San Francisco voters BAN HANDGUNS

[photobyalan]

Compairing cars to hand guns is silly.

Perhaps...

After all, all states require licenses and insurance for cars. Many states also require frequent inspections of your car, and annual taxes to own one. Gun owners would go ballistic (forgive the pun) over any of those measures for guns. Even the minimal permitting required in certain places for guns is too much for some.

Yes, states do require licenses for drivers and registrations for cars, and cars are still more deadly than guns. My gun is registered. I was required to present myself at the police station, submit myself to being fingerprinted, bring the gun in so the police could record the serial number. I don't recall "going ballistic" over these requirements. Agreed, some gun owners don't want these registration requirements, but the majority of people who legally own handguns for self defense and target shooting are comfortable with it. I would not object to having to buy insurance for my gun, so long as it was fairly priced to reflect the actual statistical probability that it would be used to shoot someone. As for the annual taxes on cars, those are used mostly to pay for roads which are required by the cars themselves. There is simply no fiscal justification to levy an annual tax on gun ownership, since guns do not need a government-supplied infrastructure to operate.

Cars weren't made for one purpose. They were made to get you from point A to point B. And came in different versions to accomedate what you needed to bring you.?

Nevertheless, the fact remains that more people die each year by automobile than by firearm. So one must explain that by saying that cars don't kill people; bad drivers, using cars, kill people. I'll concede that but, in the same vein, guns do not kill people; people kill people, using guns, (and knives, fists, and blunt objects, and the list goes on...)

Why not throw in some other big killers... like gravity or old age.?

Ahh, but old age is a natural cause. I'd be completely in favor of outlawing death by old age, although I suspect that such a law would do about as much good as outlawing handguns in San Francisco.

Unless you live in San Fran and own a handgun.. why are you so worried about anyway?

I never said I was worried. The "law" has no chance of being upheld in court. What worries me is that my local politicians might try some similar stupid publicity stunt in my town and then MY tax dollars are going to get wasted on an unnecessary court proceeding. That's a lot more likely than the possibilty that I will be the victim (or perpetrator) of gun violence.

 

[shamus]

I don't think you can use the argument towards hand guns about how great they are for personal protection for the everyman and his family, as your claim they saved your live when you were on duty as a police officer.

That would be like my uncle talking about how everyone should have an M60 because in 1968 one saved his life...

 

[Biltmore Bob]

I was also a firearms instructor....

I recomend keeping a baseball bat in your car too. You know, for that unexpected sandlot pickup game. Or to bash someone's head in if needed.

Handguns are a better means of self defense than nothing. Home/Personal Security is multi layered but I do recomend a firearm as the last means of self defense for the home owner. Why should the police be the only ones alowed to protect themselves? What makes them better than Joe Citizen? Don't give me that 'harms way' stuff either. The world's not a safe place and getting worse. I don't know the exact stat but it's something like one in three or five will be the victim of a violent crime in the US. Ok for the sake of argument let's say the number is one in ten, do you wahnt to be number ten with no means to protect yourself. Say your a big martial arts enthusiast on scale with Bruce Lee. Great, but what about your 70 year old Grandmother or your crippled sister who's confined to a wheelchair? Anyway the martial arts look good on tv and the movies and it is a good idea to stay in shape and learn to fight but chances are everyone is not Stephen Segal. When I was a cop we had a saying..."There are two types of people, ones that have been victimized and ones that are going to be..."

An M60 is impractical for home defense, but a handgun or shotgun is not. Unless of course you live in France, then I recomend an M60.

 

[Slate Shannon]

Hand guns are made for one purpose. Killing humans. Except for the Thompson line of hand guns and the like that are for hunting purposes.

That may come as a surprise to the people who participate in cowboy action shooting and other organized handgun shooting competitions. I have owned multiple handguns over many years and fired thousands of rounds through them, yet I have never killed nor even shot a human or animal with one.

I suspect that the pro-handgun people will continue to be pro-handgun, and the anti-handgun people will continue to be anti-handgun. And neither side is likely to convert anyone from the other side. So, I'm going to drift back to reading about hats, and movies, and old time radios, and other such things. Guns will always be a hot-button issue, and I sincerely hope there will no lingering hard feelings on either side.

 

[nightandthecity]

I suspect that the pro-handgun people will continue to be pro-handgun, and the anti-handgun people will continue to be anti-handgun. And neither side is likely to convert anyone from the other side. So, I'm going to drift back to reading about hats, and movies, and old time radios, and other such things. Guns will always be a hot-button issue, and I sincerely hope there will no lingering hard feelings on either side.

Slate, those are wise words.

Here?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a view from that small insignificant place known as the rest of the world.

The US has a major problem with guns. It has a major problem with violent crime in general and firearms crime in particular. In fact it's something of a world leader in the area. But this is not new. People were seriously worried about it 200 years ago. If you like it's a deeply ingrained cultural thing that is hard for people like us Brits to really grasp.

It would undoubtedly be a very good thing for the US to start taking a lot of its guns out of circulation. However, you don't have to be a gun crazy militia member to think that it hardly makes sense to start with the legal guns in the hands of the generally law abiding. I don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t profess to know the answer to this conundrum. I do know that a lot of the arguments I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve heard over the years on both sides are pretty spurious with a lot of dodgy statistics, dodgier logic, pure emotionalism, and outright faked evidence in circulation.

I vote for back to hats.

 

[shamus]

That may come as a surprise to the people who participate in cowboy action shooting and other organized handgun shooting competitions.

I said hand guns are made for killing, cars are made to get from point A to B.

People who compete in cowboy action shooting shoot at targets that look like people. They're re-inacting shooting people, just like war re-inactors pretend to kill people.

Yes Colt and the others do make finely tuned handguns for competition, They also make finely crafted gold gilted ones for display. But the hand gun was originally made, no matter how fancy it looks or how smooth is shoots, to kill.

And I agree that no matter what I say, I won't change anyones mind on the subject.

As to the San Fran law, I think it's silly. I'm not against guns at all, but I don't think you need to keep one in the car, one on the hip, one in each room of your house...because... you know just in case...

 

[Biltmore Bob]

As to the San Fran law, I think it's silly. I'm not against guns at all, but I don't think you need to keep one in the car, one on the hip, one in each room of your house...because... you know just in case...

Then that's your perogative, Shamus. I would not recomend you own a firearm if you don't want one, or want to use one. Some folks should not own one and there are laws against that. But that does not keep them out of their hands, and frankly never will. I prefer to be armed and I am willing to use deadly force in defense of myself, family and property. Why disarm a populace that is 90% law abiding. There is 10% that won't follow the law anyway.

I rather be armed and not need to be, than be unarmed and need to be. I guess if you have never been in that type situation you can't understand. I want my wife to be armed when she is walking through the parking garage or washes her car at an outside car wash. By the way those are great predator hangouts. ATMs are another.

 

[SHARPETOYS]

Plain and simple

I eat meat and I hunt. I only eat what I kill . Since I don't eat rabbitts I don't kill them. I carry a gun and also keep one in my car in case I run out and forget to pack on my gun. If you try to hurt me or others I will shoot to kill you. I obey all laws of my state but not all others do! Funny thing crime is down in Florida since a few of us have a CWP.

 

[BellyTank]

OK- but if you killed me, would you eat me...? I'm not French...
Huh? Wouldja..?

'Shooting to kill' in exchange for 'trying to hurt' seems rather extreme old Chap-


B
T

 

[Biltmore Bob]

If I shoot you..

I'll eat you BT.

I like my Kiwi rare with garlic and butter.

It's easier to shoot center mass, therefore shooting to kill, than it is to shoot to injure.

 

[BellyTank]

You're quick today- I KNEW you'd be the BT-eater Bob.
C'mon Bawb, how can people love garlic'n'butter and hate the French..?

I like guns too- used to do a little target-pistol shooting... and once I killed a wild boar with a knife... can't imagine doing that nowadays...:hamburger

B
T with garlic butter...mmm...

 

[Andykev]

Be Prepared- The Scout Motto

I don't think you can use the argument towards hand guns about how great they are for personal protection for the everyman and his family....That would be like my uncle talking about how everyone should have an M60 because in 1968 one saved his life...

We can banter back and forth all day about the possession of guns in the United States. You can sing the songs" it's better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it", or "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6".
It goes on and on. Some very good points have been made. I do not believe that the STATE should deprive the citizenry of their Constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms (oh, some think that is only for a "well regulated militia". But if you found ACCURATE statistics (and I know, yes KNOW) police departments and cities hide true numbers for obvious reasons..., but isn't it true that states where it is relatively easy to get a carry permit, there is LESS crime, as the thug, crook has to think twice about what may come his way if he attacks another?
Bitlmore Bob is correct in that you should be able to defend yourself from harm. No, you can't shoot a guy who's stealing your t.v., bicycle, or other property. Deadly force is supposed to stop someone from doing harm to your person. I don't think I would ever shoot anyone who is a common thief, as the $1500 T.V. isn't worth getting arrested, your name in the paper, having the bad guys' family come back and "get even", have to prove you were threatened...spend thousands on an attorney..you know how it goes, at least out here in California.

So, do you need a gun? I think so, if you are an honest, capable, sane, responsible person. I always ask this: If during WWII, if EVERY Jew answered his door holding a gun, and I mean EVERY JEW, would the Nazi's have gotten as far as they did? What does anyone blindly think that something like that couldn't happen again? Even in the USA? History repearts itself. We are someday going to have car and suicide bombings here (don't forget 9/11). And if the Bird Flue Pandemic comes into furiition, and kills millions around the globe, what is going to happen in the streets of YOUR city? Don't think grim times can't become a reality. You may need to defend yourself. Ok that was extreme, and I really am an optimist. But I am also careful.

 

[The Wingnut]

I recomend keeping a baseball bat in your car too. You know, for that unexpected sandlot pickup game. Or to bash someone's head in if needed.

I keep a 'crash bar' in my car. A 26" titanium crowbar, polished to a mirror shine. Just in case I get in a wreck and need to pry myself out, or see someone that needs assistance.

Of course, properly held, it can be used just like a side-handled police baton.

 

[photobyalan]

I keep a 'crash bar' in my car. A 26" titanium crowbar, polished to a mirror shine. Just in case I get in a wreck and need to pry myself out, or see someone that needs assistance.

Of course, properly held, it can be used just like a side-handled police baton.

Those can be effective in the right situation, but I'd hate to show up at a gunfight with one.[bad]

 

[The Wingnut]

Wouldn't think of it.

It's been used mostly as a pry bar to put tension on alternators while tightening them after they've been installed.

I own a firearm, but there's no way it would be kept in my car loaded. Locked up for transport with no ammunition, yes. Definietly not loaded for defense. I'd try to escape by driving away before shooting it out(I'm a far better driver than I am a marksman, and my car is VERY manuverable). If a police officer were to find it, I'd be in prison. All it takes is a traffic stop and an observant cop.

 

[Joseph Casazza]

Yes, states do require licenses for drivers and registrations for cars, and cars are still more deadly than guns. My gun is registered. I was required to present myself at the police station, submit myself to being fingerprinted, bring the gun in so the police could record the serial number. I don't recall "going ballistic" over these requirements. Agreed, some gun owners don't want these registration requirements, but the majority of people who legally own handguns for self defense and target shooting are comfortable with it. I would not object to having to buy insurance for my gun, so long as it was fairly priced to reflect the actual statistical probability that it would be used to shoot someone. As for the annual taxes on cars, those are used mostly to pay for roads which are required by the cars themselves. There is simply no fiscal justification to levy an annual tax on gun ownership, since guns do not need a government-supplied infrastructure to operate.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that more people die each year by automobile than by firearm. So one must explain that by saying that cars don't kill people; bad drivers, using cars, kill people. I'll concede that but, in the same vein, guns do not kill people; people kill people, using guns, (and knives, fists, and blunt objects, and the list goes on...)

Well, one could argue for days without resolution on the smaller points. For example, when people are "operating" guns, there does tend to be a need for government supplied infrastructure - police to investigate the crime and apprehend the suspect, prosecutors to obtain a conviction, and prisons for the criminals. And while I cannot disagree with you that individuals are responsible for how they use anything, the fact is that guns are for making killing easier, and mostly for making killing people easier; the intent to kill, whether in self defense or otherwise, is there from the start. That seems to warrant much greater care on the part of government. We exercise governmental care with cars, or with prescription drugs, whose intent is far more benevolent, and it makes sense to exercise it with guns. It is only frustration with any other reasonable way to reduce handgun violence, and, I suspect, desire not to live in a society where everyone must go armed for protection - a real nightmare, as I said, and something with which my immigrant ancestors would not have been happy, a sign of regression to barbarism and not of a well ordered republic - that leads to these largely symbolic and always ineffective bans. Calling San Francisco voters names and railing against their stupidity, as much as trivializing the real concern of the citizens with platitutes about people killing people rather than guns killing people is just as ineffective in addressing the real public safety problems faced by large cities.

 

[nightandthecity]

That?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s very well put Joseph. I would add this: I bet the Liberal/Conservative dichotomy wasn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t the only one operating in SF when they took that vote, has anyone analysed it in terms of gender? I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢d be willing to bet there was a significant male/female split that cut across party lines. One aspect of the problem seems to me that us boys ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú good guys and bad guys alike ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú tend to fetishize guns. Women tend not to. But as wives, mothers and Nurses they do have to clean up the mess after us.

 

[jamespowers]

Ok, ok around and around we go but what are the statistics saying? What are the number one weapons used to kill people every year in the US according the the FBI statistics?
I think we should ban them and have waiting periods on them. Everyone should carry insurance on them and be taxed every time they are used. We need strict laws enforcing the correct use of these weapons. People are killed every year when these weapons can be carried without permits. Everyone should have to get a permit to use them. The waiting period should be several years. We could simply translate every gun law onto these weapons and make it safer for all of us. Even in self-defense situations these weapons can be turned on us and be used against us.

Regards to all,

J

 

[nightandthecity]

OK....OK

I'd guess good old fists (and feet)?

If I'm right is there a prize?

 

[shamus]

Here's a thought...

If the majority of voters in San Fran wanted this and voted for it. Then shouldn't they decide what's good for their city and we should respect that?