Don't Take Your Guns To Town (San Francisco)

[AENeuman]

Not sure where to rank this one. Maybe, bellow "Cash not Care" but above "Buy Nothing Day":
hxxp://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050119-1422-wst-gunban.html

From what I can tell most murders wear some sort of footwear, so I think shoes should also be banned.

I can imagine a gang member telling another, "Whoa man, put that thing away. No, not the crack pipe, or the uzi, the handgun. It's illeagal to have one of those."

It's strange living in a city where people protest a government that bombs people while at the same time promote a policy that says only the government should be in charge of weapons.

This gun ban thing is an obvious quick fix to a much larger problem of poverty, segergation, family and community support, etc.. New year, same dumb ass soultions.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Not sure where to rank this one. Maybe, bellow "Cash not Care" but above "Buy Nothing Day":
hxxp://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050119-1422-wst-gunban.html

From what I can tell most murders wear some sort of footwear, so I think shoes should also be banned.

I can imagine a gang member telling another, "Whoa man, put that thing away. No, not the crack pipe, or the uzi, the handgun. It's illeagal to have one of those."

It's strange living in a city where people protest a government that bombs people while at the same time promote a policy that says only the government should be in charge of weapons.

This gun ban thing is an obvious quick fix to a much larger problem of poverty, segergation, family and community support, etc.. New year, same dumb ass soultions.

No matter who much I disagree with Bush's war plans, IMO there's no way the US turns into some oppresive society where the public needs weapons to protect themselves from the government. And... even if that happened... a hand gun, or semi-automatic is NOT going to protect you from the world's largest armed forces that have tanks, armoured vehicles, fighter jets, naval ships, subs, bombs and nuclear weapons. Now if you wanted to advocate being able to own all the materials to make truck bombs and IEDs, then I guess you'd be on to something.

The NRA folks need to come up with better arguments then the one above, strictly following the Second Amendment (the Red Coats aren't comming back), and protecting themselves from terrorism (a gun won't stop a plane or a dirty bomb). Don't get me wrong I'm all for guns, own a couple myself... but they are hunting weapons, I personally can't justify myself or my neighbour having a semi-automatic assault riffle or a handgun. Leave the crime fighting to Spiderman and the police.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

The NRA folks need to come up with better arguments then the one above, strictly following the Second Amendment (the Red Coats aren't comming back), and protecting themselves from terrorism (a gun won't stop a plane or a dirty bomb). Don't get me wrong I'm all for guns, own a couple myself... but they are hunting weapons, I personally can't justify myself or my neighbour having a semi-automatic assault riffle or a handgun. Leave the crime fighting to Spiderman and the police.

Just wait until Cam wakes up

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

No matter who much I disagree with Bush's war plans, IMO there's no way the US turns into some oppresive society where the public needs weapons to protect themselves from the government.

Might want to ask Codolezza Rice about that one.

[albionmoonlight]

It's just an easy political target. Solving the root causes of crime is complex and expensive and requires hard choices. Banning guns looks good and is easy.

As an aside, I never quite got why the left wingers and right wingers are placed on the sides that they are in this debate. Right wingers want to trample the 4th Amendment in order to "make the streets safer." Left wingers want to trample the 2nd Amendment in order to "make the streets safer." It seems like the same debate to me in all relevant respects, and I don't see how one can be on both sides of the fence.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Just wait until Cam wakes up

Good morning!

As you can imagine, this has been the subject of a number of interviews on the show. Everyone from the SF chapter president of the Pink Pistols (a gay pro-gun group) to people in DC who've reaped the rewards of that city's 30-year old gun ban (murder rates and violent crime have skyrocketed since the ban was put in place).

As for the notion that police are the only ones who should fight crime, let me point out a recent survey by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. http://www.aphf.org/surveyresults.pdf

As you can see, 94% of sheriffs and police chiefs believe individuals should be able to own firearms for self-defense. 65% think a national concealed carry law would lower crime rates.

There's lots of other pieces of anecdotal evidence. Hot burglaries (burglaries committed while someone is at home) now account for over 50% of all burglaries in England and Wales. People in England are unsure of whether or not they're allowed to defend themselves in their own homes, and they most certainly don't have handguns to defend themselves because England banned handguns.

Of course, the criminal use of firearms is UP since the ban's been put in place, and violent crime is up as well, but I'm sure there's no correlation.

Back to the more specific topic of the proposed SanFranGunBan. It's not going to stand up to a court challenge (or at least it shouldn't). SF tried to do this back in 1982, but the law was struck down because it violated California's pre-emption statute. My guess is this is simple grandstanding on the part of a minority of SF's supervisors, and I think there's no way that it'll be on the books five years from now.

[CamEdwards]

dola (From http://www.cbs58.com/):

Neighbors of Ayesh Food Market on Hampton Avenue and 19th Place say nearly everyone in the area knows and likes the owner, and police say even a man who came in to rob the store knew him.
"He was armed with a four inch steak knife," said Lt. Steven Spingola of the Milwaukee Police Department. "He originally confronted the owner of the store, who was standing in an aisle, and demanded money."
When a 23-year-old cashier saw the owner in trouble, police say he grabbed the store's revolver and jumped out from behind the counter. That's when police say the suspect started chasing the cashier.
"He was pursued up the aisle by the suspect, and he was cornered near the meat counter at the south end of the store. He then fired his weapon in self-defense," said Lt. Spingola.
While one bullet went through the glass, police say three bullets went into the suspect, killing him. Officers say the store's gun is a legally owned weapon.
"It's completely legal. It's their right to do that. The police can't be everywhere at one time," said Lt. Spingola.
Regular customers were glad to hear no one else was hurt, especially the owners.
"These are good guys. They treat you right," said Henry Blount.
"The owner was in the far aisle shielding a customer from the suspect," said Lt. Spingola.
Police say the suspect appeared to be in his 30s.
Police say they don't expect any charges to be filed in this case.

I think you'll find that attitude is pretty common among law enforcement.

[AENeuman]

I can't stand guns. But I do not think that the government, who has abused their gun (weapon) privilege more than any citizen, has a right to tell me that I am no longer capable of being responsible with a gun.
Working with kids my main problem is the violence. I think guns (and their gross misuse in games, music, movies, news, etc) contribute to this mentality. Taking the guns away will not change our lust or our governments lust.

[Coffee Warlord]

I own two firearms. I hope I will never have to use them in any situation except a shooting range. I also spent a good deal of time with a friend of mine learning about the ins and outs of said weapons.

Personally, the only restrictions on firearms I'd like to see is mandatory training in the operation and care of the weapon.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Good morning!

As you can imagine, this has been the subject of a number of interviews on the show. Everyone from the SF chapter president of the Pink Pistols (a gay pro-gun group) to people in DC who've reaped the rewards of that city's 30-year old gun ban (murder rates and violent crime have skyrocketed since the ban was put in place).

Obviously you know more about this than I do... but I would suspect that some of this increase arises from the fact that society has gotten more violent over the last 30 years in general.

As for the notion that police are the only ones who should fight crime, let me point out a recent survey by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. http://www.aphf.org/surveyresults.pdf

As you can see, 94% of sheriffs and police chiefs believe individuals should be able to own firearms for self-defense. 65% think a national concealed carry law would lower crime rates.

I am not sure exactly what thsi proves besides the fact that police tend to share your opinion on this... Question for ya, this concealed carry law... would that ALLOW people to carry guns, or NOT ALLOW it... because if I were a cop I definitly would not want to pull over someone who had a concealled weapon.

Sorry if that is a dumb question... but again Im not as familar with all this as others.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Obviously you know more about this than I do... but I would suspect that some of this increase arises from the fact that society has gotten more violent over the last 30 years in general.

you can look at some of the data coming out of Austrailia, where the gun ban is fairly recent so society should not have changed that much. the stuff I have seen show a similar trend, though there is some debate.

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

I am not sure exactly what thsi proves besides the fact that police tend to share your opinion on this... Question for ya, this concealed carry law... would that ALLOW people to carry guns, or NOT ALLOW it... because if I were a cop I definitly would not want to pull over someone who had a concealled weapon.

folks with the concealed permits are not exactly the ones the police need to be worried about. It is sort of like the folks that have legal use/ownership of fully automatic weapons. next to no gun crime from those folks.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

Obviously you know more about this than I do... but I would suspect that some of this increase arises from the fact that society has gotten more violent over the last 30 years in general.

Common misconception. You just hear about it more often, and increases are generally limited to specific areas (like DC). See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm, for example.

[flere-imsaho]

I'd like to point out that showing that DC has had an increasing rate of violent crime since guns were banned is a little misleading. DC's a little place, and guns are readily available just a few miles away from the DC area.

If you're going to implement gun control, you need to do it on a national scale. Even then, I doubt it would help much, as the country is already awash in firearms. Now, if you could "magic" away all the guns in the country and then slap down a ban, you might have something, but since you can't do that, you need to look for other options.

Of course the NRA's solution of letting the public own more and more dangerous weapons (a mini arms race), isn't the solution either. It's battling the symptoms.

Woo.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

There's lots of other pieces of anecdotal evidence. Hot burglaries (burglaries committed while someone is at home) now account for over 50% of all burglaries in England and Wales. People in England are unsure of whether or not they're allowed to defend themselves in their own homes, and they most certainly don't have handguns to defend themselves because England banned handguns.

Of course, the criminal use of firearms is UP since the ban's been put in place, and violent crime is up as well, but I'm sure there's no correlation.

Well, having lived in England for 6 years, I'm not convinced by the correlation. Violent crime has a lot of causes, and the ability or lack thereof, of firearms seems to me incidental, at best. The two biggest causal trends in the U.K. seem to be an increasing violence of the culture and an increasing desperation by those screwed over by the Labour government's mismanagement in the 70s and Thatcher's dismantling of social services in the 80s.

The result is a growing population of increasingly poor, increasingly desperate people turning to crime to make ends meet. One might argue that the violent crime can be stemmed if the populace is armed, but I see this as only an escalation in the deadliness of the struggles.

Again, the solution is to solve the problem of having people desperate enough to commit violent crime (leaving aside the problem of people who are unhinged, or just naturally violent). The solution is not to arm everyone up and just hope for the best.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Common misconception. You just hear about it more often, and increases are generally limited to specific areas (like DC). See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm, for example.

Okay so over that period of time haven't gun laws gotten stricter?

[Desnudo]

Whatever you think about gun control, the impact of passing a law like that on the homicide rate in SF would be zero. It's a knee-jerk reaction.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Fritz

folks with the concealed permits are not exactly the ones the police need to be worried about. It is sort of like the folks that have legal use/ownership of fully automatic weapons. next to no gun crime from those folks.

That's the way I see it, I wouldn't be too worried about the people who take the safety courses and qualify to carry a gun legally. If there's someone willing to shoot a police officer during a traffic stop I doubt they'll leave their gun at home because they don't have a permit to carry it.