Does reducing the severity of violent crime count?
Citizens voting to ban handguns?! Whatever next?
It would if it did, but it doesn’t so it don’t.
You can always count on Eve.
I think he might’ve been implying its much harder to shoot someone without a gun.
Don’t you, as a supporter of the right to own handguns, have to be careful about even participating in an argument about whether or not handgun bans reduce violent crime?
After all, most supporters of the right to own and carry firearms generally argue that it is a fundamental right, one enshrined in the Constitution, that should not be taken away for any reason except being a felon. If that is, indeed, true, then does it matter whether or not a ban on handguns reduces the rate of violence or not?
Let me put it in the form of a more simple question: if it could be unequivocally demonstrated that gun bans reduced the rate of violent crime, would you change your mind about the issue? Or do you believe that the right to own and to carry exists independently of any social consequences?
I’m not trying to play “gotcha” with this question. I’m truly interested in your answer.
It doesn’t?
Let me ask you this, why do you carry a gun instead of a knife? Is it not becuase a gun is a more effective tool at killing/severely injuring an attacker? I think that is a point that pretty much everyone will agree to. Given that, doesn’t it stand to reason that a guy pulling a gun in an argument will do more damage than a guy pulling a knife? After all, he wouldn’t be carrying the gun unless he thought that was the most effective way for him to do damage. This is borne out by comparing the number of deaths per knife fight and the number of deaths per gun fight. I hesitate to mention this becuase I don’t have a cite on hand for it but I will try to find one.
Would I change my mind? No, tending to maybe. I believe that guns should be kept out of the hands of the incompetent. If someone can figure out a way to do that without infringing on my rights to own guns, then I will reconsider. Unfortunately, every attempt to “restrict” has just been a prelude to “confiscate.” Give me an iron-clad, no-joke, no take-backs guarantee that my rights as a law-abiding citizen will not be infringed in any way, and I will vote for gun control in a heartbeat. But you can’t. The genie is out of the bottle, and can’t be put back. Guns are a fact in America, like gravity. Wishing them away is a fool’s game. So…I own and carry. Penalties for criminal use and “shall- issue” laws reduce crime. That has been proven.
Be sure to factor into your argument the numerous crimes that were prevented by guns.
Guns are a tool, nothing more. To reduce violent crime, address the criminal, not the tool.
I’ve mentioned before that I own guns that have been in my family for generations and have never killed anyone, but I’ve always been shouted down that that’s not the point. It’s the potential for them to kill that is the danger. That’s why I shouldn’t be allowed to own them. Or something.
They’ll get by with this ban the same way that Chicago did, force the registration of handguns, and never again register another handgun. They’ll ticket or arrest the law abiding people who were either ignorant of the law, or stood on principle, and the actual criminals will still have all the guns they need. These “laws” are absolute bullshit, even though they’ve held up in court (sorry, no cite).
Umm, what difference could how you obtained something make any difference whatsoever???
In my state, there are virtually no fireworks allowed. (They just recently allowed sparklers!) So there are firework stands across the state line. The State Police will stakeout these stands looking for cars with plates from our state. When the car comes back into the state, they are pulled over.
Search, seizure, fine ensues. Guess how far the “legally purchased” argument goes in court?
If you had managed to hold onto an old stash of fireworks from before the ban, you’re still in trouble.
Another example: A neighbor years ago had a dangerous dog. “Legally purchased” of course. Took a couple of trips to court but they finally gave it up. There were extremely close to having their dog taken away. Do you think owners of impounded dangerous dogs can use “legally purchased” in their defense??? Ditto fighting-cock trainers, etc.
If you really believe this. Take a flight to Amersterdam, buy a joint, bring it back. Declare at customs that you legally purchased it and see what happens.
There’s also the rest of my previous post that you didn’t quote. An even more specific example: In 1961 you could make and possess LSD. In 1962 that became illegal outside of research-types. “But officer, I legally purchased this LSD in 1961!” Okaaaay.
I’m a gun guy myself, but are you honestly going to argue that in every, or even a significant percentage, of places that have restricted ownership, have subsequently confiscated them?
Such as, I don’t know, the state as a whole, or the entire country, which has severely restricted ownership since…say…1967.
Last I checked, they still hold the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot.
What a very, very ignorant thing to say. One city, in fact the most far from the norm major city in the State, passes a law and you paint all of us with the same brush. There are many counties and communities in California that are every bit as right wing as what you see in Texas. Do you recall where Reagan came from? It’s the same as if some goofball law was passed in Austin.
Ever notice how anti-gun people never challenge the assertion that “If you ban guns, only the criminals will have them”? That’s because they can’t. Countries all over the world (most recently Australia) have found that banning handguns does not significantly reduce violent crime. The criminals don’t care that their guns are illegal. They are, by definition, people who don’t respect the law. It’s like banning drugs; the gun trade just moves underground.
My understanding is that they don’t HAVE to turn them over to police. They could sell them to someone outside the city limits and thereby receive compensation. Is that correct?
By the way, I believe Chicago has had a handgun ban in effect for quite some time. People are still using them, though. I understand they want to send a message, but I’m not sure it’s the most effective method.
Incompetence is only a small fraction of the problem. Competent assholes cause a great deal of damage when it comes to guns.
Well, I kinda lump “criminal use” in there with “incompetent.”
*com·pe·tent (kmp-tnt)
adj.
Properly or sufficiently qualified; capable.
Capable of performing an allotted or required function.
Legally qualified or fit to perform an act.
Able to distinguish right from wrong and to manage one’s affairs.*
As for “restrict” = “confiscate”…isn’t that just what Proposition H does? You get a limited time to turn in, without compensation, private property. That is confiscation in my book. But CG, you are right in that I overstated the general effect. But it’s still early in the game. Just wait until the grabbers get the political power to ratchet up the stakes. I’d move to Canada, but they’re even worse than California!
Vermont is looking good as a place to retire to.
Surely you see the difference between violating the law and not violating the law? In your fireworks example a person does buy something legally – but not where he lives. He’s trying to bring contraband across the border. Buying a Cuban cigar in Canada is legal. (Well, they have no laws prohibiting Americans from buying them. I believe that under U.S. law it is illegal for a U.S. citizen to buy Cuban products anywhere in the world, regardless of whether they try to bring it back into the country.) But you can’t bring a Cuban cigar across the border. In your example you’re knowingly violating the law when you buy something you know is illegal where you live and attempt to bring it home.
But suppose you bought a car in your city, and then voters passed a law outlawing cars? Would you say, ‘It doesn’t matter that owning cars was legal when I bought it. Now they’re banned, and they can confiscate it without giving me confiscation.’? Of course you wouldn’t. So should handcun owners in San Francisco say, '‘It doesn’t matter that owning handguns was legal when I bought it. Now they’re banned, and they can confiscate it without giving me confiscation.’?
As I said before, I don’t want to get into a debate over gun control in general. I’m asking about the San Francisco law specifically. (And have received an answer.) So…
I’ll suggest you look in other threads where this is explained.
Perhaps the two sides can meet somewhere in the middle.
Take owning/driving a car as an example. Assuming you have a right to own/drive a car, in order to exercise that right you need to demonstrate that you have an understanding of road traffic regulations, and that you can physically operate a car safely.
Same with guns. I think everyone agrees that you have a right to defend yourself. In a society that is already soaked with guns, it would follow that owning a gun as a self protection tool is not unreasonable. And so, if you choose to own a gun, you would need to demonstrate your understanding of when and how you would be legally permitted to use your gun, and demonstrate that you can physically fire the thing without hitting the range officer’s mother.
Gun control is not necessarily a bad thing. But at the same time, banning guns is not gun control. Gun control makes guns and their users traceable and responsible. Banning guns makes guns untraceable. Unregistered and untraceable guns in the wrong hands is problematic.
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.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but apparently California has a preemption law that prevents any city from passing stricter gun control then the state level.
If so, this’ll probably be overturned.