Proposed San Francisco Gun Ban a Bad Idea.

[Kilmer17]

Bac, states currently have tougher gun control measures than the Federal Laws. And DC has a ban.

While I understand your interpretation, it's apparent that the practice is quite different.

[BlueTalon]

Like it or not the gun control issues has always been about where you draw the line, not if there should be a line. I don't see how a .50 cal is an unreasonable weapon to look at in the context of that debate.

In fact let me ask you, why should it be legal, what's its use? Not being an @ss but I always here the case against it and rarely anything but insults from those that support its continued availablility. So make your case friend and let it compete in the market place of ideas.

That's an interesting twist of an argument. Take something that's legal, claim it shouldn't be legal, then put the burden of proof on the ones wanting it to remain legal? How about keeping the burden of proof on you guys that want it illegalized?

There have been no murders attributed to .50 cal rifles. Zero. None. And there's a good reason for that.

.50 cal rifles are heavy (20 - 45 pounds), and they're expensive ($3000 - $8000) Your typical criminal is not going to spend the money on a .50 cal, when he can spend one tenth the money to get something that's a lot easier to carry around and use. So who does buy them? Serious, responsible people who enjoy shooting them for sport (target shooting.) Do you really have a problem with that?

[PokerPacker]

If your uncle sells fully automatic rifles, he doesn't do it over the counter.

its all legal, hell, he even sells them to the military!

[PokerPacker]

here's an article on having a gun in your own home, for those curious. i don't know the accuracy of the measurments, but its something.

Gun Control Science Misfires

Thursday, October 31, 2002

By Steven Milloy

Gun control advocates used to claim that more guns meant more crime. Research demonstrated, though, that more guns meant less crime. As the criminology argument faded, gun control advocates began arguing guns were a public health problem.

But the public health argument is also bankrupt, according to Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., editor of the Medical Sentinel, the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Faria lays out his reasoning in the Spring 2001 issue.

The U.S. public health establishment declared in 1979 that handguns should be eradicated, beginning with a 25 percent reduction by the year 2000. Since that time, hundreds of "scientific" articles have been published in medical journals supporting the notion that guns are a public health problem.

Faria's article spotlights many of the flaws of this research, including that of Dr. Arthur Kellerman of the Emory University School of Public Health. Since the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellerman used funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to publish research purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don't.

Dr. Kellerman claimed in a 1986 New England Journal of Medicine study that having a firearm in the home is counter-productive. He reported "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."

Dr. Faria points out that Dr. Kellerman's analysis ignored the vast majority of benefits from defensive uses of guns. Since only 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, Dr. Kellerman's study underestimated the protective benefits of firearms -- in terms of lives saved, injuries prevented and related medical costs -- by a factor of as much as 1,000.

In a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study, Dr. Kellerman again reported guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than the assailants. In addition to repeating the errors of his prior research, Dr. Kellerman used studies of populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction such as a history of arrest, drug abuse and domestic violence. Moreover, 71 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who didn't live in the victims' household, using guns presumably not kept in the home.

Dr. Kellerman's conclusions depend on an apparent higher rate of homicides among households with guns compared to households without guns (45 percent vs. 36 percent). But Dr. Kellerman ignored his own data indicating there were enough false denials of gun ownership to reverse this result.

Controversy has also swirled around Dr. Kellerman's claim that gun availability increases the risk of suicide. Dr. Faria says "the overwhelming available evidence compiled from the psychiatric literature is that untreated or poorly managed depression is the real culprit behind high rates of suicide."

Backing this up is the observation that countries with strict gun control laws and low rates of firearm availability -- such as Japan, Germany and the Scandinavian countries -- have suicide rates that are 2 time to 3 times higher than for the U.S. In these countries, people simply substitute for guns other suicide methods such as Hara-Kiri, carbon monoxide suffocation, hanging, or chemical poisoning.

Dr. Faria also cites the work of Florida State University professor Gary Kleck and Yale University professor John R. Lott Jr. as serious challenges to gun control advocates' claim that guns are a public health problem.

In his books Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America and Targeting Guns, Kleck reports that firearms are used defensively 2.5 millions times per year, dwarfing offensive uses by criminals. Kleck says that 25 to 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost by a gun. The medical costs saved by the defensive use of guns are 15 times greater than the costs caused by criminal use of firearms, according to Kleck.

Lott reports in his book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws that neither state waiting periods nor the Brady Law are associated with a reduction in crime rates. However, laws that permit the carrying of concealed weapons are associated with a 69 percent decrease in death rate from public, multiple shootings such as those that occurred in Jonesboro, Arkansas and Columbine High School.

Some concerned with gun violence in society have, in desperation, signed on to the gun control agenda. They are willing to trade basic American rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment for less violence. But it's not a fair trade.

The myth-busting work of Dr. Faria and others exposes gun control not only as being unlikely to reduce violence but also as having adverse safety and economic consequences. Junk science-fueled gun control misfires as a public health strategy.

[Baculus]

Are you kidding me? Is this truly one of your arguments? One is for transportation purposes while the other is a device that forces a piece of metal out through a tube or nozzle with its only purpose being to pierce skin in order injure or kill.

So...you answered my question with a question. That sure shows the strength of your argument!

Now a question I'm really curious about is since one of your arguments is that owning a gun is needed to defend yourself against intruders: are there any statistics that indicate how much more likely I, since I do not and never will own a gun, am to be injured or killed during a home invasion? I'd be curious to find out some real numbers. And what is the difference between me and the pro-gun people, maybe psycologically, that makes me feel secure without a gun but the pro-gunners concerned, almost obsessively, with being prepared for an invasion or some sort of attack? Again, these questions in the second paragraph I'm geniunly curious about and are not sarcastic or argumentative in any way. Anyone know?

It is a fact that home invasions have been becoming more and more common and violent over the last two decades. While I do not currently have any statistics, home invasions very often result in some sort of physical harm to the people whose homes are being intruded. But, by conducting a Google, I found this article, which was the third hit that I received on the first page:

http://www.local6.com/news/4820704/detail.html

Another one:

http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3752444

And another, all from the same search page:

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=3719489

Articles such as this continue on and on in the rest of the search pages. Home invasions aren't just isolated incidents - they are becoming more common place as criminals are emboldened. And why are they sometimes emboldened? Because they don't feel any danger from the citizens whose homes they are invading. Criminals often don't fear police - what they do fear is an armed citizen ready to defend their family and their homes.

And keep in mind, my argument isn't solely about firearms being used for self-defense, but that is one attribute of it.

Now, regarding statistics, conducting a brief search, I only found a Canadian .pdf that demonstrated an increase in home invasions. This article discusses this issue in the U.S.: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20050201/4/1313

Also, firearm owners are not necessarily "almost obsessively, with being prepared for an invasion or some sort of attack." I am secure in my knowledge that, if the situation warrantsed it and I was able to wield one of my firearms, I could increase the likely hood of defending myself. That is not being "obsessive" by any means. Also, considering society is becoming more violent, it *is* a good idea to think about how you would defend yourself if the situation was needed. Preparedness is a good idea, when it comes down to phsyical safety of your property or your life.

Really, who is more obsessed - the firearm owners who just want to do their thing, whether it is hunting, target shooting, collecting, having a pistol next to their nightstand, or the anti-gunners who spend time, money, energy, and false information dissemenation, in trying remove firearms from those citizens that are generally law-abiding and aren't the source of violent crime? I don't sit around and obsess over my firearms. (Though there are some rifles that I have really wanted to have, which may have been obsessive. Hah. Hey, I do that with computer hardware, too!) But I am sure there is someone obsessing over the fact that I, along millions of other citizens, own firearms.

[BlueTalon]

I see what you are saying but I can't see giving people fire arms without some evidence that they have a clue as to how to use and own them safely. I think it would make a lot of sense to treat it like drivers licenses where you have to prove that you can drive before you are allowed to do so on your own. I do however understand the other side of it that a documented list of who owns what makes it easy for the state to screw you, perhaps there could be a happy medium where you were able to buy guns of a certain type witha ID but there was no record kept of what you bought or how many....hmm I don't know but there has to be a happy middle ground there somewhere.

The right to drive is not constitutional. The right to keep and bear arms is. And besides, it's not like licensing has prevented deaths on the road.

Unfortunately, "a documented list of who owns what makes it easy for the state to screw you" is not just theoretical. It has happened many times over in other countries. (It happened a few years ago in England, and soon afterward the crime rate skyrocketed, especially home invasions -- where hoodlums break into a house while the owners are still inside.) It actually happened in this country, too. In California, owners of "assault weapons" were required to register them... and then later, when they were outlawed in California, those registered owners were required to get rid of them. And that's just one example.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there is any middle ground, no matter how hard you might wish for some.

[Baculus]

In fact let me ask you, why should it be legal, what's its use? Not being an @ss but I always here the case against it and rarely anything but insults from those that support its continued availablility. So make your case friend and let it compete in the market place of ideas.

Why do we have sports cars? Do we really need a vehicle that can go much faster then the legal speed limit? What's their use? And, inspite of what was mentioned earliers, cars and motorized vehicles are not JUST for going from point A to point B. They have far surpassed what is their base usefulness.

And this is the same issue for a .50 cal rifle. It isn't just about its use, which varies from one person or another, just like sportscar owners.

[BlueTalon]

its all legal, hell, he even sells them to the military!

Your uncle isn't selling a fully-automatic anything to anybody unless the prospective buyer has a Class III Federal Firearms License. Those are expensive and rare.

Do you know what we mean when we refer to a weapon as fully automatic? (No shame if you don't. "Learn" comes before "Know")

[Destino]

That's an interesting twist of an argument. Take something that's legal, claim it shouldn't be legal, then put the burden of proof on the ones wanting it to remain legal? How about keeping the burden of proof on you guys that want it illegalized?

You do nothing at all to further your goals by getting defensive when someone asks you for your side of the story. I hate to break it to you BlueTalon but in this country if enough people want it banned, it will be, and their reasoning doesn't matter at all. I see far too many reactionary responses coming from gun advocates and if it keeps up you'll lose the debate and the guns you want so strongly to keep.

There have been no murders attributed to .50 cal rifles. Zero. None. And there's a good reason for that.

.50 cal rifles are heavy (20 - 45 pounds), and they're expensive ($3000 - $8000) Your typical criminal is not going to spend the money on a .50 cal, when he can spend one tenth the money to get something that's a lot easier to carry around and use. So who does buy them? Serious, responsible people who enjoy shooting them for sport (target shooting.) Do you really have a problem with that?

This is more of what I was looking for and a very valid argument. The guns have not been used for crimes, thus there is very little reason to even consider banning them. I'd like to hear from the people in favor of banning these guns why in the face of these facts would they even be an issue.

[Baculus]

It actually happened in this country, too. In California, owners of "assault weapons" were required to register them... and then later, when they were outlawed in California, those registered owners were required to get rid of them. And that's just one example.

Exactly, BlueTalon. That is what I referenced in an earlier post. It was a complete deceit and sham by the state to trick "assault weapon" owners (I spelled pwners at first - I must be gaming too much) to register these firearms, after stating that they would be grandfathered, and then the state turned around and said, "Nope, sorry, they aren't grandfathered. But now since we know who you are, please turn in your guns." And they use anyone elses previous registration to track down who had these suddenly illegal firearms.

[BlueTalon]

This is more of what I was looking for and a very valid argument.

[PokerPacker]

Your uncle isn't selling a fully-automatic anything to anybody unless the prospective buyer has a Class III Federal Firearms License. Those are expensive and rare.

Do you know what we mean when we refer to a weapon as fully automatic? (No shame if you don't. "Learn" comes before "Know")

yes, i know what fully automatic is! he sells M16s (not the a2's, they cost too much) AK47's, hell he even sells the M203 (a small grenade launcher that can attach to certain guns such as the m16 a2, and the mp5) i know exactly what i'm talking about. you want to know the history of submachine guns, i'm your man.

[Baculus]

This is more of what I was looking for and a very valid argument. The guns have not been used for crimes, thus there is very little reason to even consider banning them. I'd like to hear from the people in favor of banning these guns why in the face of these facts would they even be an issue.

That is a good question, Destino. I'd like to have this questioned answered, especially in the light of true facts surrounding firearms, crimes, and relating to legal firearm owners. I would also like to know if they would support the ban semi-auto rifles, and what statistics, information, etc., do they have to uphold such a support?

[Destino]

The right to drive is not constitutional. The right to keep and bear arms is. And besides, it's not like licensing has prevented deaths on the road.

That is completely irrelevent. Any thinking person can see that a firearm is a deadly weapon and a potential safety hazard. How many accidental shootings could have been prevented had gun owners been made to take a good class in gun safety prior to ownership? Logically I'd have to say that a good amount of accidents could be avoided by stressing and instructing safety.

Also the constitution says nothing about how citizens are to go about acquiring guns. I don't see how gun safety courses, assuming they are fashioned to be within reach in terms of time and money of the genreal public, obstruct the right to own firearms.

Unfortunately, "a documented list of who owns what makes it easy for the state to screw you" is not just theoretical. It has happened many times over in other countries. (It happened a few years ago in England, and soon afterward the crime rate skyrocketed, especially home invasions -- where hoodlums break into a house while the owners are still inside.) It actually happened in this country, too. In California, owners of "assault weapons" were required to register them... and then later, when they were outlawed in California, those registered owners were required to get rid of them. And that's just one example.

I'm sorry, but I don't think there is any middle ground, no matter how hard you might wish for some.

You aren't thinking outside the box. There doesn't have to be a documented list of what guns you own at all. You could simply license people to buy a certain level of fire arms and NOT track what they buy at all. Or you can use private coding systems or other such methods to preserve privacy. There is always a middle ground, and ensuring safe use via instruction does not have to result in a list detailing the fire power of every american citizen.

I would also oppose a registry of fire arms that details the purchases made by private individuals. Such a creation makes it too easy for the future elected officials to cherry pick restrictions based on the buying patterns of their voter base. For example a liberal senator from the north east could check to see how many of his constituents own a certain type of gun and move to outlaw those that would harm him less politically. That system could encourage further restriction needlessly and in the nightmare scenerio of a military coup make the removal of weapons too easy.

[BlueTalon]

The right to drive is not constitutional. The right to keep and bear arms is. And besides, it's not like licensing has prevented deaths on the road.

That is completely irrelevent. Any thinking person can see that a firearm is a deadly weapon and a potential safety hazard. How many accidental shootings could have been prevented had gun owners been made to take a good class in gun safety prior to ownership? Logically I'd have to say that a good amount of accidents could be avoided by stressing and instructing safety.

It might be irrelevant, but I'm not the one whose trying to compare licensing of drivers to theoretical licensing of gun owners. Besides, it's still true.

You're right, any thinking person can see that a firearm is a deadly weapon and a potential safety hazard. That's why I think you're wrong in assuming/implying that there are loads of accidental shootings that might have been prevented with classes. Not that I'm against such classes, mind you. I am a USMC pistol/rifle instructor, after all.

Many accidental shootings belong more in the category of "momentary lapses of reason by people who know better", not so much in the category "people who didn't know which end of the gun to point".

Most people who are in close proximity to a gun have a healthy respect for it.

Back once more to the irrelevant car/gun analogy -- you could make the claim that any thinking person could see that a car is a potentially deadly weapon.

The problem is that people don't think. You can't cure that with a law.

[Destino]

You're right, any thinking person can see that a firearm is a deadly weapon and a potential safety hazard. That's why I think you're wrong in assuming/implying that there are loads of accidental shootings that might have been prevented with classes. Not that I'm against such classes, mind you. I am a USMC pistol/rifle instructor, after all.

Oh come on be honest you know that at least a few would have been prevented with gun safety. All of us run into people everyday that would be all but helpless if someone didn't tell them what to do and how to do it....many of these people will own fire arms.

They need safety classes for life, guns twice as much.

The problem is that people don't think. You can't cure that with a law.

Too damn true.

[zoony]

I kept seeing this thread, and I thought it was a GUM ban that SF was proposing.

Then I wondered why the thread was filling up... after all, it's only gum, right?

Sad thing is, I thought... well, it is San Francisco, not surprising they would ban gum. :laugh:

:doh:

now back to your regularly scheduled war.

[BlueTalon]

Zoony, too funny!!!

Destino, I agree there are bunches of people who didn't have enough common sense to keep from offing themselves with a gun. And, it's possible that some of them may not have killed themselves if they'd had safety classes. And believe it or not, I'm not opposed to mandatory gun safety classes. (As a matter of fact, I think it should be a mandatory class in public school, at least once per year, every year K-12).

The thing I'm opposed to is making it a condition of taking a gun home. The 2nd Amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In my opinion, preventing someone from taking a gun home from the moment the buy it is infringing on his/her right to keep and bear arms.

Picture this: A battered wife or girlfriend has been threatened by the abusive husband/boyfriend. For several days, she has other friends stay with her at night, but they all have lives to lead, and eventually she doesn't have anyone. A restraining order has previously proved ineffective. She has had police come by her house, but they don't have the resources to leave someone there all night -- plus, after several "false alarms", they're a bit tired of her calling them. In desperation, she goes to buy a gun, just in case. Would you like to be the person that has to tell her "Sorry, you can't take this home now. There is a 10-day waiting period, plus a mandatory gun safety course you have to attend..." ?

There are plenty of examples of women in that position getting killed. I'd venture to say there might be a comparable number of women in such positions to the number of people of accidentally off themselves via stupidity with guns.

IMO, it's a simple choice -- victims or darwin award candidates.

[SnyderShrugged]

Last time I checked, cars are made to get people from point A to point B, knives are made to cut food while guns are made for one purpose, to kill.

No, guns are made to protect. You owe everything you have to guns and those not afraid to use them to protect your liberty.

[BlueTalon]

I thought knives were meant for stabbing, cars were meant for ramming, and guns were meant for punching small holes in cardboard from a long way away.

[SkinsFTW]

More California craziness.

[BlueTalon]

More California craziness.

Man, after growing up in the Seattle area and spending 11 years in SoCal, and visiting places in between, I'm convinced the whole west coast is pretty nutty.

Seattle is basically San Francisco North -- the main differences being that there's no state income tax, and Washington has concealed carry.

[tex]

Yep.... I'm going to give up my gun so when I'm confronted with an intruder with a loaded pistol.... I can fight them off with a rolled up newspaper. :doh:

Rolled up newspaper will be banned next. When that happens all that will stand between innocent people and the thugs bent on robbery, murder and rape will be harsh language; that is until they ban speech as well.

And no, the cops are not there to protect. They are there to catch the criminals AFTER they do their crimes upon some poor soul.

All able bodied persons should begin martial arts training and learn to use everyday objects as weapons. They can’t suck that knowledge out of our brains……can they?

[BlueTalon]

What about those of us that aren't so able-bodied?

Guns are the great equalizer. Small/large stature, male/female, able-bodied/wheelchair-bound, with a gun they are all equally difficult to victimize.

[panel]

Guns do have uses other than killing.

They car be used in target shooting, marksman tourniments, as show peices, in collections, and as a deturent. Just the sight of a gun can deture a criminal without killing him. Don't forget that rounds can be bought that are rubber or bean bagged to prevent deaths as well.

So to say that a guns only purpose is to kill is unfair. The sports car gun comparison sounds fair to me.