San Francisco Supervisors Propose Gun Ban

[theearthisround]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20041216/ap_on_re_us/gun_ban

City residents will vote next year on a proposed weapons ban that would deny handguns to everyone except law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards.

If passed next November, residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses. The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal by a gun owners group.

The measure — submitted Tuesday to the Department of Elections by some city supervisors — would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses, according to Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly.

[seriousstan]

1. Gee, I wonder if they are going to use the registration lists?

Just kep saying it over and over...it is not a gun grab...it is not a gun grab....

[bluestateguy]

2. Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to pick up your guns

Stallin, Hitler and Mao all favored gun control. Because when you take away a man's ability to defend himself, you can oppress him.

[billbuckhead]

3. If guns made men free, Afghanistan would be paradise and Sweden a gulag

It's long overdue for Americans to quit looking to weapons to solve problems.

[bluestateguy]

6. You don't want a gun, don't buy one

I won't force you, but no fat government bureaucrat with B.O. will ever get to "decide" whether or not I have the right to protect myself.

[Forkboy]

8. Will you shoot them if they come for them?

[Occulus]

70. yes n/t

[Forkboy]

80. lol

what would you like on your tombstone?

Whether one agrees with this ban or not this attitude that you'll shoot all the cops that come for your guns is so inane and suicidal I can't help but laugh my ass off.I really dont think you people are following this through to it's logical conclusion.

I can't figure out where the nut part of "gun nuts" comes from :crazy:

[Sub Zero]

112. Does this surprise you?

Most of the gun nuts I've met have been fat males who get drunk with their buddies in their garage talking about what they want to do with their guns when Clinton or another democrat is in charge.

The gun nuts ENTIRELY want their guns so they can take out the government if they ever get the chance. This guys attitude is not surprising.

I also like the REAL view of reality presented earlier. More guns = freedeom is NOT a true statement.

[Forkboy]

124. I just think it's funny,in a scary kind of way

that these people think they're going to somehow outgun the government if it came to that.Remind me not to count on them for football predictions or anything...they're grasp of potential future events seems tenuous :)

[Occulus]

128. Just FYI, (for everyone who read my "yes n/t" post)

I don't own a handgun. I don't like the idea of having one in my home. Also, while I understand why licenses for handguns exist, I really just don't want to fill out the paperwork and go through the necessary training. I already have two guns- read on- and I really don't think I need a third.

Rifles are another matter, as are shotguns, and I inherited one of each from my father. He taught me that they're always loaded (yes, I know the difference, I am an adult after all :) ), and to never ever intentionally point a gun at anything but the ground or the sky unless you mean to shoot it. I've also personally had a pretty-much hands-off attitude toward guns in general my whole life. I am, by no definition, a "gun nut". Refer to me as a "preservationist" of the Second if you wish; I've given that Amendment a great deal of thought before I took posession of those two weapons. And that's what they are, really- an adult's weapons.

So yes, if some 'Authority' tries to grab away either one of them, they'll simply find out why I'm keeping them. I would argue justifiable homicide if it came to that. You don't try to forcibly take someone's weapon from them without the chance that it may be used on you. I was always told that rifles and shotguns were 'safe' (as in "will never be banned"), and I'm simply stating why they better remain 'safe'. Handguns are only a simple step away, and as a 'preservationist' of the Second and a non owner of handguns, I'm disturbed- but unaffected- by a ban on them.

What I'm even more alarmed by is the notion that a city or town can get into their heads the idea of confiscating legally purchased and licensed handguns. What would trigger my armed rage would be a city or town attempting to remove rifles and shotguns as well. I want to make that absolutely clear.

Go ahead, come and get it. I won't take such a flagrant violation of my own Constitutional rights lying down or unarmed. That said, since I don't own a handgun and don't live in a "handgun-free area", this doesn't affect me. Even if the city I live in passed this exact same law, I would not need to respond in any way but peaceful protest, because owning no handgun in the first place, it still wouldn't affect me. Disturb, yes; affect personally, no.

Rifles and shotguns are where I draw the militancy line. As I said in another thread, we're talking about an "administration" (if you can call it that; "demolition team" would be more appropriate) which regards treaties ratified by Congress and thus (from a Constitutional standpoint) the laws of the land as 'quaint'. Who is to say they will not or, indeed, have not already violated our own Constitutional laws, as opposed to a treaty?

The citizenry must be allowed to arm itself if it wishes if we want democracy itself to continue to thrive. We have to allow firearms to continue to exist if we want to preserve our system of a potential "peaceful revolution" every four years. If we disallow that, if we disarm, it only increases the possibility of an extremely bloody revolution years or decades down the road. We ourselves could eventually bring to an end the rule "by, of, and for the People" and surrender it to... well, something else, which would eventually fracture and fall apart.

Or, you could disregard my entire mini-soapbox rant, and just let me say if an Authority tried to confiscate my rifle and my shotgun (which I inherited from my father, mind you; I didn't buy these), they'd quickly discover why we have the right to keep and bear arms here. Forcible disarming of a populace would be one logical and fairly final precursor to totalitarianism.

[sled]

133. Maybe

But in my case, you're way off...but I'd defend your right to be wrong, & will, if necessary.

Plus, I voted for Clinton twice, & think he's the best president, in my lifetime, so far...hopefully, there's a better one, just waiting to stand up, & be counted...

Plus, I rarely drink, & when I do, in moderation...all things in moderation...also, I'm thin as a rail...stereotyping, never a good idea...

I'm also a vet, if that means anything, these days, besides just being former prospective cannon fodder...

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[billbuckhead]

9. It starts an arms race, if the nut down the street gets one then everyone

has to get one. Massachusetts and Hawaii have the strongest gun laws and lowest murder rates of states with over million people. Euro nations nations have strong gun regulation and far less murder. Throw out aberrations like Congress ruled Washington DC, everyone in a well regulated militia Switzerland and empty western states out the equation and it's pretty obvious.

[Traction]

10. No, DC has the strongest gun laws

and the highest murder rate. What do you have to say now?

[billbuckhead]

13. DC is not a state or a nation or really self governed

Southern pro gun states have the highest murder rates. what do you say now?

[Traction]

27. The actual most lenient gun law state of all is Vermont

Not much crime there. Same in Montana and Idaho. Do your research.

[billbuckhead]

54. Vermont has less people than most urban counties, hardly anything to steal

Of States with over a million people, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey lead the way with low homicide satistics.

[slackmaster]

67. Not according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports for 2003

billbuckhead wrote:

Of States with over a million people, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey lead the way with low homicide satistics.

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rates per 100,000 for 2003, states with > 1 million population (very quick check by slackmaster):

NJ 4.7
KY 4.6
KS 4.5
CO 3.9
CT 3.0
WA 3.0
UT 2.5
MN 2.5
RI 2.3
MA 2.2
OR 1.9
HI 1.7 - Population was estimated at 905,301 for 2003
IA 1.6

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl05.xls

You're less likely to be murdered in Kentucky, home of the Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot, than you are in New Jersey.

But never let FACTS get in the way of a good anti-choice argument.

[Traction]

126. You just can't state the fact that you are wrong

You are not for freedom if you support gun-control, there is no other way around it. If you don't want an AK-47, then dammit don't buy one. Please don't tell me what I can and can't buy. I'm a responsible person. Without the 2nd Amendment, there wouldn't be a first. Sorry for the tirade, but this is the one issue where I'm not liberal on at all.

[billbuckhead]

169. Are you saying these advanced nations with gun control are less free than

the home of the "PATRIOT" act? Are you saying Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, etc are less free than the USA? many of these nations actually have downtowns that regular people can safely walk around in after dark. Gun extremists are in dubious touch with reality.

[MisterCompletly]

173. Anti-Gun extremists have no connection with reality.

I'm not even convinced they have the best of intentions when they call to disarm law abiding citizens.

[billbuckhead]

176. Reality is that Massachusetts has strong laws and the least gun homicide

Gun Laws Get Credit for Homicide Declines
3/24/2003
Feature Story
by Dick Dahl

Total gun deaths in the U.S. have been dropping steadily since 1993, when they peaked at nearly 40,000, to around 28,000 annually 1999 through 2001. Although firearm suicides have remained fairly constant at over 16,000 per year, the decrease in gun homicides has accounted for the bulk of the decline. A variety of explanations have been offered to account for the decline in gun homicides, but recent research has demonstrated that strong gun laws should be considered a leading reason.

An article published by the American Journal of Public Health last December showed that the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership--Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Wyoming--had homicide rates that were three times higher than the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership--Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The study's lead author, Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, concluded that "guns, on balance, lethally imperil rather than protect Americans." Combined with a 2000 assessment of gun laws around the nation by the Soros Foundation, the data also show that lax gun laws imperil Americans. That's because the Soros scorecard listed each of the six high-homicide states among the bottom third of states with the weakest gun laws, and it listed the four low-homicide states among the top 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

According to Soros, the state with the strongest gun laws is Massachusetts, and according to 2000 data from the Centers for Disease Control, Massachusetts residents enjoy the lowest rates of gun violence in the nation. According to CDC, Massachusetts's overall death rate from guns in 2000 was 2.84 per 100,000 people, well ahead of second-place New Jersey's 4.16 and nearly one fourth of the national average, 10.41.

<http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,562335,00.html>

[MisterCompletly]

178. Sorry, but HCI can not be trusted to give unfiltered facts about guns

Jointogether Org is a cover name for HCI which as most people know are in the business of banning all citizen ownership of all handguns. I noticed they forgot to mention that the rate of undefended rape, murder, muggings, carjackings etc are much higher in the citizen-gun-free utopias they so often tout as "safe" places to live.

[billbuckhead]

179. Most people have never heard of HCI and do YOU have any statistics?

Any facts? Anything except fear?

[MisterCompletly]

181. HCI has only fear, uncertainty and doubt to offer

The fact is that an armed law abiding citizen offers much more defense against those that are intent on doing them harm than a 911 call or a surrender to their attacks.

Any attempt to deny this fact will only identify those against self-defense as the ignoramus and removed from reality they are.

[billbuckhead]

182. Fact is guns in the home are far more likely to kill a loved one

Fact is, that far more guns are used to kill innocents than are used by citizens to kill criminals. Fact is that every similar nation to our own in wealth and culture has stronger gun regulation and far less murder and people in prison.

[BernieBear]

114. I say Second Amendment end of story n/t

[RedCon1]

162. I second that motion. nt

[Boosterman]

39. If you throw out all

"aberrations" from your statistical study what is the likelihood of a valid statistical result?

[billbuckhead]

45. All valid statitical studies throw out the outliers

Clearly Washington DC and Switzerland are wierd situations, far different than other cities, states or nations. If one compares just states with over a million populations and nations without everyone required by law to be in the militia, it's pretty damn obvious that guns escalate crime.

[Boosterman]

88. Well you are ignoring 2 things

One is the simple fact that he excluded all those "empty" western states and two how relevant would your study be if you are forced to use another culture to determine your results while ignoring the 10 or so "aberrations" within our own society.

[slackmaster]

68. Massachusetts and Hawaii do NOT have the lowest murder rates

for states with populations over one million. For 2003 that distinction belongs to Iowa (on edit) and Oregon.

And the population of Hawaii is less than one million.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1075487&mesg_id=1077422

[billbuckhead]

99. 2000 census has Hawaii at 1.2 million

<http://www.npg.org/states/hi.htm>

You must have Hawaii confused with Honolulu County which still has more population than Vermont.

[billbuckhead]

100. I meant lowest gun homicide rates though your statistics actually help my

point by showing the strong correlation between gun homicide and all homicide.

Gun Laws Get Credit for Homicide Declines
3/24/2003

Feature Story
by Dick Dahl

Total gun deaths in the U.S. have been dropping steadily since 1993, when they peaked at nearly 40,000, to around 28,000 annually 1999 through 2001. Although firearm suicides have remained fairly constant at over 16,000 per year, the decrease in gun homicides has accounted for the bulk of the decline. A variety of explanations have been offered to account for the decline in gun homicides, but recent research has demonstrated that strong gun laws should be considered a leading reason.

An article published by the American Journal of Public Health last December showed that the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership--Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Wyoming--had homicide rates that were three times higher than the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership--Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The study's lead author, Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, concluded that "guns, on balance, lethally imperil rather than protect Americans." Combined with a 2000 assessment of gun laws around the nation by the Soros Foundation, the data also show that lax gun laws imperil Americans. That's because the Soros scorecard listed each of the six high-homicide states among the bottom third of states with the weakest gun laws, and it listed the four low-homicide states among the top 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

According to Soros, the state with the strongest gun laws is Massachusetts, and according to 2000 data from the Centers for Disease Control, Massachusetts residents enjoy the lowest rates of gun violence in the nation. According to CDC, Massachusetts's overall death rate from guns in 2000 was 2.84 per 100,000 people, well ahead of second-place New Jersey's 4.16 and nearly one fourth of the national average, 10.41.

<http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,562335,00.html>

[mitchtv]

16. Fat government Bureaucrat? try the PEOPLE of SF

don't like it? don't visit. While I am generally against gun control, I feel municpalities/counties have the right to prohibit.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

24. On that theory

They should be able to legislate all sorts of stuff about our rights. Why not make slavery legal in Mobile or make abortion illegal in Atlanta?

[mitchtv]

29. fine then how about a death sentence on gun crimes?

something Draconian is needed

[AliciaKeyedUp]

31. So you support the death penalty?

I don't.

[mitchtv]

89. I am ambivalent on the DP. My sympathies are hard to arouse for that ilk

you are against the DP, but will kill anyone who tries to Hurt/ rob you? Better yet for people who don't like the DP . how about an automatic leap to strike three for every gun crime (25 to life)?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

123. Try being a woman alone

Protecting children. And I don't have a gun. I thought about it at one point. But if anyone breaks into my home, I will pound them with a crowbar from under my bed.

[marmar]

4. Our Golden Gate nirvana....

:evilfrown: Every time I think America is a completely lost cause, I think about San Francisco and get somewhat heartened. :loveya:

[femme.democratique]

5. Bad idea

Especially under this administration, never knowing whats next... never know when you might need one...

[frank frankly]

12. really bad idea

is there is HUGE gun violence problem in the Bay Area?

i really hate reading this.

[Romulus]

7. dupe, sorry

I beat you to it!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=95951&mesg_id=95951

[Traction]

11. No matter how it is looked at

It's not legal. Not what the Founders wanted, and as anti-Constitutional as you can get.

[billbuckhead]

14. The Supreme court has never turned down a gun regulation and that's all

that counts. The Constitution is a joke after the "PATRIOT" act anyway.

[Traction]

28. Perhaps we need to stack the SC with pro-gun members

I wish they would strike down all gun laws accross the nation so I could get one in occupied NYC.

[tx_dem41]

72. Name one handgun ban that has been overturned by the SCOTUS....

on constitutional grounds?

[VegasWolf]

15. I wonder if there will be a democratic party in 2008. n/t

[frank frankly]

19. I wonder if there will be a democratic party in 2005.

Howard Dean or bust.

[SKKY]

17. If we outlaw the guns...

...only the outlaws will have them. Very, very, very bad idea.

[hollowdweller]

18. This is all over the sporting and hunting forums and people are using it

as an example of what would have happened at a national level if Kerry would have been elected and using it, as another example of liberals taking peoples freedoms away. I wish we could just leave this issue alone for a while even at the local level.

[billbuckhead]

20. Let's just give up everything we believe in so we don't offend gun nuts

[hollowdweller]

32. Is a person who wants to own a gun a gun nut? Playing into GOP stereotypes

Interesting whenever this subject comes up a lot of people FOR gun control say that the GOP is misrepresenting the Democratic position. They are for reasonable gun control not banning guns. But this type of ordinance plays into those fears.

[billbuckhead]

43. The GOP DOES misrepresent the Democratic position

Like gay marriage, SF does what it wants, it's called democracy.

[slackmaster]

76. SF's gay marriages violated state law and are null and void

SF does not have the right to do whatever it wants to.

[IA_Seth]

71. Give me your car...or are you a car-nut? n/t

[Nineteen Eighty Four]

81. Please don't speak for others.

Please don't speak for others, only for yourself. Most "liberals" and "moderates" want to be armed. Criminals can always get them regardless of gun laws. People should have power to defend their homes, their property and if need be, their rights. You want your rights taken away from you? Move to China and exchange places with one of the Chinese youth struggling for democracy.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Trillo]

21. Why give them up instead of (if it passes) gov. paying fair market value?

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. It's the new ownership society. Government already owns everything. Why would they pay for what they already own?

[donheld]

22. Guns do NOT kill people

People do kill people.

[billbuckhead]

44. People with guns are far more effective killing people than people without

[LeftCoast]

23. I wouldn't count on this passing

I live in SF and I'm pretty sure I'm going to be voting against this. It's a silly law.

[truthisfreedom]

25. the NRA may make an example of SF if they try this stunt.

sounds like their hearts are in the right place, but it's just so unlikely to work.

[LeftCoast]

26. I agree, and I don't think SF needs to add another crusade right now

As it is, city finances are not looking good and frankly, the city government here is an embarassment. We've got enough on our plate without adding this fight...

[ronnykmarshall]

86. and Chris Daly is the leader.

Now don't get me wrong ... I LOVE my old home city, but some of the loons in office now .... SHEESH!!!

[EFerrari]

87. Chris Daly is the only real advocate for the homeless in SF

Newsom has moved on to another photo op.

Great Chris Daly story: I was doing a benefit at the Great American Music Hall for the Coalition on Homelessness and had asked Chris to speak for a few minutes.

His office calls and says his wife went into labor, he can't make it. All good, we can cover, good luck.

So, I'm sitting at the bar getting the show started and in bops Chris. I said, "What the HELL are you doing here?!" (Not very tactful.) He says, "She isn't progressing so I thought I'd come out."

So, how progressive do you have to be to have Chris Daly's baby? lol

And of course, he did a great job.

No dissing Chris Day <g>.

[FredScuttle]

117. Here's another Chris Daly story

from the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Profanity by Daly draws censure bid"

In his past four years on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Chris Daly has earned a reputation as a passionate advocate, but also a hothead who stomps out of meetings and yells at people who don't agree with him.

When he walked into the audience at a committee meeting last week and told the crowd to "f -- off," however, Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier had had enough.

On Tuesday, she introduced a motion to censure her colleague -- a first on the board, according to veteran Supervisor Tom Ammiano.

"Verbally abusing members of the public who have come to petition their government is an abuse of office and authority by a member of the Board of Supervisors," Alioto-Pier said in the motion, which will be presented for a vote at next Tuesday's meeting.
(snip)

link to full article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/17/BAGHU9SQDD1.DTL

Eventually, Daly barely managed to avoid censure by issuing a public apology. This came, however, long after he initially called the censure motion "a tactic that the 'Newsom machine' is using to silence their critics".

His heart may be in the right place, but he is a joke as a Supervisor and an embarrassment to his constituents and the City.

[EFerrari]

129. Chris Daly is loved by his constituents because he stands up for

them, the poorest in the city. A joke? Hardly. The Chron spun this as well. He didn't "barely avoid censure" at all.

[billbuckhead]

46. And what's the NRA going to do?

Why not agitate these kooks?

[hollowdweller]

132. NRA loves this shit. They can use it to raise lots of $ for '08 I

[AliciaKeyedUp]

156. It helps when what they say is true

And some politicians are indeed gun grabbers.

[MisterCompletly]

174. The usual

Why try to piecemeal the great goal of disarming Americans by starting in SF? How would a national platform with the same parameters as the SF proposal? Would that agitate enough gun owning "kooks" for you?

Seriously, do you see a future for selling the anti-gun utopia here in America?

[The King]

30. I wish SE would stop killin us

The time to do these things (like gun control, and legalize gay marriage, and raising taxes) is AFTER we get elected. If we keep showing the American people these things, the Pubbies will scare everyone and we won't have a chance to win. We need to muzzle these people for the good of our long term chances. I'm sure they mean well, but they are killing us by being so open about this stuff.

[sled]

33. The party of Jefferson?

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

* Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr * Paris, August 19, 1785

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jefflett/let31.htm

[billbuckhead]

47. Jefferson said a lot of stupid things like that blacks are inferior

[Traction]

127. That was a long time ago

Every white back then was a racist, because they didn't know any better. The point is that Jefferson helped build this country and was a Founding Father. So, what he says goes, period.

[billbuckhead]

141. Say what? "Every white back then was a racist"

Back then they didn't have assault rifles, they didn't have a lot of things.

How about this quote?

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

[sled]

155. I respectfully disagree - Jefferson's entire quote

I think you edited Jefferson's letter, to make a point, when what you left out, might have undermined your opinion. Personally, I like the paragraph before the one, you edited & excerpted. Taking them both in context, Jefferson would just as likely, be calling us to arms, instead of advising us to disarm, considering our situation today, & our current state of governmental affairs.

It's hard to say, if he would see the very progress, he wrote about, to include assault weapons, since flintlock muskets, were the weapons of his day, or if he would embrace your argument, & think we could leave it to the government, to protect us.

Considering the paragraph I alluded to, I have my own opinion of that, & it's the opposite of yours. The part you left out, is an interesting statement, in itself, "I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects."

I'll leave it to those who read Jefferson's letter, in its entirety, to decide for themselves, exactly what he may have meant, but I respectfully disagree, with what you might have suggested.

For those who choose to read the letter, "bellum omnium in omnia" means "war of all against all", if my research is correct. If it doesn't, please advise.


The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826
REFORM OF THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTION
To Samuel Kercheval Monticello, July 12, 1816

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl246.htm

[sled]

136. Agreed

That knife probably cuts all ways, don't you think???

[Selatius]

34. Why should law-abiding citizens be punished for the acts of criminals?

What good will getting rid of their guns do when crooks don't follow the law to begin with? I don't believe it will do any lick of good. You are better off fighting crime by fighting poverty and providing after-school services to kids and by establishing neighborhood watch programs as well as look into better funding the police force.

I'd vote against it. I'm in favor of common sense gun regulations, but not getting rid of them. This is too authoritarian.

[sled]

35. Exactly

I think if you listen to Michael Moore's remarks, after he made "Bowling For Columbine", he arrived at the same conclusion. Americans would be killing each other with hammers. Might have something to do with how we continually disrespect each other.

"Nuts", "idiots", "fools", etc. isn't honest debate, & gets us nowhere.

[IA_Seth]

73. Hear Hear

[saigon68]

144. A stoopid move by stoopid leaders

All the gang bangers will now go into the gun trade--- OOPS they already are.

[moondust]

36. How dare the citizens of San Francisco

not fondle their tools of murder! How dare they determine the fate of their city! Who do they think they are anyway?!!

[toopers]

38. How dare the citizens of SF uphold individual rights.

Ban guns, and ban the entire Bill of Rights while you're at it. Government has right over the individual. We wouldn't want individuals to be able to protect themselves in their own home.

[VegasWolf]

61. Yeah, next thing you know they will be stanging up for gay weddings! n/t

[TyObe]

83. The Board of Supervisors didn't consult the citizens on this one...

"In San Francisco, five of the 11-member Board of Supervisors submitted the measure directly to the Department of Elections — one more than the minimum needed to get the measure on the ballot without signatures from registered voters."

They're sticking on a ballot whether citizens of San Francisco want it there or not.

[theboss]

147. You know, we have a Constitution that says what they can do

By your logic, if people in Alabama want to forbid black people from going to school, they can.

[moondust]

152. If this were a human rights or civil liberties issue

I'm sure Great Britain, Canada, Japan, Australia, and/or others including the U.N. would have laws on the books to the effect that everybody can have all the guns they want of any caliber. Of course that's insane.

You're trying to compare apples and motorcycles.

American gunmonkeys cannot come to terms with the reality that they are the odd man out in this world on this issue notwithstanding the NRA's liberal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. For more information see the proceedings of the U.N. small arms conference held a few years ago at which I believe every country in attendence voted to ban the unchecked proliferation of small arms except the U.S. The world doesn't want your gun culture. It only makes sense that progressive areas of the U.S. like SF might want to similarly promote sane public health values.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

153. I don't own guns

Nor am I likely to ever do so. But I still think people should have the right to own them. Why is it that people who defend all the other amendments to the Constitution interpret them as broadly as possible, but view this one narrowly?

[MisterCompletly]

37. San Francisco - the next totalitarian stronghold

Who are these nitwits that dream up such foolishness?

[billbuckhead]

51. Yeah they could end up like those totalitarian Scandinavian countries

Gay marriage and few guns.

[MisterCompletly]

69. Gay marriage? No problem. Confiscation of the peoples self defense?

Wrong. If these weaponphobic tyrants don't want to own a weapon to defend themselves against those that wish them harm then they can choose not to own a weapon.

The shame of these people knows no bounds. You can't even sue them if you get mugged or raped because they confiscated your only means of defense against bigger and stronger bad people. Hell, even if you dial 911 the police are not obligated to come to your rescue or corpse.

[TyObe]

85. Few guns in Scandinavia??

Norway, Finland and Sweden all have relatively high ownership rates for firearms (20% or better).

Ty

[billbuckhead]

90. Way less than the USA and far more regulated

[Poppyseedman]

40. Great idea

Instead of making it illegal to own a firearm, just pass out free poster or buttons that say:

POSTER: THIS HOME IS A GUN FREE ZONE

BUTTON: I DO NOT CARRY AN FIREARM FOR PROTECTION

The criminal element will know who the easy targets are and leave me alone

[Poppyseedman]

41. All recent stories of guns used in self defense

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20041216/2000490.asp
http://www.nbc10.com/news/3940689/detail.html
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/dixiejoshunk.nsf/front?OpenView&Count=2000
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=57753
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/3946692/detail.html
http://www.katu.com/stories/72759.html
http://www.syracuse.com/search/index.ssf?/base/policeblotter-0/1100167277125040.xml?syrnepol
http://www.wneg32.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WNEG/MGArticle/NEG_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031778537908&path=
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13071239&BRD=1613&PAG=461&dept_id=159372&rfi=6
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB7WILFKZD.html

Of course all these criminals would have turned himself in.

[billbuckhead]

53. Gee, if guns prevented crime, USA would have the lowest crime rate

in the world but instead we have the highest murder rate of advanced nations and the most people in prison per capita even with the supposed deterrence of the death penalty. How come when guns come up in this forum, all these low post count people come out of the closet? Sounds like Astroturf to me.

[Poppyseedman]

55. Good question

Since I am a low post kind of person, I'll slink back to my closet and won't respond to your questions except to say taking away my gun will not drive crime rates down and the prison ratio per capita rate has a lot more to do with the war on small drug offense than actually real crime.

BTW, what makes one a high post person. What's the benchmark?

So I can back later when my opinion carries more weight?

Missing the meaning of the Astroturf comment also.

[billbuckhead]

58. Astroturf is fake grassroots, the corporations&the NRA are infamous for it

BTW, here are some real facts

Currently, an estimated 39% of households have a gun, while 24% have a handgun.<2>


In 1998 alone, licensed firearms dealers sold an estimated 4.4 million guns, 1.7 million of which were handguns.<3> Additionally, it is estimated that 1 to 3 million guns change hands in the secondary market each year, and many of these sales are not regulated.<4>

Gun Deaths and Injury - The United States Leads the World in Firearm Violence

In 1998, 30,708 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths - 12,102 (39%) of those were murdered; 17,424 (57%) were suicides; 866 (3%) were accidents; and in 316 (1%) the intent was unknown.<5> In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.<6>

For every firearm fatality in the United States, there are two non-fatal firearm injuries.<7>

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States.<8>

In 1999, there were only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens in the United States.<9>
Gun Violence - Young Lives Cut Short



In 1998, more than 10 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday.<10>


In 1998, gunshot wounds were the second leading cause of injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age - second only to motor vehicle crashes.<11>


In 1998, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34.<12>


From 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,409 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.<13>


Each year during 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,621 murderers who had not reached their 18th birthdays took someone's life with a gun.<14>

Guns in the Home - A Greater Risk to Family and Friends

For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.<15>

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.<16>

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.<17>

The Economic Costs of Gun Violence - All Americans Pay a High Price

A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence including medical, lost wages, and security costs estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.<18>


The average total cost of one gun crime can be as high as $1.79 million, including medical treatment and the prosecution and imprisonment of the shooter.<19>


At least 80 percent of the economic costs of treating firearm injuries are paid for by taxpayer dollars.<20,21>

<http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=firefacts>

[beetle2]

82. We should ban the Automobile!

If the prevention of death and crime for the common good trumps an individual right, then why not ban the Automobile, more people are killed, maimed, disfigured and more $billions are lost than any weapon causes. Surely, anyone would say that their life and that of tens of thousands of motorists killed is worth more than ease of travel that an auto affords me.(and driving is not even a right)


Take the rational of states suing cigarette companies, which was the $billions spent by the states to care for smokers. One could then argue that the thousands of people killed by guns is actually saving the states $billions. Besides, I thought that my right to choose a gun was more important then the potential loss of life that um ah, oh that's a different right that trumps any right to potential life...

[IA_Seth]

91. You kill me

Way to promote the party of inclusion by trying to chase of those people who speak out for what THEY believe in. You don't have to be a "gun-nut", a rethuglican, and NRA Astro-turf poster or whatever the hell you wanna make up at the time to believe that people have the right to own guns.

I have never been convicted of any crimes and I own plenty of guns, as did my father and his father's father. You want to try to take out a family tradition and you will split this party apart. People don't understand that this is an issue with personal responsibility.

We CANT be everything to everyone and sometimes you have to tell a kid NO instead of moving everything out of his reach.

[sled]

101. Absolutely

Apparently, posting singular insults, en masse, trumps reasonable discussion, in some circles...

[sled]

137. Half right???

I think you're half right, here. It's not "Astroturf", but I do think the NRA's a bunch of corporate shills, & would never depend on those political hacks, to defend my Second Amendment rights, especially, since they supported the assault weapons ban, before they were against it. "Flip-floppers", indeed.

Another example. They were for "concealed-carry permits", got that fraud passed, then encouraged the neo-cons, to run down to their local sheriffs dept., to sign themselves, right up, even though most of the Republicons, said they opposed gun licensing. Now they all run around, bragging about their concealed-carry permits, like it means anything, but they just registered themselves, with the government. Gun licensing? They went one better, & signed themselves up, as gunowners, instead.

Just like someone pointed out, in another post, unlicensed firearms, are hard to track, but a person, licensed by their local law enforcement, made it a hell of a lot easier, should gun confiscation, ever become a reality.

Dems should make hay out of it, at every opportunity, instead of kidding themselves, that they'll ever create some utopian society, where we all defend our rights, with nerf footballs, & blistering verbal attacks. It may happen, someday, but it wastes a lot of effort, & drives a lot of Dems, away from the party, in the mean time.

Maybe, for now, just agree, to disagree, & get onto something more important, like saving America, from these fascists, in DC.

[Nineteen Eighty Four]

84. Post count comment

Since when did Quantity ever make up for Quality?

When did ignorance ever make up for knowledge?

[sled]

138. Laws

The same argument could be made concerning laws...we've got so many, everybody's a criminal, at some time, or another, in their life, & it'd be hard to argue, we're any safer...but we keep stacking up law, upon law...hell, they've gotten so complex, they don't even know what they say, anymore, when more often, than not, the devil's in the details...

Harm another, a crime, harm yourself, or harm no one, not a crime...no victim, no crime, no harm, no foul...

Consensual crime, by adults, is a concept, I could never understand.

[blockhead]

170. I have a low post count, ask me anything!

ignorant statement

[Poppyseedman]

42. One of the great fallacies of this type thinking is

thinking police protect you before you are criminally assaulted.

They only protect you as a deterrent as they move in their patrols. The police only come after the crime as been committed.

They will come whether you are dead or alive.

Take away the guns of the people and there is no deterrent to the criminal element to attack.

[billbuckhead]

48. There's better chance you will be alive if guns are illegal like in Japan

or Ireland where they have almost no gun crime.

[Squatch]

50. Ummm...

"Former prison governor Professor David Wilson - now a criminologist - said the UK already had Europe's highest prison population and mandatory minimum sentences, but still had one of the worst crime rates.

"If sentencing had any part to play in reducing the crime rate, Britain would have the lowest crime rate in Europe," he said.

Prof Wilson said action should be focused on addressing the problem of social exclusion."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2624187.stm

[Poppyseedman]

52. No problem

See post # 40

Since crime in Japan compared to the US, is like comparing apples and bulldozers, that's not really a very good point.

If our culture mirrored Japan, we would have a lot less crime and a lot more weird cartoons.

Ireland gun crime is something I'l have to check out.

[billbuckhead]

56. Gee, USA 3.72 gun murders per 100K vs Ireland 0.03 gun murders per 100K

<http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html>
Those Irish are just so different than us Americans.

[Poppyseedman]

57. Couple of points

"There are liars, damn liars and statisticians" I think Twain said that.

The chart you linked was informative, but a couple things were glaringly obvious.

Numbers from 1991 really don't mean much today and they split Ireland and N. Ireland, so it would be like spitting New York State and the Midwest.

I would imagine the USA numbers would look much different too.

BTW, I'm not calling you are liar, that would be rude. Just making a point about how numbers can be made to say a lot of things on both sides.

[billbuckhead]

59. Freeping Northern Ireland is kind of at war, I guess that's who you really

want to compare the pitiful American statistics with. BTW, Northern Ireland is under English subjugation and not considered part of Ireland politcally.Let's include Washington D.C with Virginia and Maryland and call it a region.

[rinsd]

77. That stat is 13 years old.

How can you compare gun homicide rates from two different years? (Ireland in 1991 and the US in 1999).

[rinsd]

75. Can you back any of that up?

Because When I googled "Ireland Gun Crime", I came back with this

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=409632004

Which begs to differ.

[w4rma]

49. Disarming progressives? I hope SF residents aren't stupid enough to vote

for this. I hope the folks there don't have to learn the hard way about how dumb this is.

[rinsd]

60. So much for the "gun control ins't about confiscation" myth...

....at least in San Francisco.

[hollowdweller]

134. Exactly!! This is perfect to reinforce what the right has been saying

to scare people.

[slackmaster]

62. That city is run by idealistic fools

:shrug:

[Righteous9]

63. Wrong road for us to travel down.

I hate guns. I don't touch them.

I don't really think the second amendment has any practical value at this point in our history(though this could be debated), in terms of defending ourselves against our own government, given the technological might of our military(of course the iraqis are putting up quite a fight with what they have, so I could be wrong).

I think more innocent people die in gun related accidents than 'innocent' people are saved from access to them.(of course this isn't somehting I can just have an opinion on, but I think I remember seeing data to support this)

That all said, the entire foundation of my democratic understanding stems from the following words by Benjamin Franklin. they are particularly relavent post 9/11, and I'm sure you all know them.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

This should be the creed of the democratic party. When our policies deviate from these words, or butt heads against liberty in any way, we undermine our efforts to create a true free society. We fall into a hypocritical dip in the road. We can't argue for the high road and the high ideals if we use those ideals selectively.

There's a decent counter-argument to the one I've laid out, and I'll preface it with some words by Thomas Jefferson.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

Okay. Definitely. What could be a greater obstruction of another's liberty than to take that person's life? Good point. So you could argue that the right to bear arms is trumped by the right to life(though bear in mind Franklin's safety clause). But the democratic party should also be the party of truth(because the democracy it purports to fight for requires it), and while guns make killing easy, It is not the ownership of guns themselves that does the killing. Bowling for Columbine illustrated the mentality difference between americans and other gunheavy nations beautifully, along with the great discrepencies in gun violence between our nation and others.

The democratic party, as the party for truth, (and when I say that I realize I might raise some eyebrows using Michael Moore's movie as a benchmark- that's for a different discussion) cannot allow itself to do bad patch jobs that rail in the face of democracy, in the name of democracy. We need to fix these problems at their source, where they can actually be fixed, and not glossed over.

To say nothing of the ridiculously bad pr move this is. I mean, jesus. This is a huge amount of fuel for the other side, who now can rightly argue that we(because san francisco is a liberal icon that represents our furthest left, our most progressive)want to limit people's freedoms. Why are we shooting ourselves in the foot like this?

[m0nkeyneck]

64. if it's what the ppl of SF want...

i hope it doesn't happen here; i like shooting me gun @ the range ;-)

[slackmaster]

65. Even if the people of SF want a gun ban they can't have one

You can't always get everything you want. Our governments are designed to protect minority interests from tyranny by the majority.

[billbuckhead]

102. The Supreme court has never turned down a gun regulation

and if they do, there are ways of making gun owners miserable enough to give them up or move.

[slackmaster]

107. The California Supreme Court overturned an SF gun ban in 1982

And there have been others overturned because of California's non-preemption law.

Google it.

[billbuckhead]

108. You need to Google Hawaii's pop Slackster, if you can't get that right....

[slackmaster]

109. I did - you are correct

Metropolitan counties = ~905,000, other areas bring pop to about 1.25 million.

[hollowdweller]

135. If they want it they can have it. But at the costs of a wider loss for Dem

s in 08. They should know that what they are doing at the local level will lose us votes at the national level.

[VegasWolf]

66. This should run out the last two republicans left in SF. gawd i miss

living in that city.

[Freddie Stubbs]

74. DC has a handgun ban and look how low crime is there

[Romulus]

78. not to mention Chicago. . . (n/t)

[billbuckhead]

93. The safest cities are all in Blue states with strong gun laws Read it&weep

Best Large Cities for Crime (>500,000 pop.)
New Jersey boasts three of the nation's safest and most secure metro areas:


Nassau-Suffolk, NY *
Nassau-Suffolk has the second-lowest overall crime rate in the nation, thanks to extremely low violent and property crime rates
Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ
The Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon area has one of the lowest murder rates in the nation, in addition to a very low rate of larceny.
Ventura, CA
Ventura has a very low property crime rate and one of the lowest larceny rates in the country.
Monmouth-Ocean, NJ
Monmouth-Ocean has one of the lowest auto theft rates in the country, and an overall low rate of property crime.
Bergen-Passaic, NJ
Bergen-Passaic has especially low rates of forcible rape and larceny


The most crime ridden are Red states with promiscuous gun regulation


Tucson, AZ
Tucson has one of the highest property crime rates in the country, especially larceny. On the bright side, Tucson has a low murder rate.
Memphis, TN-AR-MS *
Residents of Memphis contend with the nation's second-highest violent crime rate. In addition, the rate of robbery and burglary are among the nation's highest.
Miami, FL
Miami's violent crime rate is the highest in the nation, with especially high incidences of robbery and assault. Thankfully, the murder rate is relatively low.
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ
Phoenix-Mesa has one of the highest rates of auto theft in the nation.
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR
The Little Rock area has a high rate of property crime, especially larceny.


<http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime1.aspx>

[Romulus]

139. you forgot Camden, NJ

the most crime-ridden city in the US this year:

http://www.cybersignal.org/showArticle.php?id=1410

TRENTON — Camden has become the nation’s most dangerous city, according to a Kansas company’s yearly ranking based on crime statistics.

Camden, which was ranked third last year, took the dubious honor from Detroit, which fell to second in this year’s list. However, Camden area officials downplayed the designation, saying many steps have already been taken to reduce crime in the city.

*snip*

The rankings look at the rate for six crime categories: Murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and auto theft. Morgan Quitno compares 350 cities with populations of 75,000 or more that reported crime data to the FBI.

Final 2003 statistics, released by the FBI in October, were used to determine the rankings.

[billbuckhead]

151. CDC says New Jersey has second lowest rate of gun violence

According to Soros, the state with the strongest gun laws is Massachusetts, and according to 2000 data from the Centers for Disease Control, Massachusetts residents enjoy the lowest rates of gun violence in the nation. According to CDC, Massachusetts's overall death rate from guns in 2000 was 2.84 per 100,000 people, well ahead of second-place New Jersey's 4.16 and nearly one fourth of the national average, 10.41.

<http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,562335,00.html>

[Romulus]

140. and you must have missed this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x96095

[MisterCompletly]

166. It depends on who is getting shot

If it's the bad guys raping, mugging, carjacking etc that are catching lead then it's not gun crime it's justice. What was the yardstick in your reports?

[billbuckhead]

95. Actually Red state New Orleans has a higher murder rate than

the the Metro DC area.
<http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime3.aspx>

[Freddie Stubbs]

110. How about the actuall city of Washington?

The DC metro area includes MD and VA. Virginia has much looser gun laws than DC. What about the crime rate in DC itself?

[billbuckhead]

115. It's hard to get these statistics for some reason,I have my suspicions why

The FBI stats I've seen lumps them together, but Maryland is also included in the stat. In a real world sense that's probably more accurate to include them all together cause they are all together in reality. Many of the guns used in DC come form Virginia, Maryland (which has weak enforcement of stronger gun laws. West Virginia, Kentucky and Georgia are within short driving range and have even weaker laws and enforcement than Virginia and Maryland, so many of the guns come from there as well.

My suspicions about why usable gun crime statistics are hard to find is because they rarely favor the the pro gun side and Republicans don't like them. Our famous advocate for democracy, George Soros has started to get involved and is funding more study of this national tragedy. Check it out.

Gun Laws Get Credit for Homicide Declines

Feature Story
by Dick Dahl


Total gun deaths in the U.S. have been dropping steadily since 1993, when they peaked at nearly 40,000, to around 28,000 annually 1999 through 2001. Although firearm suicides have remained fairly constant at over 16,000 per year, the decrease in gun homicides has accounted for the bulk of the decline. A variety of explanations have been offered to account for the decline in gun homicides, but recent research has demonstrated that strong gun laws should be considered a leading reason.

An article published by the American Journal of Public Health last December showed that the six states with the highest rates of gun ownership--Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Wyoming--had homicide rates that were three times higher than the four states with the lowest rates of gun ownership--Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The study's lead author, Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, concluded that "guns, on balance, lethally imperil rather than protect Americans." Combined with a 2000 assessment of gun laws around the nation by the Soros Foundation, the data also show that lax gun laws imperil Americans. That's because the Soros scorecard listed each of the six high-homicide states among the bottom third of states with the weakest gun laws, and it listed the four low-homicide states among the top 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

According to Soros, the state with the strongest gun laws is Massachusetts, and according to 2000 data from the Centers for Disease Control, Massachusetts residents enjoy the lowest rates of gun violence in the nation. According to CDC, Massachusetts's overall death rate from guns in 2000 was 2.84 per 100,000 people, well ahead of second-place New Jersey's 4.16 and nearly one fourth of the national average, 10.41.

<http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/features/reader/0,2061,562335,00.html>

[Tacos al Carbon]

79. Well, that's the Second Amendment

I wonder if San Francisco will go after the First Amendment next ...

[billbuckhead]

92. I hope San Fran buys a bunch of RPG's and Ak-47's and starts a real

militia. A bunch of plastic explosives to make IED's would be good as well.

[Tacos al Carbon]

103. Really?

Who do you think the people of San Francisco should use their RPGs, AK-47's and IEDs on? Do you think that the cablecars of the occupation forces need blowing up?

[gizmo1979]

94. man o man

Just a bad bad idea.I spend 10 months of the year trying to convince otherwise democratic thinking people,that they won't take your guns away,and then this.We just lost those votes forever.I'll hear about this at work tommorrow.

[Walt Starr]

96. STUPID MOVE!

STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!

I tell you what, some government wonk comes to take a gun from me will only get the business end of it!

[davidinalameda]

97. saw this on the news last night

I just moved from San Francisco and if I was still living there, I would have to vote against this

I can't see this being constitutional even though Daly said that it is

I'm not a big gun fan and I lived in an area where there were a few gun deaths--mostly crack dealers--this year and it scared the hell out of me a few times hearing gun shots

I wouldn't doubt that it will pass--people in the city are getting tired of the shootings

I don't think this is the answer by any stretch of the imagination though. It's just going to make the problem go underground. People will be able to go 5 miles in any direction and buy the guns.

I hate to admit it that I believe the NRA is right on one point--only the criminals will have guns if this is passed

[sled]

104. The "War on drugs"

Perfect example...more laws=more drugs, & more lethal drugs...& artificial price support, to boot...& only effects law-abiding citizens, in the first place...

Why not just outlaw guns, in Iraq, & declare "Mission Accomplished"?...again...

[0007]

171. Sounds good to me

[billbuckhead]

105. Logically it's true that only criminals will have guns if this passes

They'll be easier to pick out, arrest and put away. People will snitch on these illegal gun owners and put them away before they do harm.

[sled]

106. Thanks

Appreciate the civility. Love SF, was there, for the first time in 2002, at the National NORML Convention. An American treasure, me thinks, had a ball...

[NickB79]

111. Yes, because people drop the dime on gangbangers all the time

No one would ever be afraid of retribution for snitching on gang members, would they?

[billbuckhead]

113. Gee whiz you'd rather get in a gun fight with them

:think:

[NickB79]

125. Where did I say that?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. And you nicely evaded my question: do you think people who live in high-crime areas are going to tip off the police to criminals who own guns, when most are already too afraid to turn in criminals selling drugs or pimping prostitutes on their street corners? Or, for that matter, will our police departments have the funding to go after the criminals when the calls come, as Bush underfunds virtually every facet of America today?

[billbuckhead]

160. So you'll just let the gangbangers take over and hide in your house

fondling your gun. Some freedom that is.

[NickB79]

164. And removing that gun would somehow make me safer?

I, a law-abiding citizen, turn over my gun if the law so demands. The gangs, on the other hand, do not. Since this law only applies to a very small portion of the United States, new guns can be continuously imported from other cities to satisfy the demand for new ones by criminals. Even assuming they somehow found a way to cut off the importation of illegal firearms, do you believe they would simply give up their criminal past and turn into fine upstanding citizens with successful careers? Guns are but one tool of a gang; they have many other tools with which to terrorize local neighborhoods. More people are beaten, stabbed and strangled to death to death in this country than shot, so why should I not expect any one of those things to happen to me after the ban?

So, instead of sitting at home fondling my gun, I am forced to sit at home and fondle my much less effective baseball bat for self-defense. That's even less freedom.

[billbuckhead]

165. Taking on the gangbangers is what will make the neighborhood safer

So sit at home and play with your "gun".

[billbuckhead]

168. Close to twice as many Americans are murdered by guns than other ways

According to Guncite. a progun website, guns are used in 3.72 murders per 100,000 vs 1.98 for all other means in the USA. Guns are the first, second and third choice of bad guys everywhere. Al Queda makes fun of our ridiculous gun laws in their handbook and tells it's terrorists to enjoy.
<http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html>

Making it illegal for the bad guys to have guns makes it easier to arrest the bad guys. Why should citizens be held captive to gun terrorism? Urban neighborhoods should have the right to ban guns outright and to raise real well regulated militias with stronger weapons. Basically the progun camp enables criminals and terrorists. there's blood on the hands of all the 2nd amendment extremists who are against all gun laws or local determination of gun regulation, starting with John Asskkkroft.

[slackmaster]

175. paging billbuckhead

Making it illegal for the bad guys to have guns makes it easier to arrest the bad guys.

If you define "bad guys" as people who have been convicted of violent crimes in the past, it is already illegal for bad guys to have guns. Do you actually believe that making it ever-so-slightly more illegal for bad guys in San Francisco to have guns will make it any less likely that a bad guy in San Francisco will have a gun? Or that a police officer who encounters a bad guy with a gun needs more reason to arrest him than already exists under current law?

Or do you just wish everyone with a gun was automatically considered a "bad guy"?

BTW - all gun sales in California, both new and used, require background checks.

[billbuckhead]

177. If the San Francisco voters decides that owning a gun makes one a bad guy

Then they should have their democratic right to control dangerous weapons on their streets. I see the second amendment as a collective right. I hope San Fran starts a real militia with RPG's and IED's.

[slackmaster]

180. Under California state law, San Franciscans do not have that right

It's settled law. They tried the same crap in 1982 and got their asses handed to them.

Then they should have their democratic right to control dangerous weapons on their streets.

They have the right to control dangerous weapons in their own homes just like everyone else. That right ends where someone else's rights and property begins.

I see the second amendment as a collective right.

Millions of voters disagree strongly enough to make that attitude a vote-busting proposition. If we as a party adopted your view as a plank in the platform we could kiss the next election goodbye.

I hope San Fran starts a real militia with RPG's and IED's.

I think writers who go overboard with hyperbole deserve to be taken out and summarily executed.

O8)

[saigon68]

143. No Diane Feinstein has a carry permit

The big rich people always seem to get around the law.

And the rich have Black water industries to watch their sorry asses.

[IA_Seth]

148. Do you know many "gang-bangers"? n/t

[Selatius]

120. I'm sorry, but that sounds too "rosy scenario" for me

People smuggle in guns all the time. I don't believe they are as easy to pick out as how you put it. It takes time to track down just one gun, nevermind several hundred in the hands of crooks, and that's not assuming these guns have the numbers scraped off, which is usually the case. You'll be trying to take guns off the market, but they'll be smuggling in more from the outside at the same time. I fear it'd be like the drug war, except with gun ownership instead.

I recommend common sense regulations, and if that means being incredibly strict like the Swiss, then I'm all for it, but this is far easier done than trying to ban them outright. That's going to drive the issue underground.

If you want to fight violent crime, you're going to have to come up with a holistic solution that addresses poverty, after-school programs for kids, enforcing existing gun regulations/legislating regulations, neighborhood watch programs, police funding, etc. That's what I'd recommend.

[MisterCompletly]

167. Just like in DC?

As the evidence shows in DC that dog don't hunt.

[LiberalFighter]

98. I don't agree with the exceptions.

Anyone who has not been deemed mentally unstable or has a restraining order against them should be allowed to own a gun. There may be a few others.

But it wouldn't be any different in the old days of the Wild West when sheriffs imposed gun control laws within city limits.

[steve2470]

116. call me a pessimist but.....

I really don't think any sort of gun control has any chance in this country. Why ? It goes against very strong currents in our society, such as strong materialism, the chronic rich/poor gap, a pseudo-frontier mentality, and an ingrained aggressiveness. In the "red states" and in many parts of the "blue states", many people agree with the argument "take away the guns and only the crooks will have guns". Our culture is an aggressive one, let's face it folks. Whether for passion, material things, or vengeance, guns are the means to an end. We of a more "pacifist" stripe cannot understand the fascination. We Democrats should completely drop this issue and just focus on a voting system of integrity, restoring civil liberties, and getting our message into the MSM somehow, probably by buying media outlets. I am not sure bringing back the "fairness doctrine" would pass at this point.

[sendero]

118. Not only that...

... but only law abiding folks will pay any attention to the ban, therefore only thugs will have guns.

A recipe for nothing good.

People who wish to pass such legislation are as bone-stupid as those who tried to outlaw alcohol and still try to outlaw pot. They live in a twinkle world where problems can be solved with the stroke of a pen.

Must be nice to be so deluded.

[sled]

122. No shit

Like the assault weapons ban was such a raging success, too.

[FredScuttle]

119. ahem

what's with all the hubbub? It's only a ballot initiative that we SF voters will defeat, as we should. I think handguns are a cancer in any city, but this isn't the answer.

[Romulus]

145. we'll just have to see

I'm predicting passage by a landslide . . .

and the subsequent kissing of the '06 federal midterms goodbye :(

I mean, who in SF came up with the timing?!?! Takes effect in 2006!?!?!

[FredScuttle]

154. Here we go again

I had no idea a city of just under 800,000 could impact national elections. We must be the powerful city that ever existed on the face of the earth!

Well, it's got to be logical because, you know, when that school district in Dover PA voted to mandate the teaching of intellgent design, everyone on this board raved about how this would turn the midterm elections for the Democrats, right? Er, um.....

Newsflash: San Francisco did not lose the presidential election because Gavin Newsom decided to uphold civil rights for all.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

157. The city is all the proof conservatives need

Of leftwing plans to take away guns. That wins an awful lot of votes.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NickB79]

130. Do they know what kind of loon is in the White House right now?

The father of my best friend grew up in Cambodia, and was a young man with a wife and two children when the Khamer Rouge took power in the 1970's. He was stripped of his business, his car, his home, and every possession they had except the clothes on their backs. They were sent to the rice paddies where they were enslaved and forced to work day and night. They were the lucky ones; some of their friends and family were simply shot and killed. They eventually escaped and came to the United States as refugees, under a church program that provided them with a foster family in South Dakota to help them get back on their feet. Unfortunately, their eldest son didn't escape; he starved to death in the camp as his parents watched.

In his closet he stores an AK-47 clone (complete with folding stock and several 30-rd magazines), an SKS, a 9mm handgun, a .30-06 bolt-action rifle with scope, and an impressive supply of ammo for all of them, despite the fact he has never been a hunter. Once he had obtained a decent job and citizenship here in the US, these were some of his first major purchases. Seeing how our government is circling the drain right now, I don't question his logic.

[sled]

131. Thank you

My opinions to a Tee. I haven't hunted in over 30 yrs., but I don't own guns, to hunt. Militia crackpot? Maybe...don't know any personally, but I know what defends the rest of my rights, including the First, & if you don't believe the Second, defends the First, I think the quagmire in Iraq, should be an eye-opener, for every American. This is our country..."we the people", & the Founders knew exactly what they had in mind. Without the Second, they'd have never even been able to start this, "more perfect union"...& it's not about squirrel hunting, contrary to what the NRA, may attempt to sell their members...it's just what your friend's father, thinks it is...

Call me a "nut", call me a "fool"...just don't call me late for supper... If I've got a right, I'm going to excercise it to the fullest, extent of the law...free people do those things, try it some time, a very liberating experience...

It's not the government's country, it's ours...time we acted like it, again...freedom & respect will take us a long way toward, putting America back together again...

Sort of like the "Patriot Act". If these terrorists were truly after our "freedom", as Dumbya said they were, we should have been screwing in the streets, legalizing everything, on 9/12, not running for cover & shredding the Constitution, etc.

So I'm an "idiot", but I'm a free "idiot"...try it sometime, feels good...live on your feet, or die on your knees, it's your choice...as American, as apple pie...

[Sivafae]

142. That's just dumb

Although it may work well in NY City, I don't think SF-ians should waste their time with this idea.
All other arguments aside, and many have very good ideas.
There was a program in Both SF and Oakland where the city gave $$ for guns anonymously surrendered to the police. I don't think that people who register their guns are going to hijack a plane. That is a dumb idea. After seeing Bowling for Columbine, I realized that a lot of the guns in the "inner-city" were coming from the 'burbs, and being sold illegally. These are the guns I think are the most dangerous. By creating this law, we will not remove the danger of guns in neighborhoods.

[theboss]

146. Oh Sweet Jesus....

What happens if you don't hand in your gun after 90 days?

I could see some value in this if it grandfathered in old guns. But does this mean that if I own a pistol that my uncle carried in Normandy, I have to give it to Willie Fuckin' Brown?

[slackmaster]

150. The proposal has no buyout and no grandfather clause

It's unconstitutional on many levels. But the SF supervisors who proposed it have no delusion that it will actually come to be.

[Piperay]

149. This kind of proposal will

boost NRA membership by thousands and get their voters out in droves against Democrats in future elections. x(

[MNBiker]

158. Gang members will be exempt from the law....It's a fact

[sled]

159. Yep

kick

[CreekDog]

172. Don't overreact here (measure didn't get majority of Supervisors' support)

Only 5 of 11 of the Board of Supervisors supported placing this measure on the ballot in probably the most liberal city in the nation. I don't think it will be close when the voters vote on it either.

It doesn't take much to get things on the SF Ballot. Don't take that to mean that it will happen.