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

[lehighguy]

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.

[AngryCola]

[ 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.

[andyfox]

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.

[Cyrus]

[ 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]

[lehighguy]

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.

[renodoc]

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.

[AngryCola]

[ 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]

[lehighguy]

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.

[AngryCola]

[ 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!

[ChipWrecked]

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