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

[andyfox]

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?

[PoBoy321]

[ 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.

[renodoc]

2002 Reason article about England's crime

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[AngryCola]

[ 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.

[PoBoy321]

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

[Borodog]

[ 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?

[renodoc]

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

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to share some facts or evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[renodoc]

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