# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![butter\_pie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/aca169/32.png) [@butter\_pie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/butter_pie)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/141 "2005-11-14T15:47:21Z")
To the people who keep trotting out “buy a shotgun” to those who wish to own handguns for home defense: Are the only people allowed to protect themselves now, those physically able to handle a shotgun, then? I’m quite small and seriously doubt I could effectively use a shotgun. There have been a few muggings and break-ins in my neighbourhood, however, and I am looking into getting a license to get a handgun to protect myself. I am grateful for the fact that when a criminal is looking and trying to decide which apartment to break into, he has no way of knowing which apartments may or may not result in him getting his ass blown off. Even people who are afraid of, or don’t wish to own guns, I would think benefitted from law-abiding gun owners in that respect. As someone said above, SanFran may as well just put a big sign out now that says “Easy Pickins’, come and get it!” I would think the fact that places like where I live (Texas) which are virtually soaked in guns and gun culture, yet manage to not devolve into complete rootin’ tootin’ anarchy, would be evidence enough that ordinary citizens can, and are for the most part, responsible gun owners. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/142 "2005-11-14T16:14:05Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Are you planning on pulling your piece and getting involved in the middle of a gang gun fight? Do you want some guy getting involved and have 3 people possibly hitting bystanders? I **said** unarmed people. who were **not involved** got hit and died. Can you read? > [@treis](#): > > I expect organized cirme to be able to arm themselves. They aren’t the people I am really worried about. I am worried about the guy at the bar I bump into that overreacts and pulls his gun on me. So it’s a good thing that they can arm themselves (the Crips, Bloods, Mongols, Nomads, Banditos etc). That’s all cool with you. Forget the killers, go after anyone who is not a killer. But that loud drunk at the bar is scary. Bars must be real damgerous then. **So don’t go there** , using your argument about avoiding dangerous places. > [@treis](#): > > Why do you think that is? You tell me. Why do you think? But you aren’t worried about the gangs riding around in their cars with shotguns, Mac10’s, pistols, etc. “They aren’t the people I am really worried about.” Maybe you should tell me just what IS your postion? Disarm the honest people, and let the gangs and criminals keep their stuff? “I expect organized cirme to be able to arm themselves. They aren’t the people I am really worried about.” Maybe I was being whooshed, and your whole line of thought is just a joke on me? ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/143 "2005-11-14T16:25:56Z")
> [@Bruce\_Daddy](#): > > Criminalizing guns makes law abiding citizens criminals. Making guns illegal guarantees that the only people with guns are criminals. Purely as a matter of interest, what about a situation where there is a limited supply of guns, and they are all illegal? Some european countries have a problem with gun crime amonst certain small segments of the population, but generally handguns are rare to the point where 99+% of the population have only ever seen one on TV. In this scenario, massively adding to the supply of firearms by making them legally available would only seem to make the situation worse. You’d probably struggle to sell the average UK citizen on the idea that legally selling guns in every High Street would make them safer, but presumably if certain relationships between crime and guns hold true, they would be true in both situations. I guess this would be the flip side not only of the “If guns are illegal only criminal will have them” argument, but also of the “Illegal drugs are still available, so why not legalise them and cut crime” argument. Although making that link opens up a whole new can of worms, it’s interesting to visualise the NRA spouting “making weed illegal means only criminals have weed” and Woody Harrelson opining “since people want guns, and they are easily available to criminals, why not let everyone have the benefit of owning them”. Which takes us into the fifth dimension again. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/144 "2005-11-14T16:42:02Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I **said** unarmed people. who were **not involved** got hit and died. Can you read? Can you? Let me spell it out for you one more time, how would having a gun in that situation help you or anyone else? Are you planning on pulling it and getting involved in a good ol fashioned gun fight? [QUOTE=SteveG1] So it’s a good thing that they can arm themselves (the Crips, Bloods, Mongols, Nomads, Banditos etc). That’s all cool with you. Forget the killers, go after anyone who is not a killer. Oh give me a break. The Crips, Bloods etc. etc. normally confine their shootings to rival gangs and those involved with the drug trade. Since I, and most people, are not involved in the drug trade or in a gang I am less concerned with them. How in the world you think that means I am ok with gangs being armed is astounding. Simply astounding. > [@SteveG1](#): > > But that loud drunk at the bar is scary. Bars must be real damgerous then. **So don’t go there** , using your argument about avoiding dangerous places. Thats precisely the problem with handguns. I simply don’t know who is armed and who is not. I certianly avoid the places where I am likely to run into crips and bloods. If I knew that people were packing at a bar I would most likely leave or atleast keep an eye on him. > [@SteveG1](#): > > You tell me. Why do you think? But you aren’t worried about the gangs riding around in their cars with shotguns, Mac10’s, pistols, etc. “They aren’t the people I am really worried about.” Holy non-sequitor batman! I’ve asked you 3 or 4 times already, are you planning on pulling your gun and shooting back at the gangs? If not, how does this line of reasoning support your argument at all? > [@SteveG1](#): > > Maybe you should tell me just what IS your postion? Disarm the honest people, and let the gangs and criminals keep their stuff? Absolutely, I plan on issuing the latest armament to the most dangerous gangs while forcing innocent people to walk around with bullseyes around their hearts. Jeez louise my argument isn’t that complicated perhaps going back and re-reading my posts carefully instead of becoming Pro-Gunzilla will help. > [@SteveG1](#): > > “I expect organized cirme to be able to arm themselves. They aren’t the people I am really worried about.” > > Maybe I was being whooshed, and your whole line of thought is just a joke on me? No, you just have difficulty understanding the point that an armed populace isn’t going to do jack to stop them. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/145 "2005-11-14T16:57:13Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I don’t agree, and neither do the experts. The jury is still very much out on whether a gun is a more effective tool at killing/severely injuring than a knife. This is one of those issues where it’s very hard to get reliable statistics of course but the stats we do have suggest that knives are far more likely to result in far more serious injuries than firearms. Do you have a cite for these stats? > [@Blake](#): > > However those stats we do have are highly unreliable for all sorts of reasons. Firstly accidental ‘knife’ injuries are common, and accidental firearm injuries are not, so people can readily claim they fell on a knife or it slipped while they were whittling, but much harder to claim you accidentally shot yourself in the head. Also self-inflicted gunshot wounds are easily detected by burns etc. in most cases, while self-inflicted knofe wounds aren’t. As a result any gunshot attack will be picked up by the system, while minor wounds from a knife attack will get a couple of sticthes and a meaningful goodbye. If this is true it means you are maximizing the number of assaults with firearms while lessening the number of assaults with knives. This will make the lethality of knives seem higher than it is in actuality while making the gun lethality more accurate. > [@Blake](#): > > Added to that knives are often the weapon of choice for those who are best equipped to use them: strong young men. That doesn’t mean that the stats we have are representative of everybody when it comes to the effectiveness of knives. Again, if this were true it would exaggerate the lethality of knives. > [@Blake](#): > > Then there is the whole issue that all gunshot wounds are required to be reported to the authorities in most locations. That could be skewing the stats either way. Since a lot of weapon wounds are received as a result of nefarious activities that obligatory reporting means that a lot of criminals will simply not get medical care for minor gunshot wounds, whereas they will show at an emergency room for any knife wound. As a result it will appear that gunshot wounds will be far more severe than for knife wounds, even if knife wounds on average are more serious, because only the most serious gunshot wounds are ever seen. But on the other hand it may be that obligatory reporting may mean that guns are less efficient at causing serious wounds because people may get ‘back alley’ medical care for serious gunshots wounds but hospital care for serious knife wounds. Even if any of this actually true, to make the lethality of guns and knives equal this scenario would have to account for 5 times the number of reported gun assaults. The math on this is fairly simple, if K=lethality of knives, D=gun deaths, A=reported gun assaults. The studies generally say 5_K=D/A. Dividing by 5 gives you K=D/(A_5). While your reasoning is solid and it may account for some inaccuracies in the amount of assaults reported I seriously doubt there are 5 times as many gun assaults as are reported. > [@Blake](#): > > Then we get to the whole issue of attempts. A person might attempt to use a firearm and miss, doing no damage at all, and thus not make any lists. A person attempting to use a knife is unlikely to do less than draw blood, and will thus be inlcuded in stats. I am pretty sure that would count as an assault and be recorded in the studies provided the police are contacted at some point. > [@Blake](#): > > And so on and so forth. Hopefully you can appreciate how hard it is to get stats on the effectiveness of knives vs firearms. and more importantly you can see that you aren’t justified in claiming that firearms are more effective at killing and maiming. The evidence simply doesn’t exist to support such a claim and it’s hard to see how we could ever gather such evidence. I think you are overestimating the effects of these _possible_ inaccuracies. The studies show 5 times lethality of gun assaults versus knives. You would have to have some major, major inaccuracies if knives were actually more dangerous than guns. > [@Blake](#): > > No, I won’t agree until I see some convincing evidence to support such a claim. It seems to be based on a Hollywood impression of the effects of weapons: everyone who gets shot dies, people get stabbed and spend a few days in bed. Things don’t work like that in the real world. Well, it seems that reality matches Hollywood in this case. People with bullet wounds are more likely to die than those with knife wounds. > [@Blake](#): > > No, that doesn’t stand to reason either. People often use firearms for the same reason they study Tae Kwon Do or used polearms and baseball bats: there’s a psychological perception that everything happens a long way away. It’s not because people percieve those things as most effective, it’s because they percieve them as safer. Those are very different things. There are other psychological factors you’ve totally ignored here too. Firearms operate at the pres of a button, that makes them very easy psychologically. Knives require an active use of muscle power, that makes them hard to use psychologically. A weapon is only as good as the user behind it. If I hopped into an Abrahms tank I don’t think I would be able to do much damage but in the hands of a skilled operator it is extremely dangerous. Just becuase a knife is a less effective weapon for the reasons you state does not particularly matter. It still means that a knife is a less effective weapon. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/146 "2005-11-14T17:09:18Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Oh give me a break. The Crips, Bloods etc. etc. normally confine their shootings to rival gangs and those involved with the drug trade. Since I, and most people, are not involved in the drug trade or in a gang I am less concerned with them. How in the world you think that means I am ok with gangs being armed is astounding. Simply astounding. Bullshit. “I expect organized cirme to be able to arm themselves. They aren’t the people I am really worried about.” They kill innocents with their drive by shootings. You can be killed because you saw something they didn’t want you to see. Some kill just for kicks. Besides drug dealls, they also do home invasion robbery. You could be robbed and then killed for not having enough money. Some of them “induct” new members in an especially charming way. They pick a target at random. The wannabe shoots that person to prove he is a stone cold muthah. Sometimes they fuck with people for no reason at all. You don’t know shit about L.A. gangs. > [@treis](#): > > Thats precisely the problem with handguns. I simply don’t know who is armed and who is not. I certianly avoid the places where I am likely to run into crips and bloods. If I knew that people were packing at a bar I would most likely leave or atleast keep an eye on him. You have some super power that tells you who is “ganged up”? COOL! > [@treis](#): > > Holy non-sequitor batman! I’ve asked you 3 or 4 times already, are you planning on pulling your gun and shooting back at the gangs? If not, how does this line of reasoning support your argument at all? No, I don’t plan to start throwing down on them or anyone else. But I also don’t want to be caught in the crossfire either. > [@treis](#): > > No, you just have difficulty understanding the point that an armed populace isn’t going to do jack to stop them. And you have difficulty understanding that your “solution” solves nothing. **Stop plea bargaining. Institute special circumstances laws that make the penalties MUCH harsher for crimes where a gun was involved. Stop the “revolving door” justice system that keeps putting convicted criminals back on the street. Don’t be so generous with early outs and paroles where a gun was involved** In short, come down hard and heavy on the BAD guys. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/147 "2005-11-14T17:19:50Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Bullshit. “I expect organized cirme to be able to arm themselves. They aren’t the people I am really worried about.” > They kill innocents with their drive by shootings. You can be killed because you saw something they didn’t want you to see. Some kill just for kicks. Besides drug dealls, they also do home invasion robbery. You could be robbed and then killed for not having enough money. Some of them “induct” new members in an especially charming way. They pick a target at random. The wannabe shoots that person to prove he is a stone cold muthah. Sometimes they fuck with people for no reason at all. You don’t know shit about L.A. gangs. Well go ahead and enlighten me. How many innocent people are killed by L.A. gangs each year and, and this is key here, what would having a populace armed with handguns do about it? > [@SteveG1](#): > > You have some super power that tells you who is “ganged up”? COOL! If by super powers you mean my sight and experience then yes I suppose I do have super powers. Unless the Crypts and Bloods have instituted a new dress code they are going to stick out like a sore thumb whereever I go. > [@SteveG1](#): > > No, I don’t plan to start throwing down on them or anyone else. But I also don’t want to be caught in the crossfire either. Then how does this support your argument for handguns? > [@SteveG1](#): > > And you have difficulty understanding that your “solution” solves nothing. **Stop plea bargaining. Institute special circumstances laws that make the penalties MUCH harsher for crimes where a gun was involved. Stop the “revolving door” justice system that keeps putting convicted criminals back on the street. Don’t be so generous with early outs and paroles where a gun was involved** In short, come down hard and heavy on the BAD guys. Gee, I was under the impression that we were discussing a handgun ban here. I didn’t realize that believing that handguns are dangerous and we would be safer off without them precludes me from being tough on gun crime. The things you learn on this board. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/148 "2005-11-14T17:20:29Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > And you have difficulty understanding that your “solution” solves nothing. **Stop plea bargaining. Institute special circumstances laws that make the penalties MUCH harsher for crimes where a gun was involved. Stop the “revolving door” justice system that keeps putting convicted criminals back on the street. Don’t be so generous with early outs and paroles where a gun was involved** In short, come down hard and heavy on the BAD guys. Well, plea bargaining has its place, especially when it involves testimony against those who are higher up in the gang or drug-dealing structure. It also saves the court system shitloads of time and money, so i don’t think it is going away. As for the rest, i pretty much agree. All i would add is that, if we’re going to put the really bad guys away, and keep them away for longer periods of time, then we might make space for them by ridding our jails of the large numbers of non-violent drug offenders who never should have been in there in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/149 "2005-11-14T17:31:13Z")
Wow, This gun “debate” is one of the _worst_ I’ve seen here in a very long time. Probably has much to do with the forum in which it originated (MPSIMS) and that it wasn’t initially intended to be a debate, but, just wow. I’ve not seen so many strawmen since I drove thru Kansas farm country. There are all kinds of people objecting to things never said, and an awful lot of words put in others mouths. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/150 "2005-11-14T17:38:42Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Well go ahead and enlighten me. How many innocent people are killed by L.A. gangs each year and, and this is key here, what would having a populace armed with handguns do about it? I’m not answering any more of your canned questions. Go play with somebody else. Cites are not good enough, specific examples are not good enough, logic is not good enough. Let someone else waste their time on this. I don’t have any numbers, because I don’t feel like looking for any. I don’t feel like hunting down cites that you would likely ignore anyway. For the record, I don’t have any handguns. I don’t have any shotguns. It is because that was MY choice. I also don’t hang out with gangsters (but who knows - they look like everyone else, how can ya tell). I don’t know what effect an armed populace would have and neither do you. I also don’t know what effect an unarmed populace would have and neither do you. I do know, when I lived in Texas (Fort Worth to be exact), where you never know who had a weapon in the house, there didn’t seem to be the high incidence of violent crime or random crime we have here in Los Angeles. I would dare say that Fort Worth was safer than Los Angeles. No big gangs, no drive by’s, mostly simple nonviolent crimes such as burglary and theft, and even that was relatively rare in comparision. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/151 "2005-11-14T18:08:17Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I’m not answering any more of your canned questions. Go play with somebody else. Cites are not good enough, specific examples are not good enough, logic is not good enough. Let someone else waste their time on this. I don’t have any numbers, because I don’t feel like looking for any. I don’t feel like hunting down cites that you would likely ignore anyway. For the record, I don’t have any handguns. I don’t have any shotguns. It is because that was MY choice. I also don’t hang out with gangsters (but who knows - they look like everyone else, how can ya tell). I don’t know what effect an armed populace would have and neither do you. I also don’t know what effect an unarmed populace would have and neither do you. You’re joking. Your one cite in this thread was the friggen local news and you have the audacity to say I ignore cites? Your entire argument rests on gangs being armed and shooting each other which shows nothing. You need to at minimum, if you are going to both to come back, show that handguns will make a lick of difference. And I for one do know what would happen if the populace became unarmed, they would stop shooting each other. Sure they might just switch to stabbings but I believe those result in death less often. > [@SteveG1](#): > > I do know, when I lived in Texas (Fort Worth to be exact), where you never know who had a weapon in the house, there didn’t seem to be the high incidence of violent crime or random crime we have here in Los Angeles. I would dare say that Fort Worth was safer than Los Angeles. No big gangs, no drive by’s, mostly simple nonviolent crimes such as burglary and theft, and even that was relatively rare in comparision. I won’t even go into the logical fallacy that this entire argument is but I will point out that the statistics on Forth Worth support my argumet. The murder rate in Fort Worth is 1.29 times the national average while assaults are .95 times the nationala average. > **[Fort Worth Crime Statistics: Texas (TX) - CityRating.com](https://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/texas/fort-worth.html)** ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/152 "2005-11-14T20:54:05Z")
> [@treis](#): > > You’re joking. Your one cite in this thread was the friggen local news and you have the audacity to say I ignore cites? Your entire argument rests on gangs being armed and shooting each other which shows nothing. You need to at minimum, if you are going to both to come back, show that handguns will make a lick of difference. And I for one do know what would happen if the populace became unarmed, they would stop shooting each other. Sure they might just switch to stabbings but I believe those result in death less often. Where are your cites or personal experiences or even anecdotal evidence? Where is the convincing argument that simply making more “guns are bad” laws will accomplish anything? Where are the papers, numbers, etc that prove you right? Where in this cite or its web page are such places a Pacoima or Compton? You need to at minimum, if you are going to both to come back, show that outlawing handguns will make a lick of difference. City of Pacoima CA: Murder is **1.97** times the national average. Robbery is 2.04 times the national average. Aggravated assault is 1.71 times the national average. All violent crime is 1.84 times the national average. City of Commerce CA: Murder is **5.82**!!! times the national average. Robbery is 2.10 times the national average. Aggravated assault is 2.92 times the national average. All violent crime is 2.69 times the national average. Los Angeles CA: Murder is **1.75** times the national average. Robbery is 1.97 times the national average. Aggravated assault is 2.19 times the national average. All violent crime is 2.13 times the national average. Comment: The above are all within easy driving distance, and could be considered part of the greater Los Angeles area. Fort Worth: Murder is **1.29** times the national average. Robbery is 1.16 times the national average. Aggravated assault is 0.95 times the national average. All violent crime is 1.09 times the national average. Comment: Based on the numbers from the website you invoked, **Fort Worth IS safer and either you can not understand what these numbers mean, or you never thought I would go take a look for myself**. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/153 "2005-11-14T21:22:30Z")
> [@treis](#): > > . . . I for one do know what would happen if the populace became unarmed, they would stop shooting each other. True, 'dat. But good luck disarming the “populace.” You just can’t wish the 200 million plus guns in the United States out of existence. Any argument for disarming the people, whether it is voluntary or compulsory, needs to accomodate this reality. To argue what you’re saying in the quotation is to argue an unreality; it assumes a situation which can never be realistically achieved in a geographic area where so many guns already exist. The argument in this thread is that a gun ban will only disarm the persons willing to voluntarily turn in their guns. To get people to do that, you need to give them a compelling incentive. And since the largely law-abiding, responsible gun-owning populace doesn’t see themselves as a threat to anyone. So the argument that no guns will yield no shootings is a non-starter; these people don’t wanna shoot anyone anyway. The flip side is the persons _already_ criminals aren’t gonna turn theirs in to make a place safer because they just don’t give a shit. And in fact, if the general population is disarmed, the criminal segment actually is provided a _greater_ incentive to keep/acquire guns. The argument for an unarmed populace where nobody gets shot is valid only for a population which isn’t currently armed—especially one that isn’t _pervasively_ armed as the United States is. There are simply too many guns in circulation in the United States to attempt to disarm the people. Especially when you’re only talking about a certain class of firearm; and more importantly, when you’re doing it in a single enclave with very porous borders, such as a city or county. > [@](#): > > The murder rate in Fort Worth is 1.29 times the national average while assaults are .95 times the nationala average. Murders, of course, aren’t always committed with handguns. So this is another of the strawmen I was talking about in my previous post. (And I don’t mean to pick on you **treis** , because these things are coming from many people and all sides here). This thread is about _handgun crime_. Murders are only pertinent if they’re handgun murders. Only crimes where the perpetrator uses a handgun are pertinent. So, when one speaks of murders alone, one is both too wide and too short of the mark; there are more crimes than just murder commited using a handgun and only a subset of all murders are effected with a handgun. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/154 "2005-11-14T21:27:19Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Where are your cites or personal experiences or even anecdotal evidence? Where is the convincing argument that simply making more “guns are bad” laws will accomplish anything? Steve, the same thing I just said to treis applies to your citations, too. In none of the cities for which you gave us crime rates, is the number specific to _handgun_ crime. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/155 "2005-11-14T21:45:55Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Steve, the same thing I just said to treis applies to your citations, too. In none of the cities for which you gave us crime rates, is the number specific to _handgun_ crime. You are absolutely and completely right. But, asshole that I am, I just had to turn that cite right around and use it. The cite does NOT parse it out to the “type of weapon used” level. However it does blow away the arguments that Fort Worth is more dangerous because of all them goldurned rootin’ tootin’ gun totin’ cowboys. We keep getting asked to prove that more laws will not give more safety. How do you prove a negative? Oh yeah. Pass all the laws and then declare victory. I want proof that more laws WILL give more safety. Or that they will make any difference at all. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/156 "2005-11-14T21:52:36Z")
I just want to add, not that it’s worth anything, that **if** I were bound and determined to murder someone (I am NOT), I wouldn’t even use a handgun. Compared to other weapons, even the larger ones are pretty anemic. I would choose a shotgun, at point blank range. Much more massive damage, much less survivability. Plus, with no rifling, there is no “ballistics fingerprint”. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/157 "2005-11-14T21:57:26Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > You are absolutely and completely right. But, asshole that I am, I just had to turn that cite right around and use it. The cite does NOT parse it out to the “type of weapon used” level. However it does blow away the arguments that Fort Worth is more dangerous because of all them goldurned rootin’ tootin’ gun totin’ cowboys. > > We keep getting asked to prove that more laws will not give more safety. How do you prove a negative? Oh yeah. Pass all the laws and then declare victory. I want proof that more laws WILL give more safety. Or that they will make any difference at all. I agree with you completely and absolutely, Steve. I’m just not so sure the way you’re presenting your argument is gonna be effective. And I know you’re only using “asshole” in a self-deprecatory manner, but for the record, I don’t think you’re being one here. This thread, given its origins, and the way it was spiraling off into the troposphere before it got to GD has probably doomed it; this particular well is well and truly poisoned - by a whole lot of people, not the least of, myself. Although I didn’t enter it when it was back in MPSIMS with the expectation of a substantive exchange. In any case, if you want my opinion, I think any further effor in this iteration of the debate is futile—on all sides. As were my attempts (once the thread _had_ been moved to GD) to bring the scope of this thing more in line with the boundaries of original premise. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/158 "2005-11-14T22:12:08Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I just want to add, not that it’s worth anything, that **if** I were bound and determined to murder someone (I am NOT), I wouldn’t even use a handgun. Compared to other weapons, even the larger ones are pretty anemic. I would choose a shotgun, at point blank range. Much more massive damage, much less survivability. Plus, with no rifling, there is no “ballistics fingerprint”. If I was planning on killing someone I _would_ use a knife. Minimal if any traceability, no big loud boom, and plenty lethal. With a little timing and planning you could kill someone in a busy shopping mall and have several minutes before anyone even realizes a crime was committed. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/159 "2005-11-14T23:26:51Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Do you have a cite for these stats? You mean a reference? I did have. I’ll see if I can find them again. However as I have pointed out, all such statistics are inherently unreliable. We quite simply have no way of obtaining reliable data on this subject. You certainly can not justify your claim that knives are less effective when your own reference includes scissors and broken glass as a knife. That’s like including replica handguns and water pistols in the figures for handgun assaults. > [@](#): > > If this is true it means you are maximizing the number of assaults with firearms while lessening the number of assaults with knives. This will make the lethality of knives seem higher than it is in actuality while making the gun lethality more accurate. No, it definitely doesn’t mean “you are maximizing the number of assaults with firearms while lessening the number of assaults with knives”. It means that people are far less likely to receive treatment at all for gunshot wounds unless they are life threatening. Because people can’t lie about the causes of gunshot wounds many criminals with minor wounds will let it heal by itself. IOW the only gunshot wounds seen by hospitals will be serious. That will of course increase the number that are fatal. Whether it makes gun lethality more accurate or not is a separate issue because you are trying to compare guns to knives. Gun fatalities can be 99.999% accurate and you still can’t do any comparison because you have good reason to suspect that knife stats are out by an order of magnitude. > [@](#): > > Again, if this were true it would exaggerate the lethality of knives. It may, or it may not. A strong young man may be more likely to make a lethal attack with a knife, or he may be more intimidating and thus not need to use the weapon at all to conduct a robbery. In contrast a weedy 60yo may be more likely to be confronted by his victim and more likely to be forced to fire. You could make a case for either outcome and there is no evidence either way. The problem is that you acknowledge these flaws in the statistics exist, but you want to assume they will all result in knives appearing more lethal. Of course you have no evidence for such a conclusion. > [@](#): > > Even if any of this actually true, to make the lethality of guns and knives equal this scenario would have to account for 5 times the number of reported gun assaults. No, it wouldn’t. You clearly have not read your own statistics. They don’t say that knives are 5 times less lethal than guns. They say that all cutting weapons, including scissors, nail-files, broken glass and some knives are 5 times les likely to result in a lethal assault. > [@](#): > > The studies generally say 5\*K=D/A No, you have one study that says that 5\*CEW=D/A. CEW = Cutting edged weapon. You have no studies at all that suggest that knives are 5 times less lethal. So please stop making that claim until you have some evidence to support it. > [@](#): > > I seriously doubt there are 5 times as many gun assaults as are reported. The trouble is that once again you haven’t read your own statistics. The one study that gives methodology make sit quite clear that it only deals with aggravated assaults. That is, it only deals with those assaults causing actual bodily harm. It does not deal with assaults where shots were fired and nobody was injured. Now if you doubt that most handgun ‘assaults’ will resulting shots being fired and nobody being struck then show us your reasoning or evidence for that conclusion. > [@](#): > > I am pretty sure that would count as an assault and be recorded in the studies provided the police are contacted at some point. This proves that you haven’t read or understood the statistics you quoted. Your own reference says quite clearly that they deal with “aggravated assaults known to the police” and that it is at the “discretion in the … to record known assaults ranging from criminal threats of injury with weapons, to assaults producing very minor injuries, to assaults producing potentially lethal trauma”. An attack where shots are fired and nobody is injured is not an aggravated assault if the police feel it is not an assault or if the victim simply flees before the police arrives (gee, would a criminal wait around to lodge a police report?). You quite clearly haven’t even made a cursory attempt to understand the statistics you are quoting. I even highlighted this for you in an earlier thread. > [@](#): > > I think you are overestimating the effects of these _possible_ inaccuracies. And I think that the authors of the studies themselves have said outright that these possible inaccuracies are of concern and at best the data they use are at best “the best available”. The authors think these effects are of concern. It is you who have insisted on simply ignoring them or claiming they will skew the stats in your favour. > [@](#): > > The studies show 5 times lethality of gun assaults versus knives. Cite. You have made that clam several times now. Please provide the name of the studies (plural) that show 5 times lethality of gun assaults versus knives. You are simply making that up. You haven’t even got one study that shows such a thing, much les multiple studies. > [@](#): > > You would have to have some major, major inaccuracies if knives were actually more dangerous than guns. No, you’d just need someone posting who hadn’t actually read their own references, and instead relied on a single category in a chart. If that poster had read their references they would realise that chart wasn’t referring to knives but instead to all assaults with cutting implements, whether knives, scissors, broken glass or nail files. The major inaccuracy is with that poster understanding. > [@](#): > > Well, it seems that reality matches Hollywood in this case. People with bullet wounds are more likely to die than those with knife wounds. Cite. Please provide one reference that makes such a claim. Dude there is little point debating you when you make wild claims like this with absolutely no evidence. You are simply making shit up. You don’t actually have any evidence that people with bullet wounds are more likely to die than those with knife wounds, do you? At best you have one study that shows that people reporting to hospital emergency rooms with bullet wounds that are a self-reported as being received from assaults are more likely to die than people reporting to hospital emergency rooms with laceration wounds that are a self-reported as being received from assaults. Gee, now that’s not quite the same thing as your claim, now is it. SO please provide a reference for your claim. > [@](#): > > Just becuase a knife is a less effective weapon for the reasons you state does not particularly matter. It still means that a knife is a less effective weapon. I never said a knife was a less effective weapon for any reason. I said that a knife is a less preferred weapon. Do you not understand the difference between effectiveness and user preference? Treis before you respond can you please read my previous post and read your own references so you understand what you are actually talking about. If you claim that “people with bullet wounds are more likely to die than those with knife wounds” one more time without a reference then I am going to declare this debate resolved against you. It will show that you quite clearly haven’t even grasped the information you yourself have provided. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2005, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254/160 "2005-11-14T23:28:15Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Where are your cites or personal experiences or even anecdotal evidence? Where is the convincing argument that simply making more “guns are bad” laws will accomplish anything? Where are the papers, numbers, etc that prove you right? Where in this cite or its web page are such places a Pacoima or Compton? You need to at minimum, if you are going to both to come back, show that outlawing handguns will make a lick of difference. :rolleyes: Why don’t you look at my post that was full of cites. > [@SteveG1](#): > > City of Pacoima CA: Murder is **1.97** times the national average. Robbery is 2.04 times the national average. Aggravated assault is 1.71 times the national average. All violent crime is 1.84 times the national average. > > City of Commerce CA: Murder is **5.82**!!! times the national average. Robbery is 2.10 times the national average. Aggravated assault is 2.92 times the national average. All violent crime is 2.69 times the national average. > > Los Angeles CA: Murder is **1.75** times the national average. Robbery is 1.97 times the national average. Aggravated assault is 2.19 times the national average. All violent crime is 2.13 times the national average. > > Comment: The above are all within easy driving distance, and could be considered part of the greater Los Angeles area. > > Fort Worth: Murder is **1.29** times the national average. Robbery is 1.16 times the national average. Aggravated assault is 0.95 times the national average. All violent crime is 1.09 times the national average. > > Comment: Based on the numbers from the website you invoked, **Fort Worth IS safer and either you can not understand what these numbers mean, or you never thought I would go take a look for myself**. And I never said any different but if you will attempt just this one more time to realize that my argument is that guns make violence more severe you might, just might although I am not getting my hopes up you will see that the statistics for Ft Worth bear that out. > [@UncleBeer](#): > > True, 'dat. But good luck disarming the “populace.” You just can’t wish the 200 million plus guns in the United States out of existence. Any argument for disarming the people, whether it is voluntary or compulsory, needs to accomodate this reality. To argue what you’re saying in the quotation is to argue an unreality; it assumes a situation which can never be realistically achieved in a geographic area where so many guns already exist. > > The argument in this thread is that a gun ban will only disarm the persons willing to voluntarily turn in their guns. To get people to do that, you need to give them a compelling incentive. And since the largely law-abiding, responsible gun-owning populace doesn’t see themselves as a threat to anyone. So the argument that no guns will yield no shootings is a non-starter; these people don’t wanna shoot anyone anyway. The flip side is the persons already criminals aren’t gonna turn theirs in to make a place safer because they just don’t give a shit. And in fact, if the general population is disarmed, the criminal segment actually is provided a greater incentive to keep/acquire guns. > > The argument for an unarmed populace where nobody gets shot is valid only for a population which isn’t currently armed—especially one that isn’t pervasively armed as the United States is. There are simply too many guns in circulation in the United States to attempt to disarm the people. Especially when you’re only talking about a certain class of firearm; and more importantly, when you’re doing it in a single enclave with very porous borders, such as a city or county. Indeed but then again a significant number of the murders are committed by “law-abiding” citizens. In 2002 [22%](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fvs.htm) of murders were committed by family memembers and the majority of victims knew who their assailant was. The danger of being murdered for most of us is greatest from a close family or an acquaintance not from gang related violence. Assaults and attempted murders committed with guns are more likely to end in death than those that don’t. If the access to guns is limited then the amount of these murders will be reduced. But you are right to be effective a ban will have to be nationwide. The 2nd amendment probably would stop that but who knows anymore. > [@UncleBeer](#): > > Murders, of course, aren’t always committed with handguns. So this is another of the strawmen I was talking about in my previous post. (And I don’t mean to pick on you treis, because these things are coming from many people and all sides here). This thread is about handgun crime. Murders are only pertinent if they’re handgun murders. Only crimes where the perpetrator uses a handgun are pertinent. So, when one speaks of murders alone, one is both too wide and too short of the mark; there are more crimes than just murder commited using a handgun and only a subset of all murders are effected with a handgun. Thats not the point, the point is that the murder rate is above average while the assault rate is below average. That means more assaults “successfully” end it murders. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/san-francisco-has-banned-handguns/330254.md?page=9)