Typical of what?
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.
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
But that blog you cited is the soul of objective information.
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.
This is so far beyond circular logic that I do believe we have just discovered the 5th dimension.
My last post is beyond what MPSIMS is for. My apologies all around.
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!”
Is laughing out now a bad thing?
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.
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.
Then link to the federal government reports if its that damn easy to do.
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.
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.
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.
Didn’t the SCOTUS just rule on something regarding eminent domain that gave greater power to seize property? Or was that just real estate?
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.
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.
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.
[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]
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”.
This site looks like a pretty unbiased FAQ list about the ban.
I thought this was an interesting point:
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. 