San Francisco to ban guns?

[Tribun]

And the number of crimes is decreasing every year anyway since the late 1980's.

So have American Crime rates without the need for massive gun control.

I can't really understand why you Americans are so gun-happy? Are these things some kind of relegious symbol for you?! If someone thinks he is cool or the better one, just because he owns a gun, it is really poor.

I for my part have only came in contanct with guns in my whole life only, when I was drafted into the army. Firing the G3 and G36 at targets was nice, but hadn't made me belive that weapons are someting everyone needs.

[Natorgator]

Gun control seems like it's worked okay for Canada.

[frigidmagi]

We have basically the same firearms laws as the US, minus concealed carry.

You were saying?

[Master of Ossus]

So have American Crime rates without the need for massive gun control.

I can't really understand why you Americans are so gun-happy? Are these things some kind of relegious symbol for you?! If someone thinks he is cool or the better one, just because he owns a gun, it is really poor.

I for my part have only came in contanct with guns in my whole life only, when I was drafted into the army. Firing the G3 and G36 at targets was nice, but hadn't made me belive that weapons are someting everyone needs.

Your response to the point that American crime rates have dropped without the need for gun control is to ask why Americans are gun-happy?

[Tribun]

Shit, hit the wrong quote button.......

...sorry, that answer was concerning an other post.

[Ma Deuce]

We have basically the same firearms laws as the US, minus concealed carry.

You were saying?

Yep: IIRC, you can even own "evil assault weapons" like AR-15s up here provided you don't use magazines larger than 5 rounds (this apples to all semi-auto rifles up here anyway). Also, our abortion of a national firearms registry is for all practical purposes defunct (even though it continues to suck up millions of dollars every year), given that 5 provinces (including Ontario) are refusing to prosecute owners of unregistered firearms, and only about half of Canada's privately owned firearms are even registered anyway...

[Alyeska]

I can't really understand why you Americans are so gun-happy? Are these things some kind of relegious symbol for you?! If someone thinks he is cool or the better one, just because he owns a gun, it is really poor.

I for my part have only came in contanct with guns in my whole life only, when I was drafted into the army. Firing the G3 and G36 at targets was nice, but hadn't made me belive that weapons are someting everyone needs.

So fucking what? You have yet to provide a reason why guns should be banned.

[Beowulf]

You have to prove why guns should be banned, not us prove that guns shouldn't be.

[Alyeska]

These are the two primary arguments applied towards heavy gun control and gun banning.

1: Guns kill people, therefore they should be banned.

2: The sole purpose behind a gun is to kill people, therefore it should be banned.

Now lets look at these arguments and see where they fail.

Argument number one purely states guns kill people and deserve to be banned. Using the exact same logic ANYTHING that kills people should be banned. Chief on that list should be cars. Cars kill more then twice as many people every year as guns. So this argument flops. Just because guns kill people does not automatically prove they should be banned.

Argument number two takes the stance that because guns are designed to kill people they should be banned. Furthermore it asserts the only purpose of a gun is to kill. This argument immediately falls on its face by looking at the simple fact that there are millions of guns in the United States that are never used to kill people. Several are designed for hunting purposes, and this is only killing of game. Several guns are also designed for self defense. While this includes the possibility of killing, self defense guns are actually much better suited as a deterrent. Last, but not least, the most common use of guns is recreational shooting. So argument number two fails miserably, but that’s not all. Using the premise of the argument (something originally designed for the purpose of killing people in warfare) knives, clubs, bows, crossbows, ANY conceivable weapon, no matter how hard it is to use or what its alternate purposes are, should be outright banned. And yet I don’t hear people calling for knife control.

[aerius]

Here is something worth considering. John Stossel did one of his reports where he was looking at the top 10 urban legends of common culture. One of them was gun control. John decided the best people to talk to on the issue were criminals. He went to a high security prison and asked the criminals what they thought about gun control. They love gun control. The criminals don’t bother buying their guns legally and they love any law that restricts guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. In turn, the criminals actually fear an armed populace.

Yep. In the UK you can see a nice correlation in the rise of crime rates which nicely coincides with the introduction of new weapons control laws. Every time they ban something, you see a nice upwards bump in the crime rate, and this is despite their revised crime reporting scheme which was introduced around '98 to make it look like CCTV & weapons control was working. Under the old scheme, if a guy broke into a building and stabbed 3 people, it's counted as 3 knife-related offences, under the new scheme, it's counted as 1.

[Alyeska]

Ok, we’ve just looked at the irrational arguments for heavy gun control and gun banning. Now lets look at rational argument.

We need heavy gun control because guns pose a serious threat to society disproportionate to the loss of the rights of the gun owners.

What is being stated is that gun crime is serious enough for society to restrict the freedoms of the gun owners to better society as a whole. This is a very serious issue and can not be treated lightly. Democractic societies built on freedoms have natural dangers associated with freedom because people are allowed to indulge themselves in things they enjoy which might be potentially dangerous to others. Freespeech can be just as deadly as guns when used recklessly. If you want to ban guns under the premise that guns cause a significant harm to society, you need extrondinary proof in order to go about restricting the freedoms of the gun owners. The easiest way to start this process is to examine the number of deaths attributed to guns each year.

Gun deaths every year = G

BUT. We have to take some things into consideration. G has several figures added to it that don’t expressly represent the actual number of real gun deaths. Cop shootings, suicides, etc… So lets define these as well.

Cop Shootings = C
Gun Suicides = S
Accidental Shootings (these people will kill themselves one way or another) = A
Legitimate defense shootings (theoretically if all guns are banned people will still defend themselves with other means and these deaths can be removed) = AS

So this gives us the original total of G minus the rest.

G – C – S – A – AS = Real Gun Deaths (RD)

So in reality the beginning number of gun deaths in a year is an exaggeration of the real problem of gun deaths.

If we are to continue along the line of thought that guns are deadly enough to warrant banning or heavily restricting them we must justify this by comparing to other incidents of heavy loss of life. Lets compare RD to auto deaths every year.

Ouch, we just hit a brick wall. There are more automobile deaths every year then TOTAL gun deaths, not taking into account Real Gun Deaths. And vehicles aren’t being heavily restricted, banned, etc…

So in reality guns pose no serious threat to society.

PS: I haven’t even gone into the self defense issue yet. Potentially guns actually save more lives then they take and they actually provide a net benefit outright to society purely on a cost benefit ratio.

[aerius]

Yep: IIRC, you can even own "evil assault weapons" like AR-15s up here provided you don't use magazines larger than 5 rounds (this apples to all semi-auto rifles up here anyway).

Indeed we can. There's only a few minor differences between US & Canadian firearms laws. As I mentioned before, there's no concealed carry in Canada, and neither can we get a license to own full-auto guns. Beyond that, we can't get the Barrett .50cal rifles, & most if not all .50's are outlawed for some reason. We also can't own semi-auto shotguns such as the Benelli Super 90. That's it.

[Glocksman]

If you want an example of how calling for gun control hurts Democrats, look no further than Al Gore in 2000.

After calling for a handgun registration scheme, licensing of gun ownership, and being endorsed by Sarah Brady and the Brady Campaign, Gore lost both his home state and W.Virginia (which usually goes Democrat).
If he'd won Tennessee or W.Virigina, he'd be President.

Even Mondale won his home state when Reagan kicked his ass in 1984.

It's not Florida that cost him the Presidency.

Gun Control is one of those issues where support may appear to be a mile wide, but it's only an inch deep. The great majority of people who favor gun control don't use is as a deciding issue when determining how to cast their vote.

A lot of those opposed to gun control do see it as a deciding issue and cast their votes accordingly. I'm a perfect example. I'm a former union activist and shop steward. In other words, I'm a natural Democratic constitutent.

Do I vote Democrat?
Sure, in local races.
The one year I was ready to vote Democrat (Dean) for President, the assholes had to go and nominate yet another gun controller.

I wound up voting Badnarik.

[Death from the Sea]

Fuck them. I can't believe they're trying to pull shit like this.

took the words right out of my head.

[Korvan]

Gun control seems like it's worked okay for Canada.

If you call "working" going hundreds of millions of dollars over budget and not really having any effect. One of the prime reasons cited for gun registration was to allow police to know whether or not a gun was on the premise. So I asked my friend who is in the RCMP if a computer search showed that no guns were registered at a house they were going to, did that mean they could relax? He replied that they always assumed a gun would be present regardless of what the computer said.

[His Divine Shadow]

Shit I'm from europe and I find this effed up, ofcourse I am from finland, we love our commie killing guns.

[His Divine Shadow]

The only thing it would stop, were SCOTUS to have a fit of temporary insanity, is legal handgun ownership. So suddenly the guns are all in the hands of the criminal element. Brilliant, Holmes.

Gee, when did I say that making handguns illegal is going to remove them all from the streets tomorrow? It's going to require handfuls of legislation, tons of crack enforcement and a general shift in the public perception of firearms. But laws like this are a great first step.

It would to be the prohibition era all over again and it wouldn't accomplish a fucking thing worth a damn, just create bad shit(tm).

The more laws you create the more criminals you also create.

[His Divine Shadow]

Hahahaha.

I can only laugh at such a debate about gun owning.

You gun-happy Americans would surely get a shock when you hear that the weapon laws here in good old Germany are becoming more and more restrictive every year.
Just to list some things:
-To even posses a weapon, you need already several documents that prove that you nned this weapon for your job or that you are fit to have one.
-Every weapon need to be registed, even the guns with not-leathal ammo.
-Anything bigger than a handgun, with exceptions for some professions, is forbidden. That includes pumpguns, shotguns, SMG's and assault rifle and heavier stuff.

And many more rules. It is extremly hard here to get into posession of a weapon legally. And illegal weapon possesion is here already nearly a capital crime.

That these dabates in America are laughable.

Wow... that really sucks.
I agree with the americans, they got it right.

[Alyeska]

Some more information to digest.

FBI Uniform Crime Report(1992) shows that 70% of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, many of whom are on probation or are given parole and released early. Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% state that they have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.
The FBI's statistics also concluded: "Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense."

Link

[MKSheppard]

Just heard this report on the radio - apparently a total ban on firearms ownership for all except police officers.

And this demonstrates why I left the Democratic party for good about
nine years ago.

[Prozac the Robert]

Yep. In the UK you can see a nice correlation in the rise of crime rates which nicely coincides with the introduction of new weapons control laws. Every time they ban something, you see a nice upwards bump in the crime rate, and this is despite their revised crime reporting scheme which was introduced around '98 to make it look like CCTV & weapons control was working. Under the old scheme, if a guy broke into a building and stabbed 3 people, it's counted as 3 knife-related offences, under the new scheme, it's counted as 1.

Where do these numbers come from? Which specific laws are we talking about?

[MKSheppard]

My thoughts on this:

Go ahead San Francisco, ban handguns. All of them.

And Re-Energize the NRA in the process and ensure another
decade of solid republican dominance and the utter annihilation
of the Democrap party outside of liberal enclaves.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It seems like the decision to severely restrict and bann firearms wouldn't be Utilitarian.

1. as people showed, many deaths don't come from firearms
2. Many firearms actually repell invaders and act as a large deterrant
3. Having guns not taken away maximixes personal freedom while leading to relatively little negative consequences, since the citizens who abide by the law are not those who commit the crimes. The Criminals do so, and they can get their weapons on the black market.

By banning/heavily restricting guns, the result is

1. Unnecessary restriction on freedoms
2. Decrease in deterrant effect
3. Less ability to defend body/home adequately
4. Probably more crime and death.
5. Most likely expensive controlling and burdensom methods.
6. Criminals will get the guns anyway

That's what I got from the links and the articles posted.

The people, at first, might be "happy" with the decision to limit guns, but that decision doesn't seem like it's based off of good initial information, so the happiness achieved won't be very long-term, or genuine, because they aren't making an informed decision, and any Utilitarian has to make an informed decision for the preferences/happiness to really be maximised.

[Petrosjko]

Just heard this report on the radio - apparently a total ban on firearms ownership for all except police officers.

And this demonstrates why I left the Democratic party for good about
nine years ago.

And it demonstrates why I can't abide the Democrats about eight years after I ditched the Republicans.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

As an owner of handguns in the Bay Area, I say good riddance and I hope this extends to the greater California. I'm all for rifle ownership, but I see no compelling public need for handgun ownership and a great deal of need to snuff it out.

The only thing it would stop, were SCOTUS to have a fit of temporary insanity, is legal handgun ownership. So suddenly the guns are all in the hands of the criminal element. Brilliant, Holmes.

And considering the violent home invasions and rapes that were occurring in SF just 4 years ago, where the criminals were using illegal firearms, I can't imagine a bigger invitation to violent crime. What slowed those rapists down were the armed citizens who started patrolling the neighborhoods where this was happening.