San Francisco Gun Ban

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

And you don't have to turn in your gun, per the 'law.' Just can't be on you within city limits. So you can sell it, store it outside the city, etc. Couple that with an unwilling police force and there is no means of enforcement.

Mere possession will be illegal, even if it's just kept in your own home.

And if there's no real enforcement, then it's just worthless symbolism. Ahhh, but that's all that liberals really do anyway. It makes them feel good.

But who knows, some day the police might show up at your house, say, to accompany the fire department which is putting out a small kitchen fire. The policeman notices a handgun on your nightstand... And now you face jail time, when you haven't even done anything to harm anyone.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Nice thing about my state is that the constitution prevents them from even keeping records of sales. The state police tried for a while. It went to the state supremes and they made them stop and destroy all the records.

They are notified of sales so they can re-check against criminal databases, but they have to purge the record within 30 days.

Yeah, states aren't allowed to keep their own centralized records on gun sales. (Although a few localities do it anyway.) However, gun shops are required to maintain sales records, and allow law enforcement to look at them whenever they want. So, it's not a stretch of the imagination to believe that a survey of local gun shop records could be conducted to find out which San Francisco residents own handguns.

Crazy stuff like that has happened. One cop would watch the obituaries in the newspapers, and check it against registered gun records. If someone died, and their gun wasn't legally transferred to someone else by the heirs within the required number of days, the cop would go confiscate the gun.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Because they're fun, because they're useful, because we can.
We'll pay for this stupidity eventually.

Gun crime has gone done 13 years in a row, to a 40-year low. And that is despite the fact that there are more guns than ever in circulation, and 35+ states which now issue concealed handgun carry permits to their citizens.

That is strong evidence to suggest that gun ownership and gun carry by honest citizens, does not cause gun crime.

I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my post. You cut out the part between the "whys" and "stupidity" which makes it seem as though my point is something it's not.

Just to be clear, I'm not for gun control. I have a lifelong appreciation for firearms.

Don't mangle my words again, please.

I was replying to your comment that "We'll pay for this stupidity eventually". My reply showed that it is not stupidity, because we are not paying any price for it.

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Because they're fun, because they're useful, because we can.
We'll pay for this stupidity eventually.

Gun crime has gone done 13 years in a row, to a 40-year low. And that is despite the fact that there are more guns than ever in circulation, and 35+ states which now issue concealed handgun carry permits to their citizens.

That is strong evidence to suggest that gun ownership and gun carry by honest citizens, does not cause gun crime.

I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my post. You cut out the part between the "whys" and "stupidity" which makes it seem as though my point is something it's not.

Just to be clear, I'm not for gun control. I have a lifelong appreciation for firearms.

Don't mangle my words again, please.

I was replying to your comment that "We'll pay for this stupidity eventually". My reply showed that it is not stupidity, because we are not paying any price for it.

This was the comment that you mangled:

The gun control laws take away from honest, law-abiding citizens the constitutional right to bear arms, leaving criminals with all the firepower.

We'll pay for this stupidity eventually.

The gun control laws, and all the attempts to put gun control laws into effect is stupid. This was my point, and it was directly on-point for this thread.

Now my point is that I do not want you to take my comments out of context.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

of course he was wielding a gun, but do you think he could have shot those kids if he didn't have a gun...

Someone who wants to kill others will find a way. If he hadn't had a gun, he could have used explosives, or fire, or poison.

In that particular case- we're talking about a female teacher and a bunch of younglings. With the door locks, quite a few people could have killed them all without any tools at all.

[justinb138 0]

I just heard the 911 call for this story on the radio.

I wish I could link it in here, but I cant find it online.

Quote

ARLINGTON GRANDMOTHER SHOOTS INTRUDER

(ARLINGTON, November 10) -- An Arlington grandmother who shot an intruder in her own home says she had no choice. It all started when police tried to pull Christopher Lessner over for speeding. Police say he jumped out of his vehicle while it was still moving, climbed a fence and disappeared. He later broke into Susan Buxton's home. When she confronted him, she shot him. Lessner is recovering and faces a long list of charges. Susan Buxton's granddaughter called 911 just before Buxton shot the intruder. Buxton missed the second time she fired. Police arrested the suspect, Christopher Lessner, three hours later.

The guy broke into her home and hid in a closet. She heard a noise downstairs and discovered him, and ended up shooting him after he came after her.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

>What would you do?

If they turned to run? Follow them to the door then call the police.

Well, not a bad choice on letting them run away, but don't follow, that's a VERY bad choice. Time, distance and cover. You want all three, even if you do happen to wear a IIIA vest to bed at night, which I seriously doubt you (or just about anyone else) does.

As a side note, I hope everyone has owner applied identifiers on all their stuff and has a list of their stuff with the serial numbers and value of the item. Another tip, don't keep the only copy of that list on your computer, since your computer could be whats stolen.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[rasmack 0]

Quote

... And it's better not to shoot them in the back if they're fleeing. There are lots of ways to get in trouble here, if you're not careful.

I sincerely hope you would choose not to shoot a fleeing person in the back simply because you are a decent person, and not because you might get in trouble for it. IMHO that would be murder.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Quote

Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries with practically no lower class, extrodinarily low crime rates in general (gun related or not), and only 6 Mio inhabitants. Add to this a subdued and traditionalistic mind set.

Therefore, crime is not caused by the mere presence of guns.
Crime is caused by certain social conditions.

Where those bad social conditions exist, you'll get crime regardless of what gun control laws are in place.

The way to reduce crime is not to take away guns from honest people, but to deal with the social conditions which breed it.

So how do you get rid of poverty and crime in the US by ... let's say Monday?


(because I don't want to be the one with a bullet in the head on Tuesday)


Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

Quote

Now we just need to have a good 'activist' judge rule the law unconstitutional.

It doesn't even take an activist - just a judge that knows the Constitution, or the previous circuit court precedent. It's a slam-dunk it will be overturned.

News:

The National Rifle Association sued Wednesday to overturn an ordinance voters here overwhelmingly approved a day earlier that bans handgun possession and sales of firearms in the city.

In 1982, a state appeals court nullified an almost identical gun ban here largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law that allows for the sale and possession of handguns and ammunition.

The NRA filed its lawsuit Wednesday with the same court, the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, asking the judges to nullify the law that demands the surrender of handguns by April...

San Jose Mercury News

Of course I know that John. I was just trying to illustrate the point that sometimes people (and legislatures) pass laws that are not in agreement with the constitution.
The typical response (from both sides of the fence) is for the proponents of these illegal laws to label the judges that overturn these laws as activist.


Just my 2cents.

Our constitution very clearly says that owning guns is a right. The founding fathers felt strongly enough about this right they listed it in the top two, just below the right of freedom of expression (which like it or not, gives asshats the right to burn flags)

illegible usually

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The typical response (from both sides of the fence) is for the proponents of these illegal laws to label the judges that overturn these laws as activist.

Most of us caught the tongue-in-cheek tone of your original note that anti-gunners will definitely cry 'activist' for any court upholding the consitution by knocking down this dumb vote. {{it was the quotes that did it}}

Of course the term activist is now a term for any judge that disagrees with one's politics. Which, since there is an entire spectrum of politics, means all judges are activists to somebody. So it's simpler to just call them judges and assume the rest.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

This was the comment that you mangled:

The gun control laws take away from honest, law-abiding citizens the constitutional right to bear arms, leaving criminals with all the firepower. We'll pay for this stupidity eventually.

The gun control laws, and all the attempts to put gun control laws into effect is stupid. This was my point, and it was directly on-point for this thread.

Now my point is that I do not want you to take my comments out of context.

I try and cut-and-paste large messages down to just the part to which I am replying, so that we don't end up with huge annoying repeats of irrelevant message text.

Thank you for clarifying your intent. I simply misunderstand your meaning - it was not an intentionally deceitful reply.

And I now agree with you.

• Quote

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So how do you get rid of poverty and crime in the US by ... let's say Monday?

We should do what we can.

But... we should also recognize that there are always going to be criminals, no matter what we do. And we shouldn't remove all the liberties from the citizens in order to try and stop a few criminals.

The equivalent would be to ban parachutes in an attempt to stop skydiving fatalities. I'd rather have lots of skydiving and a few fatalities, then no skydiving at all. I think freedom demands it.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Quote

So how do you get rid of poverty and crime in the US by ... let's say Monday?

We should do what we can.

But as I said the Swiss reality is not the US one.

A law that says we´d lift gun restriction once the US reaches the
levels of crime, wealth, or poverty of Switzerland I may not object to.

Quote

The equivalent would be to ban parachutes in an attempt to stop skydiving fatalities. I'd rather have lots of skydiving and a few fatalities, then no skydiving at all.

Absolutely wrong - this is not an equivalence.
Operators and owners of parachutes vastly and predominantly kill themselves -
operators and owners of guns vastly and predominantly kill other people.

In fact, guns have been specifically designed and developed
to kill effortlessly. Parachutes have been designed to do the
opposite.

If there was a mechanism built into all guns that would allow
operators only to commit suicide or, at the very least, equate each attempt
of killing with a suicide (like every forward shot would automatically release
a backwards shot) I again would agree with lax gun laws and that
one could speak of any sort of equivalence.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

In fact, guns have been specifically designed and developed
to kill effortlessly. Parachutes have been designed to do the
opposite.

The purpose of a parachute is to save your life. The purpose of having a gun for self defense is to save your life. why should I, or anyone, be deprived of a life saving tool just because others use it for a different purpose? Why punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty?

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

why should I, or anyone, be deprived of a life saving tool just because others use it for a different purpose?

How do you feel about heroin?

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Quote

why should I, or anyone, be deprived of a life saving tool just because others use it for a different purpose?

How do you feel about heroin?

Not sure where you're going with that. But I think all drugs should be decriminalized.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

why should I, or anyone, be deprived of a life saving tool just because others use it for a different purpose?

How do you feel about heroin?

Not sure where you're going with that. But I think all drugs should be decriminalized.

Just curious as to whether you apply the same thinking universally. I randomly picked a controlled substance to see how you felt about it.

Let's go back to weapons for a second. I've been on a claymore mine kick recently; the same could be said about claymores, no? And we can go back and forth escalating the efficacy of said, "tool," until we get really ridiculous.

Do you hold your statement as universal law, or are there some caveats?

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

Do you hold your statement as universal law, or are there some caveats?

There are caveats, I'm not an anarchist. If you read the federalist papers you find that the intent for the right to bear arms was to provide for a miliita of the citizenry equipped as the average infantry soldier of the time. I think that should be true today as well. I don't believe mines are standard issue equipment to the average infantryman. Also I believe that we should be able to arm ourseives at least as well as the criminals in our society are typically armed. I don't believe they typically use claymores either.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

don't believe mines are standard issue equipment to the average infantryman.

OK, this approach really narrows things down, but I'll work with it: I really miss M67 frag grenades. What about them? M203 grenade launchers would be pretty cool, too, not to mention crew-served weapons.

Quote

Also I believe that we should be able to arm ourseives at least as well as the criminals in our society are typically armed.

Is this a matter of, "Whichever is higher?"

I'm not citing any statistics here, but I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of the criminals in our society (thus qualifying as "typical") are armed with blades and handguns during the commission of crimes.

Then how do you feel about restrictions on 7.62mm automatic rifles, for example?

[ReBirth 0]

I'm referring to the least common denominator of weaponry that is issued. Not the specialized or unit based stuff that isn't issued to every single soldier.

But as far as automatic rifiles, Yes, they are and should be permitted to own. I don't mind additional paperwork/licensing to own them although I don't see the usefullness of it. But if it's a feel good compromise that some people need, that's fine.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

I'm referring to the least common denominator of weaponry that is issued. Not the specialized or unit based stuff that isn't issued to every single soldier.

OK, we're getting closer now...

So, what about M67 frag grenades? They're not just restricted to infantry, either; they're on the unit basic load for a whole slew of different units, even outside of combat arms (support).

[ReBirth 0]

Ok...more specifically....fire arms. Not all forms of weapons.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

A law that says we´d lift gun restriction once the US reaches the levels of crime, wealth, or poverty of Switzerland I may not object to.

Well, why not just let all the rich people own guns, and deny them to those darned troublesome poor folks?

Quote

Quote

The equivalent would be to ban parachutes in an attempt to stop skydiving fatalities. I'd rather have lots of skydiving and a few fatalities, then no skydiving at all.

Quote

Absolutely wrong - this is not an equivalence.
Operators and owners of parachutes vastly and predominantly kill themselves - operators and owners of guns vastly and predominantly kill other people.

What I was comparing was not the function of guns and parachutes, but the logic, efficacy and morality of banning objects to stop deaths from those objects.

If it's okay to ban guns to stop accidental gun deaths, then it should be okay to ban parachutes to stop accidental skydiving fatalities. Right?

• Quote

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So, what about M67 frag grenades?

The problem with your argument for grenades and claymores is this: this are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people indiscriminately over a wide area. Guns only kill those which you aim at. Thus, a grenade or mine is a poor tool with which to defend yourself from a criminal, because it could kill a large number of innocent people in the process. A gun will most likely kill only the person who is causing the threat.