citizen!!! This is so far beyond circular logic that I do believe we have just discovered the 5th dimension. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/107 "2005-11-12T18:36:09Z")
My last post is beyond what MPSIMS is for. My apologies all around. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2005, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/108 "2005-11-12T19:03:47Z")
No apology necessary, you pretty much got my point. Which was, the inherent stupidity behind the sound bite “When guns are outlawed, only OUTLAWS will own guns!” ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/109 "2005-11-13T05:46:20Z")
Is laughing out now a bad thing? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/110 "2005-11-13T08:08:19Z")
**Moderator’s Note:** OK, when people are throwing 87-page cites at each other, I think it’s time to move the thread to Great Debates. Please note the thread is _not_ being moved to the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/111 "2005-11-13T08:25:23Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Each of the facts listed on mine are backed by various cites; most reliable, and some of it from that site that evidently is considered by some to be less-than-reliable (but a cite nonetheless). How else would you like me to cite it? > [@Kalhoun](#): > > FACT: In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor. > > - U.S. Department of Justice Should I just go ahead and call up the Department of Justice to verify your cite? I mean come on thats ridiculous. Even if you link to each of the reports that back up your cite you can’t reasonably expect someone to slog through 20 studies to see how an obviously biased source misrepresented them. > [@UncleBeer](#): > > Well, it’s pretty easy to find the things in there I’m speaking of. And like I said, contained in that booklet, are the original sources for its claims - the vast majority of which are federal government agency reports. Then link to the federal government reports if its that damn easy to do. > [@UncleBeer](#): > > If you wanna claim the federal bureaucracy is biased in favor of gun rights, then by all means, go right ahead. But most people consider federally generated data the most reliable we have. If I wanted to use biased sources, I’d link to unsourced articles on the NRA website. In any case, I was attacked unfairly and inappropriately, so I’m not terribly likely to want to spend too much time sourcing things for that, obviously biased, person. If she wanted to hear a calmly argued and better sourced argument, she can wander over to GD and read any of the dozens of gun control threads there where I’ve done just that. I don’t think that the Federal Government is biased. I do think a book written specifically to argue against gun regulation will inaccurately represent the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/112 "2005-11-13T08:48:19Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > Actually, SCOTUS has consistantly refused to rule on the Constitutional issue, to the point of actually tapdancing around to a slight-of-hand distraction; see _US vs Miller_ as a lonely example of the Supreme Court actually addressing the 2nd Amendment issue. In fact, the Court also tap-danced around that issue in _Miller_. Their ruling was based entirely upon the question of whether a specific weapon (a sawed-off shotgun) was one of the things included in the term “arms”, and said nothing about the question of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/113 "2005-11-13T09:00:47Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > From this dearth of data, the claim was made that handguns are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than a criminal. Even if this statement were reliable (which, as you correctly note, it isn’t), it excludes the most common armed self-defense scenario: 1)Criminal accosts law-abiding citizen, 2)Law-abiding citizen gives criminal a look down his gun barrel, 3)Criminal decides that “go home and change into clean underwear” has moved to the top of his list of immediate priorities. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/114 "2005-11-13T13:34:38Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > I’m not sure the government is able to seize property without recompense. Didn’t the SCOTUS just rule on something regarding eminent domain that gave greater power to seize property? Or was that just real estate? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/115 "2005-11-13T13:47:25Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Note that you don’t _have_ to give the gun to the SF police. You could sell it ahead of time to someone, you can store it outside of SF, etc. The presumption that you can _only_ turn the gun into the police is silly. As is the presumption that an item which must be sold or turned in will fetch anything other than a fraction of its value. If you _have_ to sell your car, I’ll give you ten dollars for it. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/116 "2005-11-13T13:55:14Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > And yet, just because that’s what _you_ do with a gun does not mean that is what it was designed to do. Of course, the same could be said of a bow and arrow. Designed for hunting animals and killing people in combat. Yet outside of Ted Nugent and his immediate circle of friends, there are precious few people who use it for anything but competition archery. We are slowly but surely moving from a world where guns are used primarily for hunting and killing into a world where guns are enjoyed for their handiwork and the thrill of mastering the hand-eye coordination required to hit a target with one. Part of the slowness is the fact that people still need a way to threaten violence in order to assert and protect physical boundaries, and a gun is a very effective and convenient way to do so. As soon as we come up with a more effective and convenient way to kill each other, guns will transition to a sports-only item. Were there similar arguments in earlier times? “If crossbows are outlawed, only outlaws will have crossbows!” “You can take my pot of boiling lead away when you pry it off my cold, dead roof!” I don’t know if the SF handgun ban will stand up to court challenges. Given the reputation of the 9th circuit court, they may uphold it if it gets that far, and I can’t imagine a conservative (by that time) SCOTUS refusing to hear it, but you never know. One argument I never hear anyone bring up is that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, “arms” were flintlock muskets and dueling pistols. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/117 "2005-11-13T16:23:55Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > Although the article doesn’t mention it, one of the rare CCW permits issued by the City of San Francisco is for none other than Senator Dianne Feinstein, who apparently thinks irony is a metal. Given that firearms are still freely available outside the city limits it seems unlikely that this law will have any positive impact on reducing violent gun-related crime even if they were somehow able to force criminals to initially relinquish illegally owned and unregistered firearms. I’m getting in here late, sorry. But Feinstein is a very strong (extremist?) anti-gun person. Funny though how she gets to have her guns, armed security and CCW permit and other less wealty or less connected people can’t even keep a gun in the house or a vault or a safe. I guess it’s just like Animal Farm. Everyone is equal, but some are “more equal”. Also, any two bit crook from Oakland or L.A can have their guns. That makes San Far a wide open town the way I see it. Easy pickings. Drive to S.F., do your thing and then just drive back to Oakland or LA. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/118 "2005-11-13T16:47:27Z")
> [@Mellivora capensis](#): > > I legally own a gun, I’m traceable. That’s not a bad thing. In fact, it makes me think and act more responsibly. I’m certainly not going to discharge my weapon irresponsibly. Why? Because I know that if that bullet hits my neighbour’s child in the face, I can be traced. > > Again, that’s not a bad thing. That’s gun control. > > IMHO, of course. [Slight SA Hijack] Have you had any problems with the new licencing laws? I’ve been debating getting a gun myself, but it seems like the chances of getting a licence are slim to none, if the media’s to be believed.[/SSAH] ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/119 "2005-11-13T16:48:54Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Its basic economics, if you reduce the supply of something it becomes more expensive and more difficult to obtain. Of course if handguns are banned only criminals will have hand guns but thats not the point. The point is that by reducing the number of handguns in society you reduce the severity of violence. > … > If you think there is enough of a chance of getting in a gun fight that you need to carry a gun how about not going to that place? I freely admit that my experience is not universal but I can successfully avoid dangerous situations. If you are concerned about protecting yourself at home buy a shotgun. Welcome to Los Angeles. Here, it is (probably) illegal to own machine guns and military type rifles (the ones with a selectable full auto mode). So, the honest people don’t have them. But the Bloods, Crips, drug dealers and various other gangs still have their M-16, Uzis, AK47s, and Mac-10s. We still have our gang wars, robberies, killings, etc. The gangs are better equipped than most police. So simply saying they are bad and illegal guns didn’t work. As to “not going to that place”… let’s take this “way out there”. Is the solution to avoid all banks, stores, shopping malls, etc? How about staying home? Is the solution to home invasion robbery to not live anywhere? Not going to “that place” is no answer. There is no place you can go, that is perfectly safe. This is the victim mentality at its most extreme. It puts the blame on the victim and absolves the criminal. It says that anyone who gets hurt or killed, deserved it for putting themselves in “a situation”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2005, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/120 "2005-11-13T17:02:34Z")
[This site](http://mccullagh.org/sf/handgun-ban/) looks like a pretty unbiased FAQ list about the ban. I thought this was an interesting point: > [@](#): > > **I noticed a weird thing in the text of the proposal. It only restricts city residents from possessing handguns, right?** > Good eye. Visitors may possess handguns legally as long as they follow other applicable laws. This was probably put in to make the law less susceptible to a challenge under the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. As a long time resident of CA, I’d just like to ask those on both sides of this debate not to confuse SF with CA. CA is a very diverse state, politically, and SF is far outside the norm. I offer that as a statement of fact, not as a value judgement. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254.md?page=7)