There’s another point to consider.
For anyone in SF who has bought a handgun legally, passage of this law constitutes an ex post facto situation. 2nd Amendment issues aside, ex post facto is specifically forbidden in Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution (partial quote, bolding mine):
No. “Ex post facto” generally refers to the practice of declaring conduct criminal by law, and applying that law to time before the law existed. Here, no one will be penalized for previously legally owning a gun, as long as they comply with the new law to divest themselves of the gun.
Which is why no new laws can ever be written!
:rolleyes:
Thats becuase its simply a tautology and not an argument. 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. Instead of having someone turn up dead after an argument you have them turn up bleeding but alive.
I doubt this San Francisco law will have an appreciable effect becuase it simply doesn’t have the support of the populace. If there was a concerted effort to reduce the number of handguns in society I believe you would see a reduction in the number of murders. As far as needing a gun for protection I have a novel idea. 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.
On point 1 I call bullshit. Prove it.
On point 2…why should I curtail my life and my activities to accomodate criminals?
What do you accept as proof? Comparisons between countries that ban guns versus those that don’t, comparisons between deaths associated with knife assaults versus gun assaults or something else?
For starters you carrying around a gun increases the chances of me being shot and killed so its not only criminals that benefit. Besides that a fight avoided is a fight won. I mean beyond that I don’t know how to argue that getting in a gun fight is a bad idea and avoiding dangerous situations is a good idea.
My father (the cop) used to laugh at the hypocracy of the statement “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” He informed me that the people who sanctimoniously declaim this bit of obvious logic never add 2 + 2 and come up with 4. Yes. If guns are outlawed, and you own a gun, you are an outlaw. But no one who uses that statement ever sees it from that point of view. They are all law abiding citizens who merely wish to protect themselves from “bad guys.” Usually 'til their 5 year old shoots himself. Then they’re litigants against Smith & Wesson.
Wow
29 years
Washington DC Crime Rate
Where’s the benefit?
Sorry, Johnny! (You knew it was bound to happen. GD here we come.)
Your first point has been argued to death, both here and around the country. Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage. Cross-country and cross-cultural comparisons are useless, for a million reasons.
As to your second point, I would like to know at what point you draw the line at probability and causality. I mean, the very existance of a gun, anywhere on the planet, increase your chance of getting shot. Just like the existance of a beer, anywhere on the planet increases your chance of getting drunk. If I am a trained, law-obiding citizen who carries, how does this increase your danger in any statistically-significant way? I suggest you check the stats on the number of CCW permits that have been pulled for misconduct, compared to those that have been issued. You have a better chance of being elected Holy Roman Emperor than you do of being shot by a possessor of a CCW. For the rest of it, I agree. A fight avoided is a fight avoided. This is the best alternative, in most situations. But at what point do we, as a society and individually, roll over and let the criminals dictate our actions and lives? We used to be able to walk in parks at night. Not any more. We used to be able to do all sorts of things we can’t, because we as a society have let the criminal class act, while we react (or not.) Are cuns the solution? I don’t know. But I do know that removing the means of self-protection from the hands of the innocent is foolish, if not criminal itself. Some of us can’t move to a gated, guarded community. We have to live in the real world, where there are bad people who try to hurt us and ours, and take what we have. This is one of the reasons it is essential in a free society that each man (and woman) have the means, ability, and desire to secure their lives and their property.
Oh, go ahead. Yeah, I knew it was bound to happen; but after going round and round over the years on this issue, I’ll let you lot debate and try (try) to keep out of it myself.
Show me where I said guns caused crime. If this is the level of reading comprehension you are going to display I am simply not going to waste my time.
With all due respect, both you and your dad have missed the point.
The people who really need to have their guns taken away (the criminals) are the people who are least likely to turn in their guns when you ban them. The people who bought guns for self-defense will turn them in for fear of prosecution, but the guy who bought a gun so he can rob convenience stores with it isn’t going to walk into the local police station and surrender his weapon.
Nice dodge. Have you thought of going pro?
shrug alright then I won’t waste my time.
Hmm… do you think they could make a case under the Takings clause for the fair market value of their guns?
I think we might want to consider the possibility that serious household accidents are not limited to gunshots only. There are many cases of accidental poisonings, drownings, electrocutions and bee-stings involving children. As far as adults are concerned, the list extends to falling off ladders, slicing limbs off with angle grinders etc.
There is no doubt that an accidental discharge is traumatic. But I think we also need to acknowledge that we cannot ban everything that is potentially dangerous.
The pursuit of a gun free society is a noble cause, but in my view it is an unattainable Utopia. Passing a law which bans guns is not going to make all guns miraculously disappear. On the contrary, they will simply go deeper underground.
Guns are a fact of life, just like swimming pools. We need to educate people as to the hazards of gun ownership, so that they can manage the risk responsibly. Just like they do with swimming pools and electricity.
I think people are missing the point.
The voters in San Francisco, like most Americans in every poll, are against people owning handguns.
Most people who buy handguns are not buying them to shoot at paper targets.
I’ve always said that the vast majority of people who need a handgun probably just need to hang around with a better class of people.
I was burgled twice in one week, and my husband is a gun owner (guns are locked up and we’ve long forgotten the combination or where the key is at). But I certainly wouldn’t have made the decision to kill some fucking kid who was stealing my stuff. We’re pretty sure it was a kid. Only my CDs, leather jacket, beer, cigarettes and change bucket were stolen. I’m gonna blow someone’s head off over THAT?
With respect Kalhoun, I think there is a large difference between “self defence” (quote Diceman) and protection of property.
Agreed. But statistics show that guns kept for “self defense” are frequently used to harm someone they weren’t intended for, i.e., family members and friends. Most people who actually use them in self defense are either bad guys themselves or in a line of work where it is commonplace to expect to run into people who intend them harm (jewelers, for instance). I know plenty of people who keep guns for self defense. They have yet to use them for that purpose.