San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
 

Early returns have the handgun ban ahead 59-41.

If its good for Rwanda, it must be good for San Francisco!

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
 

You're right, Rwanda and San Francisco are very similar.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

And of course everything that's good for good ole San Fran is good for the world.

Jeeze.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
 

I'm not suggesting that genocide is going to occur in san francisco. But it would have been less likely in Rwanda had the populace been armed to defend itself.

On a smaller scale, the idea that citizens of the city will be safer with this law passed is quite silly.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]
On a smaller scale, the idea that citizens of the city will be safer with this law passed is quite silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because similar bans have failed so miserably in places like England and Japan.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On a smaller scale, the idea that citizens of the city will be safer with this law passed is quite silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because similar bans have failed so miserably in places like England and Japan.

[/ QUOTE ]

They have.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

DC is a miserable example of outlawing guns.

In England, you can be sent to prison for trying to defend yourself with a firearm against an armed intruder in your own house. You might get a longer prison term than the criminal who attacked you- and you might have to pay civil damages as well. Great system.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

England has an incredibly high crime and theft rate.
Japan doesn't.

And in both cases it has nothing to do with gun laws.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
 

"the idea that citizens of the city will be safer with this law passed is quite silly."

Don't know what the proposed law says, or how it will be enforced, but is it possible that incidents like the one in Tennessee today might be avoided?

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
 

[ QUOTE ]
"the idea that citizens of the city will be safer with this law passed is quite silly."

Don't know what the proposed law says, or how it will be enforced, but is it possible that incidents like the one in Tennessee today might be avoided?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
 

So the availability of guns has nothing to do with the incidences of their use? Or is it that a city doing something will be useless unless there is a national, or at least a state, policy?

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]

England has an incredibly high crime and theft rate.
Japan doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was never under the impression that a ban on firearms was intended to lower crime as a whole, but rather, violent crimes involving a firearm which, and feel free to show me evidence to the contrary, is markedly lower in England and Japan than in the US.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

2002 Reason article about England's crime

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

England has an incredibly high crime and theft rate.
Japan doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was never under the impression that a ban on firearms was intended to lower crime as a whole, but rather, violent crimes involving a firearm which, and feel free to show me evidence to the contrary, is markedly lower in England and Japan than in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, there is no correlation between such laws and gun crimes.

Edit: This is incorrect and not what I meant to say. There certainly is a correlation; such laws lead to more gun crimes, not less.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, there is no correlation between such laws and gun crimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to share some facts or evidence? This debate doesn't interest me very much, but you're not really giving any info. to support your case.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

Well thank you very much for your detailed article from a clearly unbiased source.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well thank you very much for your detailed article from a clearly unbiased source.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you claiming that Reason is biased? And if so, I'm sure you'd be happy to point out the errors?

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

Reason is a libertarian magazine. What "unbiased" source would you cite in this argument?

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]
Care to share some facts or evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess not. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
 

From the sfgunban website:


Prohibiting pistols would make San Francisco a magnet for violent crime. If this law passes, criminals will laugh, but won't turn in their guns. Most criminals get their guns illegally, so they are already committing a crime by owning them.

This law will leave law abiding men and women with no defense against robbers, rapists, stalkers or home invaders. Violent criminals will know this and flock here seeking easy victims.

The sponsors of this flop have not done their homework. A long-standing California preemption statute prohibits cities from passing a patchwork of conflicting gun laws. If Prop H passes, we will have to pay for a costly lawsuit that San Francisco will lose.

San Franciscans should reject this unfair, unconstitutional and unworkable scheme.

Banning guns is not a progressive cause. Organizations including the San Francisco Pink Pistols oppose this ordinance because it denies gays the means to defend themselves against hate crimes.

Author: Coalition Against Prohibition

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
 

and another:
"Pink Pistols" Opposes Proposition H

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people have come a long way since our rebellion at Stonewall in 1969. Now, members of the LGBT community are comfortable being employed as police, firefighters, EMTs, and soldiers.

But police are not enough. There are lessons learned in our struggle over these decades:
To count on our brothers and sisters in the community,
To have a proud, self-sufficient community,
To love ourselves enough to say, "Yes, we are worth saving."
We have a, different vision for San Francisco than Chris Daly. We want a San Francisco where sexual minorities are proud, independent and secure. A San Francisco where we can find refuge, sanctuary and protection in our own home, or the home of a friend, when hatred rears its head. Daly would have us cower in our living rooms and bedrooms, helpless to stop attackers from hurting our friends and families.

The LGBT community has a well deserved reputation for being gentle and nonviolent. We know that deadly force must not be resorted to lightly, but even thinkers such as the Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi saw that using force may be a moral necessity.

Let's fix what's broken in the world, but stand strong together. Remember the lessons of history. Vote No on Proposition H.

San Francisco Pink Pistols

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On a smaller scale, the idea that citizens of the city will be safer with this law passed is quite silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, because similar bans have failed so miserably in places like England and Japan.

[/ QUOTE ]
READ THIS BOOK!!!

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Care to share some facts or evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess not. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You said you didn't care. But there is a wealth of information archived at GunCite.com.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]


You said you didn't care.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't. I just said the debate doesn't interest me very much. My only concern was that you seemed to be telling everyone 'how it is' but didn't provide any info. to back it up.

Anyway, I'm not going to go browising around some site for information you claimed you already knew, etc. If you can point to it, that would be great.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

Don't expect any response. He could verify those statistics pretty easily with google if he wanted. Doing so would force him to admit he's wrong, so he'll simply drop the arguement.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't expect any response. He could verify those statistics pretty easily with google if he wanted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that you're talking about me, but if the statistics are so easy to find, Boro could link us to them just as easily. Since he is the one making claims, I don't see why it should be on anyone else to provide the info.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

Wow. Look what these brilliant people passed:

Resident of the city can no longer own a handgun, and cannot buy (or even borrow or be gifted) ammunition.

Ban does not apply to non-residents of the city, so nearby locales (south and eastbay i suppose) can continue to have guns at home for self-defense.

Now, say you are a gangbanger from Oakland and you need to rob someone or whatever. Are you going to go to Daly City where your target might be armed, or head to san fran where the sheeple are relatively defenseless?

This should be a slam dunk for the NRA to get this overturned. Part of me hopes they fail and the city dwellers can try to rest easy in the bed they have made.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

I own guns. I enjoy guns. I support the rights of anyone in responsible ownership, use and care of guns.

I do not support anti-gun laws, for the most part. I do support the enforcement of the myriad of laws presently in place - local, state and federal.

Does a gun make me any safer? Maybe. The pistol in my car the night I was car-jacked did not. The little perp had his weapon about 3" from my left temple and I certainly wasn't going to question his threat to "blow my f'in head off" if I didn't do as he instructed me.

Was my weapon put in the hands of that or another criminal and later used illegally? Probably so. I regret that. But I've never lost any sleep over it.

If I were living in France tonight, I'd be on a rooftop. I'd use my gun. If what's happening in France were happening in the US, I believe it would have been stopped long before now.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

Well, a good reason why this is dumb is because you go outside of SF and easily get a gun anywhere you wanted. Unless you got a stringent anti-gun campaign (jail for gun possession), it'd be way too easy to get a gun from somewhere else.

Still, what this does allow the police to do is to arrest people who own guns because they are investigating other crimes. Heh.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

"From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England’s inner cities increased 91 percent."

But the handgun law wasn't passed until 1997. Clearly other factors are at work.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

In 30 seconds I quickly pulled up the following info on The Reason Foundation, owners of the magazine:

Founded in 1968, Reason advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law.

Reason produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Reason. Together, our top-tier think tank and political and cultural magazine reach a diverse, influential audience, advancing the values of individual freedom and choice, limited government, and market-friendly policies.

Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization completely supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, corporations, and the sale of our publications.
__________________________________________________ __________
"Of all the nation's conservative or free-market policy groups, it may be the most libertarian among them, the Reason Foundation in Southern California, that ends up having the most direct impact on the actual functioning of government."
- The Wall Street Journal

“Thank goodness for Reason…one sane voice fighting tons of nonsense.”
- John Stossel, ABC's 20/20

“Reason Foundation’s tolerance, civility, and consistency in defending individual liberty make it a haven for believers in a free society of all shades of opinion.”
- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning Economist

“Stimulating stuff from first-rate minds that understand that you can't create prosperity without freedom!”
- Steve Forbes, Founder of Forbes Magazine and Former U.S. Presidential Candidate
__________________________________________________ _________

Also, here is the even more convincing backround on the articles author and publisher:

Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of history at Bentley College and a senior adviser to the MIT Security Studies Program, is the author of Guns and Violence: The English Experience, published in May by Harvard University Press.

__________________________________________________ _________

Sounds like a fairly well endorsed credible source. Moreover, none of the claims in it seem totally unbelievable. I'd say the onus is on the person who asked for the statistics to investigate and verify himself, if only because acccurate information is important part of making accurate decisions and developing good viewpoints. Perhaps strong empiricle evidence would force him to re-evaluate his policy stance and come up with a better understanding of the situation. We should all strive to develope our knowledge, understanding, and analytical skills.

However, what if that wasn't your motive. What if your motive was to make yourself feel smart and morally superior without actually putting in any of the work. You would come up with an opinion based on very little research, state that opinion, and ignore any potential evidence that might go against you. Don't think, don't re-evaluate, because it has nothing to do with knowledge. It's just a petty ego boost for yourself.

When the Iraqi referendum was held we had a post on this board where people rushed to denounce it as a fraud. People piled in to voice thier support for the premise. 99% approval in a province, that must be totally rigged, back to the days of Saddam. It didn't even matter that it had UN approval (which apparently went from being all important before the war to completely wortheless when they say something you don't want). What was the truth? The province with 99% approval was a Kurdish province. The Kurds will be ethnically cleansed is Iraq breaks up. Is 99% approval a surprise? In the Anbar province, home of fallujah, 96% of people voted no. Overall the vote was 77% yes. Rigged my ass. But if your goal was to route for your side, rather then get the truth, it was all to easy not to do the fact checking or reasoning yourself.

Let's get one thing down, none of us set policy. None of us are going to be able to implement our plans if our side "wins". You don't gain anything if you beat someone, so why do people act like its the end of the world? Why can't you admit when your wrong, or mistaken, or need to rethink your reasoning? The goal of posting and reading here, other then the recreational sport of argueing and the occasional witty banter, is to enrich ourselves and our minds by gaining other peoples perspectives. I can't quantify the effect cyrus (perhaps even the most influential if you can believe it), natedog, or arfinn have had on my political thinking. I may be at odds with them alot, but I learn from them. And sometimes I take on thier posistions after some re-evaluation. This is the proper way to treat the forum.

If poster really didn't know alot about the source he could have taken the same 30 sec to try and find out more about it. He should have done it not for the person he was argueing against, but for his own enrichment. Instead he choose to make a petty sarcastic comment and drop the subject. I see it all the time. If you don't have anything intellectual left to add just take a quick jab at the person or the source and then fade away in the confusion. He can do it if he wants, but he is only cheating himself. All I did was say what the truth of the situation was.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]
In 30 seconds I quickly pulled up

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I wasn't asking you, but that's fine. It's just fun to see people make claims over and over and then duck when someone asks them to post the info.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say the onus is on the person who asked for the statistics to investigate and verify himself

[/ QUOTE ]

I obviously disagree, but that isn't the point of this thread anyway. As I said in my first post, this debate doesn't really interest me. All I was trying to get at is that people should be prepared to back up their own claims with real info. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

It's a libertarian group, thus it's not surprising that they're against gun control. That said, one should deal with the facts or opinions presented in the article, not just say it's such and such website, therefore it's no good.

There must be a reason
 

[ QUOTE ]
This debate doesn't interest me very much, but you're not really giving any info to support your case.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, all I can do at this moment, personally, is adopt the same position that those guys in blue are taking, and with overhwelming majority, practically in every city and every state of the U.S.

Cops are in favor of severe restrictions on handgun ownership.

...Cue for "anarcho-capitalists" to scream "Government tyranny!" [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

He asked for statistics to back it up, and the person provided them. If it was a totally wacked out source and the person knew it, they could call it into question. But as my 30 seconds of research proved it is a fairly credible source. If you wanted to spend 5 seconds instead of 30 seconds you could have found the author and published at the bottom of the article, which alone I think provides a good deal of legitamacy.

Bottom line, poster would probably only have cause to question the source if he was unfamilair with it. Since there is reason enough to believe the source might possibly be legitimate poster should be curious enough to devote between 5-30 seconds to the task.

What does poster base his personal believe on? Has he seen different statistical studies? Has he had extensive experience living in Brittian? Does he base his opinion on the facts of the matter on anything more credible then his debate partner's source? If not, this information should be revealing and interesting to post. He has assumed that the outlawing of guns would reduce crime and gun crime, but that may not necessarily be the case. He has assumed his theoretical postulate is true and will MAKE the facts comform to it.

I think Micheal Moore is a fat idiot without a clue, but his movie Bowling for Columnbine was absolutely brilliant. One of the reasons for this was that Moore rejected the idea that gun availability inherintly lead to violence. Instead he spent time exploring cultural, psycoligical, economic, political, etc. roots to what happened at Columbine. He realized it was a multi-facted problem.

Crime and gun crime are complicated subjects. Hence there are many causes and policy options. I noted in one of my first posts that Japan and England have the same gun-law spirit, but totally different results. Thus I hinted that perhaps the reason for the problem was far greater then gun-law policy and required further reasoning. But all the reasoning and research takes work, why not just believe what we want to believe.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
 

http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/grap...hronbanner.gif

June 14, 2012


San Francisco- The city of San Francisco was ordered to award long-time resident Anna McGibbons 376 million dollars after the United States Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a highly charged case that has focused national attention on gun control and the second amendment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the 7-2 case which seems to settle once and for all the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms. Both justices Clinton dissented.

The case was first brought by McGibbons, 38, back in 2006 after she was brutally raped in her Noe Valley home only weeks after turning in her handgun following passage of a city-wide ban in 2005. McGibbons father, retired police sergeant John McGibbons had lead the efforts to get the ban overturned following his daughter’s assault.

“I had a .40 caliber Glock 23 pistol in a quick-release safe on my nightstand for years.” McGibbons stated. “My dad taught me to shoot and respect guns at an early age. He also taught me to respect the law and that’s why I turned my gun in.”

McGibbons is referring to San Francisco’s 2005 Proposition “H” which banned possession of all handguns and ammunition throughout the city. The contentious issue passed with 58% of the vote. While the National Rifle Association brought suit immediately, justices of the Ninth circuit allowed the law to stand until 2010, when crime-weary residents of San Francisco nullified the act and once again allowed themselves handguns for self defense.

She doesn’t like to talk about the rape or the fact that her assailant remains at large, but she was relieved that this chapter is now behind her. The court found that the city was negligent by enforcing a ban on handguns that was “obviously unconstitutional” and that by violating Ms. McGibbons constitutional protections, San Francisco was liable for punitive damages. Several other victims of potentially preventable crimes have come forward and the city attorneys office is concerned that the awards may reach into several billion dollars.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]
He asked for statistics to back it up, and the person provided them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have missed that. As far as I can tell, he only provided a website, not a direct link to any statistics. Perhaps I am getting confused about who you are referring to, though. Regardless, the onus to provide information is on the person who makes the claim, IMO.

Now, it's pretty silly to hijack this thread any further with this type of discussion. I never intended for my post to be taken quite this seriously. :shrug:

This has taught me not to post something in here for the fun of it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

Perhaps, but if someone provides info you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand simply because you disagree with it. Such action is not in keeping with an open mind.

Yeah, I'm a little on edge tonight.

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

[ QUOTE ]
if someone provides info you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand simply because you disagree with it. Such action is not in keeping with an open mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with this.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'm a little on edge tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem. We all have our days. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Take care.

Note: I really didn't want to hijack this thread anymore, but it was nice being able to finally post an agreement here. Carry on!

Re: San Francisco: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
 

After Australia banned guns, the first two years saw a 72% increase in armed robbery. Go figure.