View Full Version : San Francisco Handgun Ban: Your Thoughts?
Next Tuesday, San Franciscans will be voting on Proposition H, a measure to ban handgun possession by San Francisco residents and to completely ban any firearm or ammunition sales, manufacture, or transfer within the city.
The ballot measure, if you care. :razz: (http://www.sfgov.org/site/election_index.asp?id=33917)
I'd like to see what you guys think of this. I have an opinion, but I don't want to taint the conversation by loading the question. I'll chime in later.
Matt Alan
11-04-2005, 12:04 PM
In a perfect world, there'd be no need for handguns. But even if this ban is in place, would that "REALLY" stop people from getting a gun if they want one? So all the "nice" people give up their handguns and all the "bad" people keep their's and then there's no self-defense? For the man behind the store register when a man walks in with a gun and demands all the money?
Even so, I'd like to take a chance and say YES to the ban of handguns in San Francisco and see what the crime/death toll is a year later. But, I don't live in Cali, so my vote doesn't matter anyways XD;
timdalton007
11-04-2005, 02:42 PM
Banning handguns won't work. by our very nature we are agressive and paranoid. Anything that can ever be used as a weapon will be used as a weapon. What are we going to do? Ban baseball games to stop people from hitting each other with baseball bats and ban steaks so that people won't kill each other with steak knives? We aren't dealing with public safety on this issue so much as trying to protect ourselves from our own psychological nature as human beings.
timdalton007
Even though banning handguns won't stop all the badguys from getting them anyway, it's still a start. Besides, how many people are actually saved by having handgun on them for self-defense? It can't be that many since everytime something like that does happen, it becomes the top story on 20/20 and Dateline.
The ban is probably futile and depending on how much it costs to enforce, it could be detrimental, but I really doubt that this will increase the number of shooting victims. Only 1% of the US population has a gun and there are 12,000 homicide shootings each year, so that means 120 people per year get saved right? But there's about 18000 non-homicide shootings per year and only about 300 of those are self-defense or law enforcement shooting deaths. With guns gone, fewer people overall are likely to die.
There are other factors to consider like suicide and all that but I think the statisics pretty much balance out with or without handguns readily available.
ClymAngus
11-04-2005, 03:39 PM
We have a solution in the UK, after a pedo went round shooting a load of primary school kids we banned hand guns and enforced it with SO19 their not quite SAS but their pretty nasty all the same. The bottom dropped out of the armed robbery business over night.
If people want to get hold of a gun they will do. All you can do is make the desision to do so "life changing" if it's discovered by the authorities. "Armed" in the UK is synonymous with "f**ked" if your caught.
Chris Nagy
11-04-2005, 11:46 PM
Am I the only person that read Proposition H as Preparation H at a glance? Ban handguns? Hell no, do you know how hard it is to conceal a rifle? And those sniper rifles that break down into pieces that fit into a suitcase don't count, you can't whip those out at a moments notice and gun down a assailant.
SpaceBump
11-05-2005, 05:33 AM
This won't change anything crime wise. The people who would shoot you already buy on the black market, bypassing state a federal law all together. I'd rather have gun saturation than only the killers have them. What do you think Columbine would have been like if the teachers and even students where armed? They would have been gun down at the door and most of the people killed would still be here today.
It's funny that this is a liberal agenda. You would think a lib at this point in time would see the sense in NOT disarming the citizens while government is armed and basically everyone who wants to commit gun crime are simply buying from other countries. I'm sure some of the more fanatical democrats sometimes entertain the idea of some Bush religious take over, if that did happen, wouldn't you feel a bit silly that you basically took away the only small chance you had to fight?
Some humans are sick and are going to feel the need to kill other people. It's been going as long as the human race and will probably go on forever. Good people can save lives but not if you basically make it illegal for them to posses the tools to fight back. The enemy doesn't care about the law.
Alright, I'll chime in now.
I'm completely against the ban. Here's why:
1. Criminals don't obey the law.
This is obviously the "DUH" argument. It's valid, though. I hate to use such a clichéd phrase, but if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. It has been shown that a majority of crime guns are obtained either illegally (black market) or taken from a friend or family member. (The figures are approximately 30% on each of those cases.) So, if you outlaw guns, criminals will still have a source. Also, the guns out there will still be out there. Law abiding citizens will turn in their guns, whereas criminals will not. That is a very unfavorable balance.
2. It won't stand up.
San Francisco has tried this before. In 1982, San Francisco passed a measure banning handguns. It was struck down in court because state law preempts municipal law. California law states that the state shall have the sole authority on the regulation of handguns. So, like the whole gay marriage debacle here, it simply doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Additionally, the cost of defending the measure will be borne by the taxpayers, and that's a waste of money.
3. It achieves the opposite of the intended effect.
Taking guns from law abiding citizens pretty much assures that violent crime will be successful. Both Chicago and Washington DC showed increases in violent crime immediately after banning handguns. Even in the UK, where handgun ownership was banned throughout the entire country, crime involving handguns rose after a ban was instituted. (link here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm)) Gun ownership is a deterrent factor. When any home could be armed, it places a real risk in the mind of anyone who violate your home. If you take away that deterrent factor, criminals would be emboldened, knowing that they weren't really at risk. In states with shall-issue concealed carry laws, violent crime goes down, because anybody could be packing. An armed society is a polite society.
At the very base of it, I am very much against government taking rights and privileges from me. I love my liberty, and I love that I have the right to defend it. It's already a crime for felons to possess firearms. There's no need to take mine.
Henageshi
11-07-2005, 04:26 AM
If I lived in San Fransisco and they banned hand guns I don't think I would care too much. I don't like guns even though I grew up around them (my grandpa had a house full of them). I don't think it's bad to have one for protection. They just kinda make me nervous.
Nevertheless, I don't think the ban will change anything. If someone is determined to kill and break the law they'll do it with or without a gun. There are many other ways. But if they wanna give it a shot and see...*shrugs*.. I don't see why not.
Chris Nagy
11-07-2005, 07:33 AM
Hey -- it takes a lot longer to whip out your gun to gun down an assailant, than it does for the assailant to see what you're doing and pull the trigger to kill you. ;) You'll have a better chance at survival by being passive as opposed to aggressive. And if you whip out your weapon to gun down an assailant on the strange notion that he has a gun and *might* kill you? That's homocide which gets you 25 - life. :P
Come on, don't you watch movies? You have to dive off to the side as you draw the weapon, and fire it just before you hit the ground; then side roll into a standing position and then shoot him in the head. You always have to put one in the head, just to make sure.
You always have to put one in the head, just to make sure.
Double tap, Chris. Double tap.
ClymAngus
11-07-2005, 09:32 AM
Double tap, Chris. Double tap.
Mr O, Although I think your a great mod you have just added another reason why I would never live in the US. You can keep your guns and we'll keep SO19 and Earl Gray at the cricket ground with cucumber sandwiches.
Chin chin. Old chap.
ClymAngus
11-07-2005, 09:53 AM
So was my post. Why else would I be sending up the British something rotten? :)
It's so difficult to be blatantly ironic on a message board.
Ooh. Good point. I guess we need a sarcasm tag.
Matt Alan
11-07-2005, 11:44 AM
Ooh. Good point. I guess we need a sarcasm tag.
Can we get one of those?
ClymAngus
11-07-2005, 11:52 AM
What in the name of sam hill would a visual personification of "Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended"? That is a difficult one. The flashing neon word Sarcasm? :)
Sorry ladies I know this is off topic now.
Ladies and gentleman, I present dripping sarcasm.
timdalton007
11-07-2005, 01:18 PM
Ladies and gentleman, I present dripping sarcasm.
I love it!
timdalton007
ClymAngus
11-07-2005, 04:58 PM
Ladies and gentleman, I present dripping sarcasm.
Ooo does that work for everything? On that day satan will be skating to work Oooo I guess it does coolness.
Smily in a blood bath yay! ... :) ...
timdalton007
11-08-2005, 07:11 PM
Today's the day this is being voted on. Will you tell us the outcome oriculum? For some reason I get the feeling this is going to be big.
timdalton007
Will do. I'm about to hit the polls.
With 100% of precincts reporting, Proposition H passed with 89,696 votes for and 65,185 against. So begins the court fight...
Zankoku no Yami
11-09-2005, 06:09 AM
Banning? lol, I find it weird when we have an amendment saying 'the right to bare fire arms' now that might have already been said... but I didnt wanna read all three pages ^^
I think people should have the right to bare arms. You need self defense in some way. And as sad (from what I DID read) criminals would only get them illegally anyways! So it leaves innocent people without a way to fight back.
Though there are many good reasons for the ban, this just isn't a world where we can go that direction. So I would vote against it and say, people should bare guns, if they so want.
ClymAngus
11-09-2005, 10:47 AM
Banning? lol, I find it weird when we have an amendment saying 'the right to bare fire arms' now that might have already been said... but I didnt wanna read all three pages ^^
I think people should have the right to bare arms. You need self defense in some way. And as sad (from what I DID read) criminals would only get them illegally anyways! So it leaves innocent people without a way to fight back.
Though there are many good reasons for the ban, this just isn't a world where we can go that direction. So I would vote against it and say, people should bare guns, if they so want.
I think we should have the right to arm bears. A four armed bear running around would be really cool. Spiderbear! Yay!
timdalton007
11-09-2005, 01:00 PM
With 100% of precincts reporting, Proposition H passed with 89,696 votes for and 65,185 against. So begins the court fight...
Oh boy. The world's coming apart at the seams.
timdalton007
Even if we do have the right to bear arms, how many people actually take advantage that? The number is pretty small (which isn't reason to ban guns necessarily) so most people aren't going to be any more defenseless than they were before.
I think people should have the right to bare arms.
I agree, the right to go sleeveless is a cornerstone democracy! (XD I don't mean to make fun of you or anything, "bare arms" is just a spelling mistake that always makes me laugh)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.