Is it any surprise that the Peoples Republic of San Francisco is the first major city Union to attempt to go the Full Monty and outlaw all handguns entirely?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/12/15/state1859EST0145.DTL

If they do, then that Socialist "paradise" city will deserve exactly what it has coming: namely a skyrocket increase in robberies, homicides, and assaults.

Even though it's been proven time and time again that gun control does not work (I mean think about it....most criminals (KEY WORD: CRIMINALS who use guns are not law abiding to begin with. What in the world is going through these so-called "enlightened" Liberal minds to think that by outlawing guns, all of the criminals will suddenly surrender their firearms?)

http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/Why_Government_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/polsby.fpgc.html
http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

I can only hope that in the end, the people of San Francisco come to their senses and shoot (sorry) this measure right out of the sky and keep their right to self defense......a pipe dream for sure...after all, SanFran is saturated with Euro-wannabes who would sooner roll over and give in to "keep the peace" than actually put up a good fight.

Of course, this will not be the last time that the Socialists will attempt to disarm the people. After all, a key fundamental milestone in achieving their goal of turning America into a Socialist state is to disarm the citizens. This goal will not work as long as people have the means to defend themselves.

At first thought, I find it truly amazing that people (especially people who love to remind us about how enlightened and educated they are) can still vote for anyone or any party with such aspirations-namely the Liberal Left.

But not at a second one. After all, these are the same group of people who also preach the pro-illegal alien, pro-abortion, pro-atheist, pro-welfare, pro tax and spend, anti-military, anti-hunting, anti-Christian, anti-private property, anti-business, and anti-personal responsibility mantra.

In other words, what is, as far as I am concerned, flat out anti-American.

How can any party be on the wrong side of so many key issues and still exist?

I'll never know.

Opportunities for personal gain is a key foundation of this country. Responsibility comes with that incentive. And that's the thing that the Dems just don't get.

They just don't.

Their key base of power lies not with the hard working and the educated and the motivated, but rather with the lazy, irresponsible, and stupid. They use the promise of getting something for nothing at the expense of others (while allowing you to blame someone-anyone but yourself for your own misfortunes) as the dangled carrot to get your vote. It's always someone elses fault. Don't worry...someone else will pay the bills. All you have to do is surrender your right to defend yourself, your private property, close all public lands (for the overall betterment and enjoyment for all, of course), and all will be yours, be it [free] health care, "jobs" that pay absurdly high "minimum" wages, or just plain unlimited welfare entitlements for losers and illegals.

If this sounds appealing to you (hey, why NOT a free ride), then of course the Liberals will be your friends.

The Liberals are leading us down the road to perdition and national destruction.

And gun control is the first step.

If they do, then that Socialist "paradise" city will deserve exactly what it has coming: namely a skyrocket increase in robberies, homicides, and assaults.

Just like what has happened in Great Britain.

Perhaps they just don't want people to have guns?

In the UK you can have a gun and use it in an official shooting club, seems a good idea to me - keeps gun use safe plus make money out of it.

In the UK there is a Liberal Party - http://www.liberaldemocrats.com however they are not a huge party compared to Labour http://www.labour.org.uk/ (left wing) and Conservative http://www.conservatives.com (right wing).. at the end of the day if people in another part of the country as a majority want a law to stop gun use, why not?

So I don't see how they are going to ruin the USA, they have not ruined the UK. BTW, I am actually a conservative but I believe your ideas are just crazy!

Regards,

Chris

The UK has amognst the tightest gun laws in the world and a very low incidence of gun-related crime.

By and large gun crime in Britain is restriced to the crack cocaine trade in certain inner city areas.

In comparison to other western nations we don't have a gun problem.

Tim.

If they do, then that Socialist "paradise" city will deserve exactly what it has coming: namely a skyrocket increase in robberies, homicides, and assaults.

Just like what has happened in Great Britain.

Once again, the blind respond to the blind. I suppose thats why Great Britain has a fraction of the crime of the USA. Per Capita. And id love to know just how many crimes are being prevented in San Francisco right now because one lesbian is carrying a revolver in her purse.

As far as MattD's post goes, its quite simply the most fabulously entertaining rant I've ever seen. It would be worth dissecting if it weren't obviously an attempt at parody !

Matt D you make a reasonable argument but tell me what makes the gun murder rate so much higher in the United States than all the countries with a similar standard of living. If not gun control what is it? I would not like to think that bowling for Columbine is the right answer but what causes this problem in the US and not any other developed nation?

In comparison to other western nations we don't have a gun problem.

Alas, you are so wrong.

According to certain right wing crackpots in our country you do have a gun problem, namely that you don't have any guns. Oh, and btw, in case you didn't know this already, you're off the road and you've arrived at your destination of perdition and national destruction.  

So have another beer on Saturday night. You won't have to go to Church on Sunday morning like the author of the original post.

Btw, I'm an owner of a registered rifle here in the District of Columbia (we can't own handguns). Never had to use it yet.

Dude, seriously.

Move to Montana. Get a cabin about 100 miles from the nearest person, and shoot to your heart's content.

I would not like to think that bowling for Columbine is the right answer but what causes this problem in the US and not any other developed nation?

Those murderous liberals, feminists, gays, secular Jews, and atheists, of course ! Oh, and lets not forget those gun-toting Mexican farm hands and hotel maids.

According to certain right wing crackpots in our country you do have a gun problem, namely that you don't have any guns.

But we do have guns we have around a 7:10 gun to family ratio in Canada and also you can walk into Canadian tire and buy guns here too.

Jaysit,

You're spot on!!!


Did any UK members see Bremner, Bird and Fortune a few months ago on C4 where they were acting out as 3 BA pilots???

On the discussion of terrorists taking guns on bored they came to the conclusion that all passengers on boarding should be given a handgun therefore any terrorists with guns would be massively outnumbered.

Brilliant.

It's past my bedtime anyway...

Regards all.

Tim.

I was referring to the Brits.

Your statistic, however, appears misleading because it only implies that there are 7 guns for every 10 families in Canada. It doesn't imply that 70% of all Canadian families are gun owners, as many families in rural and hunting communities could own 20 guns per family, while many urban and suburban Canadians may not own any.

Ok my bad your point is true Jaysit but it was actually meant to say that there were 7 million guns in Canada not 7 guns per 10 Canadian families. I came up with that ratio because there is about 10 million families in Canada.

what makes the gun murder rate so much higher in the United States than all the countries with a similar standard of living

Hell, gun murder rates (per capita) are higher in the United States than in most countries with worse standards of living! Americans are in grand company in this category:

1. South Africa
2. Colombia
3. Thailand
4. Zimbabwe
5. Mexico
6. Costa Rica
7. Belarus
8. United States
9. Uruguay
10. Lithuania

By pure numbers, it's no better:

1. South Africa
2. Colombia
3. Thailand
4. United States
5. Mexico

From the Centre for International Crime Prevention.

Who would have thought that Thailand would be on the list.

Does anyone know why gun murder rates are so high in Thailand?

Hell, gun murder rates (per capita) are higher in the United States than in most countries with worse standards of living! Americans are in grand company in this category

This is what is mind boggling and saying that gun control doesn't work isn't necessaerily wrong in the case of the US but what is the solution to this problem or are Americans fine with life this way and don't want it changed?

Gun control is an argument based on endless hypotheticals.

Neither side can prove that their position is, indeed, correct. Gun control advocates say that tougher gun control and registration laws deter crime; second amendment advocates say that it doesn't and we should have no gun control whatsoever. Neither side can prove their position with any level of exactitude. Frankly, I don't see why responsible gun owners have a problem with the Brady Bill, bans on assault rifles, mandatory waiting periods, or registration of firearms. You still get to own your damned gun in the end.

Ahhh, Alaska! Gun control means being able to hit your target with the first round - and the second and third, because you must always ensure the target is neutralized. . . . gotta love it.

Like the old saying goes - you can have my gun(s) when you pry it (them) from my cold dead fingers.

And, yes, for the record, I do feel safer with my Glock strapped to my back.



[Edited 2005-01-06 03:37:17]

You guys are all missing the point and the bigger picture here.

I suggest going back and re-reading the original post in its entirety.

"The Liberals are leading us down the road to perdition and national destruction.

And gun control is the first step."

Beeep!




To stay on topic here, maybe you really don't even need gun control. Maybe you should just educate people on the amazing fact that a gun can indeed kill a person, and that killing someone and getting caught may kill you or make you experience things you never wanted to experience, like being focus of attention in a gay gang bang.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the reason our violence rates are so high is because of the ongoing culture war. I am not trying to sound like a Bible thumper, but gun use is now glorified more than ever. (Just watch a G-Unit video.)

In my opinion, the situation is too bad to take away guns now. That would just leave law abiding citizens defenseless. The answer? I don't know, but I will be getting a gun!

Btw, I'm an owner of a registered rifle here in the District of Columbia (we can't own handguns). Never had to use it yet.

That's gotta be disappointing not being able to own a handgun, Jaysit. You can't accessorize your man purse with one of these...

Okay, lets play a game. It's called "Hypothetically Speaking." It might be tough for some of the lackies here to understand, but try your best. There is a ban placed on handguns and automatic weapons in the United States by a constitutional amendment. Anyone outside of law-enforcement is not allowed to carry or posess one of these weapons. Which two, out of the following three groups will not turn in their weapons?

a) Criminals/future criminals/psychopaths
b) Normal, law-abiding citizens
c) People who have not registered their weapon and got it from the black market.

The only thing that gun control really does is take arms from ordinary citizens.

Oh, and by the way, the statistic about guns per capita and homocide is a myth. Israel and Switzerland both have far more guns per capita, and both have drastically lower homocide rates.

For some reason, I already know all the pro-gun and anti-gun arguments in these threads. Does anyone know why? It's an intriguing question, you know.  

Jcs17,
Looking at your hypothetical situation, none of those three groups would jump in and turn in their weapons. They can try all they want to ban the sale of handguns or automatic weapons, but they'll never recover the ones already on the street. Most law abiding citizens, let alone criminals, wouldn't turn in their guns, even if they were banned. Even with registrations there is no way that authorities will ever recover guns that are already on the market. People will just say that they sold their guns, or threw them away etc. That's something that hard core gun control advocates don't seem to take into consideration
and that killing someone and getting caught may kill you or make you experience things you never wanted to experience, like being focus of attention in a gay gang bang.
LOL...that's actually one of the best anti-crime ideas I've heard in quite a while. Maybe they should show videos of what really happens in prison to kids suseptible to gang and crime activity to try and convince them to think twice!

[Edited 2005-01-06 04:44:37]

The only thing that gun control really does is take arms from ordinary citizens.

Jcs I can understand this point and somewhat agree with it but what causes so many more murders in your country in total people and on a per capita basis than the murder count in my country. A solid answer to this question is the problem with guns in the US and if gun control won't work what will if you even want to make your country safer.

Gun control doesn't work. Mexico has made almost impossible to legally get any kind of gun, yet crime seems to be unstoppable. Do you want to fight criminals? Get a decent and effective police. Gun control is not the answer.

Thank you SFOMEX! The key to cutting down on crime and murders is to increase police presence in high crime areas and improve the legal system to administer harsher penalties for first time drug/gun offenders rather than the "slap on the wrist" that so ofter occurs. Even if somebody is only in high school, if they are caught carrying a handgun around illegally or something like that they should be punished harshly to deter that behavior in the future. Many criminals in our country are repeat offenders. Our drug problems need to be addressed better too...many murders are related somehow to drugs and drug deals gone bad.
There is no simple solution to America's crime problem, but those who think we can make things better by banning guns for law abiding citizens would be in for a sad awakening.

Just a few stickers I have in my garage:

-Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
-Its better to have it and need it, then need it and not have it.
-Ted Kennedys car has killed more people than my gun.

-Delta767300ER

Are there any figures on the ratio of normal law obiding citizens to criminals/ psycopaths etc? That way you will know the size of your problem.


I have heard the arguements from both sides regarding gun control. Is it not worth trying a ban in SF and seeing if it would make a difference. Hypothetical arguments are one thing but actual results would sort it out once and for all.

Saintsman:
Washington D.C. has a similar law and 2nd. highest in homicides in the United States.
San Francisco is a relativly safe city for it's size. San Francisco doesn't have a reputation of a violent city. This gun ban really puzzles me. It's a solution in search of a problem.


In this day in age, liberals need to embrace guns and learn how to point & shoot!
The 2nd. Amendment is our best weapon against the right-wing conservative government in our country.

In this day in age, liberals need to embrace guns and learn how to point & shoot!
The 2nd. Amendment is our best weapon against the right-wing conservative government in our country.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Signed,

Gun-owning homo.

Also, using Washington DC's law as an example is odious at best. All one has to do in DC is cross the river into VA (all of 500 feet) where you can buy a gun along with your Krispy Cremes and a carton of milk. Other major cities in states with gun control laws seldom have this problem. So, in essence, DC's gun control law is largely meaningless.

I can't possibly see how having the population at large armed increases peoples safety.

Sure criminals are always gonna get their hands on weapons and often use them.

The thought of everyone carrying a gun in their pocket.....and believing they have the right to use it at the first opportunity scares the hell out of me.

Tim.

Even though it's been proven time and time again that gun control does not work

Really? Coz the story in this country is one which proves your statement wrong. Or is it the fact that America is intrinsically a violent society, with or without guns? You have bigger problems than gun control to deal with.

Matt, arguments such as yours have been ripped to shreds on these forums in the past, and they can be done so again if need be (do a search on these forums).

The only thing that gun control really does is take arms from ordinary citizens.

Really? On March 13th 1996, a man walked into a primary school with a handgun and shot 16 children and one teacher dead. A handgun ban has been in place since then, and since that time there hasn't been another Dunblane. Gun crime has fallen.

Just like what has happened in Great Britain.

Lies, B757300. Gun crime has fallen. In fact, ALL crime has fallen, dramatically. The evidence suggests 'violent crime' has risen simply because of semantics.

It seems many pro-gun people lie and misrepresent a lot. Take this example, Britain has some of the most onerous gun control laws in the world. They did not prevent the Dunblane massacre from http://www.davekopel.org/2A/OpEds/MakingSchoolsSafeForCriminals.htm.

Facts are used out of context to support their point, and at the same time exploit the deaths of 17 innocent people. The Dunblane murderer had a licence by police to posses handguns. Had the post-Dunblane laws been in place, he would not have the licence or the gun.

Let's have a simple comparison. Britain and the US have very similar cultures, yet completely different gun laws. Which country has the lowers murder, rape and violent crime rape? Any pro-gun people care to find out for me?

Perhaps they just don't want people to have guns?

I assume they don't want people to be rude to others either - so can they make laws against it?  

And, yes, for the record, I do feel safer with my Glock strapped to my back.

Or Beretta 92F, in my case. Either way, I agree wholeheartedly with ANCFlyer - something that's occurring with alarming regularity lately.  

On March 13th 1996, a man walked into a primary school with a handgun and shot 16 children and one teacher dead.

Would it have made you feel any better if he stabbed them all to death instead?

A handgun ban has been in place since then

Guaranteeing that should an armed criminal attempt a similar massacre in the future, it will be that much more difficult for the average law-abiding citizen to defend themselves. Bravo. You must be so proud!  

Would it have made you feel any better if he stabbed them all to death instead?

I don't think that argument is going to win any points.
Pulling out a semi or a revolver and letting go can cause far more immediate damage than a mass murder with a knife. You have to admit that blowing away 16 kids can be done in about 10 seconds, whereas had they been serially knifed, someone could have gone for help or raised an alarm.

Mass murders by crazed individuals are relatively rare. Thus, advocating that every one should have a gun for self-defense to deal with an occurrence like that is akin to using a steamroller to crush a grain of sand.

Also on the note of stabbing it's illegal in Britain to carry a knife in public without good reason for having it.

Tim.

Would it have made you feel any better if he stabbed them all to death instead?

If he had gone in with a knife, teachers would have a chance to tackle him. As it was, all the teachers who tackled him were shot.

OK...let me get this straight. My last attempt got deleted. "Guns don't kill people, Liberals who don't own guns kill people."

Or is it "Guns don't kill people, Conservatives do because they are the only ones who own guns."

Is that right now? I didn't realize Liberals don't own guns...

Jaysit:
In Washington D.C., it's illegal to 'sale' hand guns. I am not sure about gun ownership. This law being proposed here is far more reaching. Even if you go to Oakland or Daly City and bring it home, you can be arrested.
This is the result of incompetent elected officials in this city. Sophie Maxwell is a useless dip who has no solutions to solving the crime in her district. Mayor Newscum doesn't have enough pro-big business/anti-community cronies on the board so what we have here is gridlock. This is the only issue that prettyboy Newscum and board members can all agree on. This is the only thing they can accomplish together.

The Board Of Supervisors is 1 member shy of a veto-proof activist majority making Newscum completely useless. The Mayor doesn't have enough kiss a$$es on the board to get any of his pro big business agenda passed.

NY City has some of the strictest handgun laws in the USA and has some of the lowest murder rates for a big city in the country. I do believe that NYC is too strict and far too much of the USA is not strict enough about legal handgun possession. The logic of what is proposed in SF is probably to make it easier to deal with potential terrorist acts and gang activities.
While the proposed law in SF may be excessive, far too often when a handgun is available, even where it is a legal situation, it can be used for bad. I recall a case maybe 10 years ago of someone who I worked with who's son and the son's girlfriend were killed with a legally permitted gun by the girls ex-boyfriend. He also killed himself. He had a permit to legally carry a handgun as he worked as an armed guard for a business.
There are a lot of historical and cultural differences as to the use and possession of guns and handguns in the USA vs. much of the rest of the world. Even within the USA, or within some states like NY, the laws appropiatly vary a great deal due to the differences in lifestyle.

Superfly:

You can own a registered rifle or airgun in DC. You can also own a handgun if you registered it before 1977 (or some day back when Mayor Barry was the King). If you did not register a handgun before 1977 and you own one in DC, then you are in violation of the law. I own a rifle which I registered with the DC Authorities. It sits in a glass-fronted display closet with my bong.

Now the reason the DC law is so ridiculous, is that any criminal who wants to purchase a gun could go to Virginia and buy one without batting an eyelid. This has changed some since the waiting periods were established. The Federal waiting period also allows a seller ensure that the purchaser is not a resident of DC (or any state in which handgun laws are tough). I guess hoods now get either get their guns from other hoods, or move to the outlying burbs in DC or MD where they can legally buy guns.

I'm kinda curious as to why you think that Newsom with his corporate interests would be so bad for San Francisco. As it is, San Francisco is ridiculously expensive to live in, given that everyone (including all those foul-mouthed conservatives) want to live there. Mr. Pretty boy couldn't make it any more so.

Ltbewr:
I worked with who's son and the son's girlfriend were killed with a legally permitted gun by the girls ex-boyfriend.

Sounds like a crime of passion. He could how used a knife in that situation too. Just like in the O.J. Simpson case.


Crime across the board is decreasing has nothing to do with gun control. Aging baby-boomers have surpassed peak crime ages. Most violent crimes are committed by those in there 20s-40s. A huge chunk of the population are getting much older and the criminals of that generation are either dead, in prison, mellowed out and/or already got even and didn't get caught.  


I am as left as they come and I still think gun control is a very bad idea.

That's gotta be disappointing not being able to own a handgun, Jaysit. You can't accessorize your man purse with one of these...

Hey toyboy!

If you want I'll use that pink power douche on you the next time you come over. Nothin like a big water gun to spray down the field before I plow it !

Gun Deaths per year (average) as quoted in 'Bowling for Columbine'...

Japan:39

Australia:65

United Kingdom:68

Canada:165

France :255

Germany:381

United States of America:

11,127

Let's try a little experiment...

Double Japan population from 160 million to 320 million to

mirror the USA's population 290 million...

Gun Control

Japan : 78 gun deaths among 320 mil. people

vs

No Control

USA: 11, 127 gun deaths among 290 million.... YEA! We win.. by a NY mile! Boy..what an honorable distinction!!!!

Yes, guns do kill people.. but there's a person pulling every trigger. The gun doesn't randomly select who it will kill... the person behind it does that! I don't care how you slice it and dice it... in this country guns are a problem! ... and too many people will do and say anything to say '...they are not!'

BN747



[Edited 2005-01-07 11:04:37]

BN747:
People need to use there brains and kill the powerful people f--king with the rights of the common man who are stealing away the American dream.

Frankly, I don't see why responsible gun owners have a problem with the Brady Bill, bans on assault rifles, mandatory waiting periods, or registration of firearms. You still get to own your damned gun in the end.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

He understands it perfectly well, and perhaps, unlike you, he even read the entire Amendment, rather than just five words of it.

Why don't you give us an example of the Supreme Court invalidating a gun control law based on the Second Amendment. Thanks.

"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."
U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
George Mason.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
Tench Coxe (1788)


I have read it, have you? It doesn't sound you understand it. I really don't care about what the Supreme Court has to say on the matter. The founding fathers have made it clear. But then again, since you asked, you might want to look at the case of US vs Miller. The Supreme Court ruled that any ban on military type firearms WAS unconstitutional.