SAN FRANCISCO MEASURES: Voters take stand against guns, recruiting at sch

[Bloodblister Bob]

Handguns now illegal - turn in your weapons!

From the San Francisco Chronicle:
- - - - - - -
San Francisco voters took a stand Tuesday against military recruitment on public school campuses, voted to keep firehouses open and approved the nation's toughest ban on handguns by making it illegal for city residents to possess them.

Proposition H, which requires city residents who already own guns to turn them in to police by April 1, was winning 58 percent to 42 percent with 98 percent of precincts counted.

The measure also makes it illegal to buy, sell, distribute and manufacture firearms and ammunition in the city.

Only two other cities in the country -- Washington, D.C., and Chicago -- have similar bans.

"San Francisco voters are smart and believe in sensible gun control," said Supervisor Chris Daly, who was among the four board members who placed the measure on the ballot. "If Prop. H gets some handguns out of San Francisco and mitigates some of the violence, then it's a win."

Prop. H opponents said a ban on handguns will not reduce crime, because criminals aren't likely to turn in their guns.

They also said the measure will be subject to costly legal challenges in court.

"It's not a solution (to gun violence)," said Mike Ege, a board member of the Coalition Against Prohibition. "Most people don't like guns, but they don't want the opportunity to access them taken away, because sometimes bad things happen to good people."

Story at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/09...
- - - - - - -
Who with any brains is actually going to turn in their weapons to the police? I love San Francisco, but this is absurd.

[Vickers]

1. Yea, people giving away their rights!

[MrBenchley]

26. Funny, our "pro gun democrats"

were happy to cheer when the GOP took away their right to a day in court against the corrupt gun industry....

[Vickers]

29. People rarely recognize when they are giving it all away

Until it's too late, of course.

[MrBenchley]

31. Meanwhile, I doubt

that keeping imbeciles from having handguns is any great infringement of anything except gun industry profits.

[EFerrari]

61. What I don't understand is, why do you need a gun if you have

a brain and a mouth?

I mean, it's not like we can go hunting in Golden Gate Park? And if the government goes even more crazy than it already is, a gas mask would be more helpful.

But, I'm one of those flaming liberal peaceniks that kicked the Terminator's @ss last night.

[slackmaster]

82. Need has nothing to do with what people can and cannot own

I have many firearms, mostly as a collection. I use some of them for target shooting. Why should your desire to feel safer (without actually BEING safer) trump my right to do as I please?

[hogwyld]

117. It's good for society as a whole

Do you consider all the harm you're doing to our blessed earth as you pump toxic lead into her? It leaches into the groundwater. You can replace that hobby for another, but you cannot replace the life that was lost to a gun. Society would be so much better off if ALL firearms were banished.

[slackmaster]

125. Guns are used for good purposes as well as for neutral and bad ones

Society would be so much better off if ALL firearms were banished.

Absurd thought from the get-go.

How do you defend your Utopia against a rogue nation that decides not to participate in World Peace(TM)?

What would police use to defend themselves, and to subdue violent offenders?

What about private citizens who actually use guns for legitimate self-defensive purposes?

You can replace that hobby for another...

Too bad for you I have no intention of ever doing so.

[hogwyld]

135. Let me clarify...

How do you defend your Utopia against a rogue nation that decides not to participate in World Peace(TM)?

Our Armed Forces of course will have guns. Don't be silly. Once the testosterone and cordite fueled euphoria wear off, we will learn to discuss and cooperate with other nations instead of heading off into unjust wars with guns 'a blazin'

What would police use to defend themselves, and to subdue violent offenders?

Of course the police would be allowed to have guns. I'm talking about civilians.

[slackmaster]

185. Oh, so you want the state to have all the power

None in the hands of citizens.

Let me tell you what I think about that idea:

I'd consider it only in exchange for a concrete promise that the state will always be there to protect me against violent criminals. Criminals will always have access to whatever kinds of weapons they want.

I still think the idea is a non-starter because I live in an area that is prone to natural disasters of many kinds, in particular earthquakes. It's not hard for me to envision a scenario where I am on my own with no running water, electricity, phone service, or (gasp) even Internet connectivity for up to three days or more. I keep two weeks worth of fresh water, food, etc. in case the Bandini hits the Westinghouse. I would not want to be left defenseless against looters or pirates or zombies, and I can't imagine how government could ever be able to provide the level of protection I can give myself with firearms and other weapons.

[iverglas]

238. oh, so you want to talk nonsense

Oh, so you want the state to have all the power
None in the hands of citizens.

I take it you and your fellow citizens have been denied the ability to vote for quite some time now.

[EFerrari]

155. It shouldn't, slack master, definitely.

But, there is the little matter of this community that came together and made a decision.

It might be a wrong decision.

Our bet is still on.

[billbuckhead]

230. For a better society, the needs of the many are more important

than the enjoyments of the few. Damages coming from the barrel of a gun over $100 billion dollars a year and over 100,000 shooting victims a year.

[MrBenchley]

100. Because some people have to make up for other, er, shortcomings...

By the way, look at the good job gun owners have done so far in combatting a dictatorship. Here they are facing down the tyrant Dick Cheney...just behold the fear in his eyes!



"Earlier in the day, Tom Mauser, whose son, Daniel, was killed with an assault weapon in the Columbine High School killings five years ago, tried to enter the convention hall where the NRA was meeting, seeking to urge Cheney to support extending the assault weapons ban.
Mauser was turned away by a security guard as several conventioneers applauded. A couple of conventioneers yelled "Get a life" and "Vote for Bush.""

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4771649/

[gaugebuyer]

44. A gun saved my wifes

employee. She was stalked/abused by her ex boyfriend. He would break into her house when she was not there, call her at work etc. He literally made her life miserable for 3 years. She had a restraining order out on him etc. But that stuff is worthless. I cannot explain to you the hell this women went through.( I never realized the laws are basically worthless/weak until I saw this for my own eyes.)

She finally had enough and bought a gun. One day he approached her and she pointed the gun at him and told him if he ever bothered her again she would use it on him without blinking and eye. She was at her wits end and he knew it. Her dad also called this scumbag at home the next day and said if his daughter was harmed or abused in any way from now on he would hunt this ex down and kill him with his own gun- no if ands or buts.

The ex was nothing but a little measly bully who finally backed off when put up against the wall.

She has never had a problem with him since.

[MrBenchley]

94. I believe you...

thousands wouldn't....

[Sgent]

105. Welcome to DU

there are many stories like that. Gun ownership is a very hotly debated issue here, so don't take the critics to hard.

Welcome!!!

[DoggieBag]

48. Whatever....

I supose you think it should be ok to sue dodge because some drunk was driving one and hit and killed someone? No manufacturer should be held liable for the actions of a 3rd party who is criminaly misusing thier product. If it is a legitimate issue as with a defective product then lawsuits can go on, the only lawsuits that the bill stopped were the BS ones, ones where people were suing the maker and distributer for the criminal misuse of a legal and massivly regulated product.

Now onto this whole SF gun ban.

It won't last because of a state preemption law on firearms laws. It will get tossed again just like in the 60's. Now this whole thing is just a waste of tax payer money.

Second, this law only holds for RESIDENTS, anyone with a Kali CCW permit can carry a gun in SF as long as they are not a resident of SF.

Third, since when has any criminal not done something because it is illegal to do so. This is not going to help reduce crime, if anything it gives criminals an "open" city to go at it in.

Regardless of ones views on guns and the second amendment this is bad law as it strips away from people a very effective tool with which to defend thier lives and thier loved ones. If you've never had to pull/use a gun in self defense I wouldn't expect you to understand where I'm comgin from. If you have, then you know where I'm comming from.

[MrBenchley]

97. Like I said...

it's instructive to see our "freedom loving" gun owners piss away everybody's right to a day in court.

"this is bad law as it strips away from people a very effective tool with which to defend thier lives and thier loved ones"
Bullshit., In fact, gun woners are 44 times more likely to perforate themselves, their family members or their friends than they are to ever shoot a bad guy.

[Kralizec]

2. Agreed. Absurd. This is the LAST time you want to be turning in your guns.

California is being torn apart. The repugs have made it a major target and so far they have succeeded in throwing the political scene into a ruckus.

[400Years]

3. and the redneck nazis say "Excellent"

[maddezmom]

4. Bloodblister Bob please edit your subject line

to relflect the actual title of the article: SAN FRANCISCO
MEASURES: Voters take stand against guns, recruiting at schools

thanks in advance for your cooperation

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. Sure, you can have my handgun

but I'll just hold onto my sawed off shotgun, okay?

You know, I'm not a big gun person. I don't own one and never have (the above question was my attempt at a joke) but this doesn't sit right with me. I thought we had a right to bear arms.

And boy, we need it right now. An unarmed populace is a sitting duck for a coup, for fascism, for all of that really, really scary stuff.

If we can have referendums that negate articles of the constitution, doesn't that open a whole big can of worms?

And you mean to tell me that the Mayor and councilmen of that city don't have bodyguards that carry handguns? How are they going to enforce this?

[Bloodblister Bob]

8. They just created thousands of new "criminals" in SF

You're so right: Mayor Newsom, et al, aren't going to be without their armed guards. It's only the law-abiding citizens who need to be disarmed.

[saigon68]

11. That's why I don't live in SF

The Rich and Powerful have armed undercover escorts. They could care less about the poor liquor store owner being beaten and robbed by a gang of thugs. Their solution---MORE POLICE who have tons of concealed guns when off duty to protect themselves and their families.(And who excel at eating tons of Crispy Cremes

[whatever4]

13. And how else will they stop the looting

and the rioting, and anything else a large group of Americans might need to do something about. In the future.

Waco anyone? Ruby Ridge? Think these types won't shoot and kill civilians?

Ahem...we have more people in prison in THIS nation right now than any other nation on earth. We lead in per capita and we lead in sheer numbers. We have approx one twentieth of the world population. Between 4 and 5 percent of world population. Isn't that right? Four or five pennies of the dollar.

But we have the most people in prison.

By all measures.

No, never happen here...

'Cause we got da vote! *rolling eyes*

[MrBenchley]

30. It's always instructive to see

what gun enthusiasts look forward to with delight....

"Waco anyone? Ruby Ridge? Think these types won't shoot and kill civilians? "
And WHAT civilians! Armed white supremacist nutcases who break the law. Stars of the gun rights movement, they are, too!

[Sandpiper]

35. David Koresh was a Martyr

If by martyr you mean pedophile with a penchant for violating federal law.

[MrBenchley]

92. Careful, he's the gun nuts' little tin god...

(snicker)

[EFerrari]

240. Crispy Cremes are a lethal weapon!

Next time, we ban those, too.

lol

[superconnected]

65. I'm all for arming bears.

As a vegetarian, and an animal rights supporter, I believe they should have the right to shoot back.

[Ayesha]

73. In San Francisco

you'd be talking about a different kind of bears!

[gordianot]

6. Good line Mike Ege ""It's not a solution (to gun violence),"

These types of measures play into RW wedge issues. True "absurd"

[MrBenchley]

24. So what is Mike's solution to gun violence, do you suppose...

[whatever4]

7. Who with any brains is actually going to turn in their weapons to the poli

"Who with any brains is actually going to turn in their weapons to the police?"

I agree, that's where reality is going to slap them in the face. It's a shame. The only people who won't have weapons will be the safest, most law-abiding and least violent individuals. Period. There is no other statement. What affect that has and what it really means will be shown by ensuing events. But the facts of the matter are impossible to deny.

Until they're ready and able to search all homes and businesses with metal detectors and by force (of arms), only the "good" citizens will have no weapons. Hear what that says. Only the good citizens won't have weapons.

[EFerrari]

10. Looks like the good citizens in San Francisco, including this one,

don't want them.

[whatever4]

12. I agree

I agree with you, the majority of voting citizens in San Fran don't want law abiding citizens to have weapons.

Absolutely.

[whatever4]

15. Except of course for the police

and any other "official" agency, state and federal agencies, national guard. Even a few merc probably. Bounty hunters.

I could talk about abuses and atrocities already being committed by those types, I could bring up filling prisons being big business and how violent the war against democracy in our nation has become, along with the crazies being given license to act out now in our nation against minorities, homosexuals and women, but it just won't matter. It's an experiment. I wish it would work. But from what I know, it never has.

[EFerrari]

54. Precisely. We know our own guns can be as lethal as anyone's guns

and now, have a zero chance of being killed with our own weapon.

I know this is a controversial decision but. that's what the community decided. Democracy, can't live with it, can't live without it.

peace,
Beth

[toopers]

38. The government has a good start . . .

The gov can look up the residents who have earned their handgun license or their conceal/carry license. If you are a constitutional abiding citizen, you may get a knock on your door to turn over your rights/gun.

[slackmaster]

77. Even more of a "good" start...

Every handgun sold in California since 1968 is registered with the Department of Justice.

If San Francisco manages to keep from having this silly law overturned and uses DoJ gun registry data to perform a mass confiscation, the backlash from the right will mean the end of gun control on the national level and in most states.

Be careful what you wish for.

[hogwyld]

181. Remember..

This is California. We are a Dem state, so the pugs can't do anything but make a bunch of noise.

[slackmaster]

248. You should read up on California history

We haven't always been a Democratic state. The pendulum has swung back and forth twice during my lifetime. It's folly IMO to assume that we will always be Democratic in the future.

See http://alastair.familydallas.com/governors.html

[michreject]

9. No handguns, so what!

If handguns are not available in SF, the criminal element will just saw off rifles to make them more concealable, causing the death rate to skyrocket.

It will show that banning handguns are not the solution to the crime problem.

[symbolman]

14. They can take my hand gun away

after they pry my Starbucks from my cold dead fingers..

The RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is ONE Amendment I will stand by to the Death - this IS exactly how Hitler did it, next little kids will be turning in their parents, maybe even for Profit when they get the PR campaign going..

"Sick of your Dad not letting you go hang out with your druggie friends all hours of the night? Well you can get YOUR RIGHT to do that back AND fix your father's fiddle all at the same time - Just snap a little phone pic and upload it to Der Policia and get that 300 dollar Generic Terrorist Fee the Govt is offering!"

It was the KIDS that they kept saying they were doing it all for, yet it was the KIDS that kept them under watch..

May we live in ordinary times again..

[whatever4]

17. "next little kids will be turning in their parents"

Yes

I gotta add, some of the home-schoolers aren't as crazy as some people seem to think they are.

[Bill McBlueState]

16. on banning handguns

Now we have our laboratory; let's wait for the data to come in. Will banning handguns make the city safer? Numbers are always more believable than paranoid speculation.

[whatever4]

18. as long as

"safer" isn't defined only by the number of accidental shootings.

editing to say I wish I could spell

[Bloodblister Bob]

19. It will indeed make San Francisco safer -- for thugs.

All the hoods and gang-bangers in the Bay Area are probably laughing their asses off today. I'm sure they're all looking forward to April 1 2006, when the deluded "Good Citizens" of San Francsico will have obediently surrendered their handguns to the government.

[MrBenchley]

27. And until then the handgun toting imbeciles of SF have made the city

a haven for genteel behavior...

"the hoods and gang-bangers in the Bay Area"
Geeze, good thing that now if they're caught with a handgun they'll be breaking the law and can be arrested, eh?

[Sandpiper]

34. But Bench, don't you know

It's the people walking around with a pistol in their waist band who make the world a better place.

Just watch any 80's action movie.

[MrBenchley]

93. Well of course....

What would gun nuts do without childish fantasy?

[MrBenchley]

25. Good thing there's that wall around San Francisco....

"Numbers are always more believable than paranoid speculation"
Which is why the gun rights movement has to lie about their numbers.

[EFerrari]

56. Actually, we're still working on the wall, Mr. Benchley.

[MrBenchley]

101. LOL!

[toopers]

37. Are you willing to be one of the statistics?

N/T

[Bill McBlueState]

40. sure, why not?

N/T

[jtb33]

41. Hasn't a handgun ban been in effect in Chi and DC for YEARS?

Hasn't worked out too well in those cities since they are always in the top 5 most dangerous cities in the US... It probably won't be long before SF joins them. Sad.

[MrBenchley]

103. And they remain popular with those cities' inhabitants too, for

"Hasn't worked out too well in those cities"
Actually, they work pretty well...who the fuck wants more shootouts becuides the trigger-happy?

[AngryAmish]

47. We have had the laboritories

Chicago. Crime rate went up.

[Romulus]

20. the next NRA meme

San Fran is going to be exhibit #1 on the "Democrats will confiscate your guns" bandwagon . . .

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[-..__...]

21. The handgun ban will be thrown out in court.

California has a preemption law that will nullify the ban.

[EFerrari]

57. You may be right. And in the meantime, every gun owner

will have to review, in the privacy of their minds, gun safety and the consequences of owning a gun.

I don't see a down side.

On edit: Except of course, that having the government tell you what you can and can't own is, in itself, odious. Sigh.

[-..__...]

They tried the same thing in 1982.

And it was overturned by the California State Court of Appeals.

[EFerrari]

64. Sure. And in the meantime, people thought and talked about it. nt

[rinsd]

74. Case law has changed since then? (nt)

[EFerrari]

76. I've no idea. But, how much can it hurt to have a community

thinking about their weapons?

[rinsd]

78. When you say only police and authorized security personnel may have them..

...and law abiding citizens may not, you have a problem.

[EFerrari]

80. But, I didn't say that.

And I put it to you, how often do good citizens have occasion to use these weapons in a city?

Even in the country, a big dog is a much better deterrent to assault.

I strongly dislike the idea that the government can tell me what I can own. Strongly. But I don't see a down side to this ban.

Any time you make people think, even if they disagree with you, you win.

[rinsd]

84. I'm sorry....

I was using the term "you" when it should have been "one" as in when one says. I didn't mean to refer to yourself specifically.

"And I put it to you, how often do good citizens have occasion to use these weapons in a city?"

Well here are SF's crime statistics

http://sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

The method of self defense I would rather leave up to the citizen.

"Any time you make people think, even if they disagree with you, you win."

Not when you hand the otherside a sure fire fundraising tool.

[EFerrari]

91. Thanks. And, you may be right.

I'm really loathe to curtail any of our rights -- it just goes against the grain.

But, (as I've said ad nauseum) if this ban makes people THINK about what they're doing, we win. Talking points last a news cycle or two. So what?

I checked out the link you gave me -- did you notice that crimes involving weapons were not distinguished in the categories?

One night, I chased a would be rapist out of my home by pretending I had a gun. I know that had I had one, I would have killed him. No brainer. But today, I'm glad I didn't have one. That I didn't kill him. That I wasn't arrested for manslaughter even if later I would have been exonerated.

Maybe my mouth is lethal weapon enough? That guy got chased into the arms of the Berkeley PD and got convicted and put away, all without me firing a shot.

San Francisco is used to having its decisions admired but also spun. Maybe that's what we're for.

[slackmaster]

79. In the long run it will probably cause a surge in handgun sales

Be careful what you wish for.

[hogwyld]

170. A lot has changed since 1982

We have become a solidly liberal state, people's attitudes have changed towards guns, we've had 101 California, Columbine, and other gun crimes. Besides, we've always got the 9th Circuit to help us!

[slackmaster]

186. A "solidly liberal state" that elected Arnold Schwarzenegger???

[YankeeFan]

212. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Proto-Typical RINO

Repunk
In
Name
Only

The only Repunk thing about him is his political affiliation.
He's married by political connections to the Kennedy clan.
And is there a more liberal family than the Kennedy's?

[Milspec]

208. handgun ban will be thrown out

The ban handgun ban will be thrown out and every body knew it!
This was a symbolic vote from the start.

[Dark]

22. Yea, I don't think making handguns illegal is such a good thing either.

[Sequoia]

32. Nope, remember your history, or Germany's history.

Take the guns away, let the police in, let the criminals in. These guys are not about to turn in their guns. While I don't carry or intend to carry a gun if I were a store owner, I'd be plenty worried.

[-..__...]

33. In more recent times.

Just look at how effective handgun bans in Washington DC and Chicago turned out.

[MrBenchley]

104. Every humhole with a swastika today spouts that "gun rights" gibberish

Btu don't let actual history get in the way of a rant, or anything...

[hogwyld]

173. Bravo MrBenchley

The gun nuts always bring out the same old tired line about Hitler and Stalin loving gun control.

[MrBenchley]

23. Good for San Francisco!

"Who with any brains is actually going to turn in their weapons to the police?"
Who with any brains is running around with a popgun in their pants in the first place?

[toopers]

39. Unfortunately, I have had several jobs . . .

and worked in several areas which necessitated my carrying a gun. If I would have waited for the police to arrive and protect me, I would be dead. But, you keep dreaming.

[whatever4]

45. Sadly that's the real problem...

In their scenario, it's more acceptable for you to have died. All those facts about the situations you were in don't matter, because according to their reality, a careful person should be able to avoid them I suppose. Though people can't be trusted to be careful enough to own weapons safely. That's just it. Too much violence? Take away the most effective weapon, the one you only have to hold in your hand to stop someone.

Also, they do not believe your having a weapon helped you or would have helped you. For some reason they think someone will be around to help them, and I guess that's really the saddest part in this. Is for me. That's my two cents.

[MrBenchley]

115. Well that IS rich....

"All those facts about the situations you were in don't matter"
Yeah, that post was just laden with facts, wasn't it?

"Though people can't be trusted to be careful enough to own weapons safely."
I don't think there's anything funnier than listening to people who scream that they have to tote a gun because they don't trust anyone else complain that they in turn are not trusted....

[MrBenchley]

111. I believe you...thousands wouldn't...

[TMAS]

68. .Another

Bunch of dreamers giving up thier rights. I hope they feel safer now. The police should give up thier guns too. They surely won't need them anymore, now that guns are illegal.

(sarcasm)

[MrBenchley]

118. Gee, we had gun "enthusaists" cheering as they pissed away our right

to a day in court against a corrupt industry recently...

Meanwhile, the only place you have an individual right to a handgun is in John AshKKKroft's wet dream...but then he's both crazy AND a liar.


"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. "

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm...

[TMAS]

151. Yea , I know your mantra

It seems to me that a gun free America is your "wet dream". Logical thinkers know it can never happen.

[hogwyld]

178. And the gun nuts wet dream

Is everyone with a gun drawing down at high noon over some perceived sleight. The muslims are a comin' git out yer guns!

[TMAS]

192. You are too funny

Do you really believe that gun owners want to draw down at high noon over some perceived slight? You left out key words, like Dodge City, Wyatt Earp, for the children, etc...

[Swede]

36. Well,no Nazis have taken over Canada.

In fact we're tilting farther left by the minute.

[iverglas]

231. well we're just sheep

we're tilting farther left by the minute.

We'll tilt so far left that we'll become completely unable to think or do for ourselves before very long, utterly dependent on the nanny state for our every thought ... and entirely under the thumb of it in our every act.

I mean, that's evidently the representation of "left" adhered to by some of the "liberals" hereabouts.

Doncha know?? It starts with licensing and registration for guns, and it ends with redcoats billeted in your rec room.

Never forget: Hitler was a National Socialist !

[EFerrari]

239. Yeah, but you still think butter is a spice!

lol

(Mr. sfexpat has a brazillian relatives in Vancouver. )

[0rganism]

42. I prefer the Chris Rock solution

Firearms? Perfectly legal to carry and own.

Bullets? $5000 each.

"That way if someone gets shot, you can be pretty sure he deserved it."

[EFerrari]

60. LOL! Exactly. I love that bit.

[Endangered Specie]

43. While I think shotguns are better for home defense...

I don't think it is wise to take away handguns from the general public, tougher regulation should have been an alternative (like demonstrating competence, prints on record, etc...). Criminals do not obey gun laws.

[whatever4]

46. Bury them in the back yard

At least, that's what I said in May 2003, when they started imposing weapons restrictions in Iraq.

And started searching homes

THAT'S when the violence really started

Bury them in the back yard

please or editing send them to family out of state, I mean out of the city, I am so dumb

[maximovich]

49. Oh... Noooo... The Gun Industry Is Going to Fall Apart

How many in San Fran actually have guns? What will they ever do....?

[JackieO]

50. Gun-grabbing liberals?

Say it ain't so!

[Sven77]

51. when martial law comes down

we will all need guns, i wonder if the french population has guns.

[Romulus]

52. seems not too hard in France (though it is in the EU)

For example, 22.lr caliber handguns and rifles are considered "sport/target" and need no permits. All others have simple paperwork permit requirements.

http://www.info-france-usa.org/intheus/customs/6000.asp

(info on importing firearms for visits or permanent residency)

A French guy was quoted in a news article this week as having his gun ready for the rioters if they attacked his home . . .

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

137. Let's all watch Red Dawn again!

It'll be a breeze to defeat a modern armed Military with handguns and deer rifles in 90 minutes!

[hogwyld]

142. Don't forget

Bows 'n Arrows too!

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

145. LOL! That's right! We're 'Muricans. Rough and tough and ready to scrap!

Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out!

Yippie! We all gonna die!

[hogwyld]

53. Too Bad

They only stopped at handguns. They should have banned every type of weapon from handguns, rifles, shotguns, to bows 'n arrow. They are only used to kill or inflict injury to animals and people. This ain't Dodge City, and we don't need a bunch of Wyatt Earps running around! Today San Francisco, tomorrow, the world!

[mandingo]

58. The laws are too vague

See that's the problem, what is a weapon? Ban assault rifles and they become "target rifles" or "hunting rifles". Ban swords and they become "machetes" for clearing brush. Cause you need a machete to clear all the brush when you hunt in the city.

Abolish the second amendment to get rid of the legal guns.
Abolish the fourth amendment and go door to door to get rid of the illegal ones.
Abolish the first amendment so people won't have to read so idiot's opinion about how unsafe they are without guns and that we can't rely on the police or government. (New Orleans was a fluke! Look at NYC after 9-11)

[-..__...]

62. Don't think that can't happen.

"AN ACT RELATIVE TO THE POSSESSION OF A MACHETE

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1.

Subsection (b) of section 10 of chapter 269 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition is hereby amended by inserting after the word “inches”, in line 67, the following word:- , machete.

SECTION 2. Said subsection (b) of said section 10 of said chapter 269, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by adding the following paragraph:-

For purposes of this section, “machete” means “a heavy knife at least 18 inches in length and having a blade at least 1.5 inches wide at its broadest measurement. This subsection shall not apply to carrying a machete on one’s person or in a vehicle if the machete is carried for the purpose of cutting vegetation or if the machete is being transported for the purpose of cutting vegetation. In a prosecution of a violation of this subsection, there shall be a permissible inference that such carrying of a machete is not for the purposes of cutting vegetation. Such presumption may be rebutted.

Any individual who requires a machete for the purposes of cutting vegetation shall register the machete with the local police department on an annual basis and, upon payment of an appropriate annual registration fee as determined by the local granting authority, shall be issued a permit authorizing him to possess the machete solely for the purposes of cutting vegetation."

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st01/st01384.htm

[saigon68]

66. This is crazy

A bunch of Politically Correct nut-cases are behind this one

[EFerrari]

87. Or folks that don't want to be murdered with the very weapons

they don't really know how to handle.

You decide.

[hogwyld]

99. Guns done belong in a civilized society

We are the only country that permits widespread gun ownership, and we have the most crime. All of those other countries with very restrictive gun laws, on the whole, have much lower crime rates. If ALL firearms were outlawed for civilians, we could see the same benefits. Or, tax the hell out of them so pay for needed social programs. Tax the ammo at $10.00 per round, and fund a national healthcare system, and housing for the homeless. The 2nd amendment needs to be repealed.

[-..__...]

120. I hate to burst your bubble, but...

guns or no guns, we are one fuck of a long way from even being close to
"civilized".

The 2nd amendment needs to be repealed

Sure... why not?

Lets pick and choose which other amendments need to be repealed because
we/they dislike them?

[hogwyld]

126. Why do you think were uncivilized

Because instead of talking, and creating solutions, we go grab our guns and yell YeeHaa! You don't think drive by shootings and gang violence in general would go down if police went house to house and confiscated weapons? There would be no need for retaliation if shootings didn't happen in the first place. You sure as hell wouldn't end up accidentally shooting your 15 year old sneaking into the house at 2am.

[stepnw1f]

132. Excellent Point

Paranoids are making everyone else paranoid. If we all had guns life would be safer? What a stupid theory...

[YankeeFan]

169. What is a 15 Year Old Doing Out That Late?

2:00 in the morning?

I don't care if it might be the weekend. Teens shouldn't be out that late without a damned good reason.
School nights that teen better be back even sooner.

Both parents better be awake and waiting for that child of their's to come home.

[hogwyld]

187. Oh please...

Who here hasn't gone to bed, waited until their parents went to sleep, and snuck out the window? Even "borrowed" the car. Of course, I got caught once and was grounded for weeks. I know I wasn't the only one.

[hogwyld]

123. Excellent post

I like the idea of just outlawing "Firearms" that way they can't use semantics to get around the law. I personally would abolish the 2nd, and put the 4th on temporary hiatus until the search is complete. Also, why do they so heavily regulate the sale of syringes, but not bullets?

[slackmaster]

55. Second Amendment Foundation has already filed a lawsuit to block this BS

"If you ban firearms, criminals will not obey the law and only law-abiding citizens will be victimized, first by the ordinance, which we believe violates state statute, and then by the outlaws," said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb. "In addition to all the gun rights organizations and various other groups, the San Francisco Police Officers Association opposed the ban and so did the news media. Mayor Gavin Newsom, Senator Dianne Feinstein and others acknowledge that the measure is pre-empted by state law. Underlining added by slackmaster for emphasis.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20051109/pl_usnw/second_am...

[-..__...]

71. Even the Brady Campaign had enough sense to stay away from the issue.

"And in San Francisco, a referendum to outlaw handguns passed by a spectacular margin with pennies spent marketing it. The Brady Campaign took no position on the proposal, but the broad margin of victory on the referendum (some 58 percent supported it) speaks volumes about the desire of urban residents to do something about the gun violence plaguing American cities."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=...

[MrBenchley]

108. And what a swell bunch the Second Amendment Foundation are too...

Our trigger-happy "progressives" (chortle) have just the NICEST friends....

""All I have to do is turn the spigot on and the money just flows," Alan Gottlieb once told a reporter. Every month, Gottlieb reaches out to 10 million of his closest friends, asking for contributions or votes. A prominent leader in both the pro-gun and anti-environment Wise Use movement, Gottlieb is likely one of the most powerful men in America.
Gottlieb sounds like part buccaneering entrepreneur and part political gunslinger. He has a remarkable knack for cashing in big on right-wing causes. "I am," he says, "the premier anti-communist, free-enterprise, laissez faire capitalist." He is also:
* President and founder of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, which in 1988 launched the Wise Use movement, today the most powerful anti-environmental force in the country.
* President of two nonprofit corporations, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which form the most potent pro-gun force in the country, aside from the National Rifle Association.
* A master fund raiser for conservative causes and candidates -- the most successful one outside Washington, DC.
* A member of the board of governors on the powerful and ultrasecretive Council for National Policy, whose membership is said to include such familiar right-wing stalwarts as CNP president and former Attorney General Edwin Meese; Paul Weyrich, founding president of the Heritage Foundation; Jerry Falwell; and Oliver North.
* Sole proprietor of a profitable right-wing publishing complex that writes, edits, and distributes conservative books and magazines.
* Owner of KBNP, a business radio station in Portland, and chairman of the board of the Talk America Radio Network, which has 196 affiliated radio stations across the nation.
* A convicted felon. In 1984, Gottlieb pleaded guilty to underpaying income-tax returns by $17,000 and served ten months in federal prison."

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/8-19-95/merchant.html

[slackmaster]

127. Yes, they're scumbags

Too bad people like you keep encouraging and motivating them.

[MrBenchley]

139. Jeeze, slack, and yet you trotted them out like they weren't....

And they don't need anything but their own fucking dishonesty and ugliness to motivate them....

As for encouraging them,....YOU were the one posting their horseshit here like it wasn't horseshit.

[slackmaster]

188. They're absolutely right that the SF gun ban is unconstitutional

I'll bet you a pint of Guinness Stout it gets tossed out in court before April 1.

I mean it MrBenchley. I'll make a trip to New Jersey to visit my cousin some time next year, and if I lose the bet I'm willing to take a side journey to your place to pay off and act conciliatory.

[stepnw1f]

214. Is That Why There Still is a Ban in DC

and Chicago? Un-constitutional....? Maybe not, huh?

[slackmaster]

242. California state Constitution does not apply in DC or Chicago

Firearms in California are regulated by state law. Municipalities cannot cook up their own gun laws.

[MrBenchley]

226. And they're a right wing puddle of pus....

and why the hell would I want to hang out with someone who pretends they aren't?

By the way, what happened to the right wing fuckwits at the CATO Institute when they went to court to pretend that the DC gun laws were unconstitutional?

"U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan today dismissed a CATO Institute-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on Second Amendment grounds of Washington, DC's ban on the sale and possession of handguns. Judge Sullivan's ruling in United States v. Parker upholds the ban, which was adopted by the City Council in 1976. The Violence Policy Center (VPC) had filed an amicus curie brief in the case.
In entering judgment for the District, Judge Sullivan wrote: "his Court would be in error to overlook sixty-five years of unchanged Supreme Court precedent and the deluge of circuit case law rejecting an individual right to bear arms not in conjunction with service in the Militia." "

http://www.vpc.org/press/0403cato.htm

[slackmaster]

243. Extend an olive branch to some people and what do you get?

That's the last straw MrBenchley.

Your actions and your behavior leave me no alternative.

I'm going to send you a Christmas card this year.

Not a cheesy one either. A really nice one.

[Robeson]

59. Wish I lived in San Francisco.

[superconnected]

67. Me too.

My sisters newphew was 15 when he was killed by one of his friends who took out his dads gun, and shot him. The kid lied massively about it, including saying Seth had shot himself first.

Seth was shot in the chest.

The kid went to juvy only. The parent explained that a gun is no good if it's not kept loaded. They still keep guns and maintain their kid was not at fault and it was some accident, even though it's completely sketchy about how the accident happened except for one confession by another friend - which was the kid considered seths' mom a b@#$ and wanted seth to help him kill her and seth had turned him down.

[Jack_DeLeon]

63. Sorry bud but you cant take away rights with a vote...

some people might choose to give up thier rights on thier own because of this vote, but a vote cannot take away a persons rights.

[hogwyld]

191. Sure you can

They voted to restrict people's right to smoke by linking it to public health. Same could be done for guns. Sometimes laws are passed for the public good despite what the gun lobby wants.

[brentspeak]

69. Not a good idea

I'm not an advocate of allowing "concealed carry" in places where there is 1) no need, and 2) where's there's no existing gun culture.
But that's different in a city like SF, where there is a longstanding gun culture, and there are really bad crime areas. The average legal handgun owner in SF has grown up knowing how to own a gun responsibly (that goes for much of California, as well). Now, every criminal in SF will only feel emboldened to mug people, knowing that their victims are less likely to be armed.

[rd_kent]

70. I'm POSITIVE that gun crime rates will plummet!!!!

Yeah, right!!!!

[YankeeFan]

171. I am 100% Sure That Gangs...

Will pay as much attention to this law as they have to every other law on the books.

The "right" wingers are laughing like crazy at Frisco.
I can't help but wonder how many Democrats are going to become Repunks over this.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

72. Wow. After reading this thread, I guess SF will end up with all the

"law abiding citizens" dead or dying at the hands of criminals because they weren't packing before they all slide off into the Pacific.

Christ, what over reactive bullshit. To listen to the Rambo wannabees, it's amazing anyone has a chance of living past puberty unless they are well armed or live in a fortress.

[rinsd]

75. Nahhhh....

This is going to be overturned so its effects likely won't be seen. Those I'm sure it would have been a grand ole time for the SFPD (who were against it) to have to go door to door for confiscation.

Reactive bullshit is "there was school shooting so we should ban guns"

[slackmaster]

81. San Francisco will end up with more privately owned handguns

The ban will be overturned in court. There is no question about that, even Gavin Newsome and Senator Diane Feinstein have said so.

Between now and that moment, there will be a surge in handgun sales all around the Bay Area. As is the case with most things, simply talking about guns precipitates interest in owning and shooting them.

Gun control extremists will reap what they have sown. Tbe only thing that boosts gun sales better than gun control demagoguery is a riot.

[EFerrari]

85. I bet you a quart of Ben & Jerry's that you are wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly pay up. And now, you have witnesses.

[slackmaster]

88. It's a bet

[EFerrari]

96. Done.

[rinsd]

86. I'm not sure about sales going up....

Did that happen in DC? Or Chicago?

What I do see is an increase in the NRA's and GOP's fundraising.

[slackmaster]

89. The DC and Chicago bans haven't been tossed out in court

San Francisco's will.

What I do see is an increase in the NRA's and GOP's fundraising.

I hope I'm right and you're not. More privately owned guns would be a benign outcome.

[rinsd]

90. "More privately owned guns would be a benign outcome"

I also hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[benEzra]

247. Those were before my time, but I do know

that the 1994 "assault weapon" bait-and-switch resulted in a HUGE increase in the number of modern-looking small-caliber self-loaders in civilian hands. I have read that more AR-15 type rifles were sold in 1994 and the decade following than in the previous three decades combined; ditto for civilian AK-47 lookalikes and such.

[EFerrari]

83. Welcome to the End of the World

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

98. LOL... Hell, I'm just an old ignorant Alabama redneck...

(who just spent 10 seconds trying to delete a speck on my monitor that looked like an unnecessary period)

Even people here doubt the efficacy of guns in the unchecked hands of the general populace... We see it here too often. There are too many idiots that shouldn't be allowed a pair of sissors muchless a handgun.

[EFerrari]

102. Or a driver's license or a beer or a kid!

[jody]

106. "old ignorant Alabama redneck"? I knew it all along!

[hogwyld]

107. Bravo S.F.!

I guess all the people in San Francisco do NOT suffer the fears of "inadequacy" They don't need big guns to compensate for other areas. Would move there in a heartbeat if I could afford it!

[jody]

95. CA Constitution says people have inalienable right to defend life.

QUOTE
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
UNQUOTE

Inalienable means "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred" but people who would ban handguns in California want to ignore such things.

How will people in San Francisco exercise their inalienable right of self-defense if government takes away their most effective, efficient tools -- handguns?

[EFerrari]

109. Begs the question:

"How will people in San Francisco exercise their inalienable right of self-defense if government takes away their most effective, efficient tools -- handguns?"

I've never touched a gun more than once in my life, despite living in very dangerous circumstances. And I'm still here.

Maybe stupid luck, but there it is.

[MrBenchley]

110. In fact...

Handguns are a menace to their owners and his immediate circle. They are utterly ineffective as any sort of crime control or personal safety measure.

[EFerrari]

114. Exactly. Give me a big dog.

When I was a single mom in Berkeley, I adopted a yeller lab.

I put a scary looking metal collar on her (which she needed not at all) and I walked the city at any hour of the day and night I wanted to.

What I would have done with a gun in the house with two adolescent boys is beyond me.

But, that was my family in that situation in that city.

[MrBenchley]

122. You'll notice none of the people

whacking their willies over guns EVER propose that more money be spent on police, an improved 911 system, etc.

Nor do they ever seem to want bulletproof vests or the like...

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

128. I don't know if it's a Rambo complex or what... Do

they fantasize of being Charles Bronson killing off the baddies because reality wasn't as fast or interesting?

It's disheartening that they make so much noise.

[MrBenchley]

136. The entire case for this rubbish

boils down to the sort of idiotic fantasy that used to be published in 1950's style "Real Men" magazines...and nothing more...

[EFerrari]

146. Worse, that they think so little in terms of their own real safety.

I'm no weenie. If I needed a gun, I'd have one.

But, stirring a gun into the mix seems to me to just be inviting more and escalated danger. We've enough on our hands.

[EFerrari]

130. 0r, big dogs

[MrBenchley]

134. Or better streetlights...

Me dog not so big but he LOUD!!

[EFerrari]

138. My girl is big and scary looking + steel collar.

The two or three times I was approached, I was hoping my assailant wouldn't get close enough for Buddy to lick their knees. lol

There are so many things we can do before we arm ourselves and put everyone around us in a whole 'nother kind of danger.

[MrBenchley]

140. Exactly so...

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

141. My god, that's my Rose! (Pic from 5 months ago)

[EFerrari]

234. Look at those feet!

She's great! Is she swimming yet?

Buddy used to swim like a blonde seal in the bay, every morning.

[-..__...]

131. Your choice, your decision.

But, never for a moment think that you have the right to decide the choices and decisions of others.

What I would have done with a gun in the house with two adolescent boys is beyond me.

Well, you were wise in one sense in that at least you bought a lab (which from my understanding are one of the most even tempered breeds of dogs to own). But, what if that wasn't the case? There are numerous incidents of dogs attacking , maiming and killing children (and adults as well).

I live in a small apartment.
I work a tough schedule.
I don't have the time or patience to care for, feed and expenses for a dog (hell, my 2 birds take up enough of my time).

Are you telling me, and others in a similar situation that we're better off owning a dog?

A dog is an option (for some), but not necessarily the smartest, wisest or safest one.

[EFerrari]

133. I agree. It's not my place to make judgments for *anyone*.

Last night, my community agreed with me.

Let's see what impact, if any, this has on violent crime in San Francisco.

/typo

[jody]

113. SCOTUS has said government is not obligated to protect an individual

unless she/he is in custody therefore, self defense is a personal question.

If you choose not to defend yourself, that's your right but why do you want to impose your personal beliefs on law-abiding citizens?

Handguns are the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense, the choice of professionals like law-enforcement officers.

[EFerrari]

116. "The most effective, efficient tool for self defense"

I think not.

Call your local PD and ask them if you should arm yourself.

[jody]

121. I have and that's why I have a CCW permit. n/t

[EFerrari]

129. Really? Well, that's remarkable. n/t

[jody]

144. Why do you want to impose your personal beliefs on law-abiding citizens?

It's not remarkable that police departments encourage citizens to be trained and keep handguns for self-defense.

What's remarkable is that you don't know that.

[EFerrari]

152. Where have I done anything in this thread that even faintly

resembles imposition? This is DU.

What's remarkable to me, insofar as I work with great cops every day, is that your report directly contradicts what my cop friends tell me about guns in the community.



/clarity

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

158. A "Law abiding citizen" would either give up his pistole or move into

the county after a law like this had passed.

I think Pot ought to be legal, but I'm not going to burn a joint in front of the police station. If I felt that strongly about it, I'd move to Amsterdam.

What I don't understand is why there is no testing for handgun ownership. It's harder to get licensed to drive a car. This country is populated with a lot of stupid people. How do you think Bush got elected? If it were harder to get a gun and there was some sort of psychological testing involved, you wouldn't hear me moan about it so much.

[jody]

175. Most states require training for a CCW permit. Browse the database

at Concealed Carry Information by State.

I believe you'll find that many states have adequate training requirements for issuing a CCW.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

177. So what's to stop the psychotic Koresh wannabee from ignoring

the CCW laws?

When he decides to do the deed and carry the gun to school/work/restaurant/mall, it's a moot point.

[jody]

183. What's to stop you from taking your car and driving through a crowd?

If you decide to do the deed and drive the car through a school/work/restaurant/mall, it's a moot point.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

204. At least I have to take a driving test....

[jody]

209. As you said, a test is a moot point. n/t

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

220. When the hell did I say a test is a moot point?

[jody]

222. You said "So what's to stop the psychotic Koresh wannabee from ignoring

the CCW laws? When he decides to do the deed and carry the gun to school/work/restaurant/mall, it's a moot point."

Tests for CCW and driving are required by law and as you said "it's a moot point."

[benEzra]

249. The officer I talked to at our sheriff's office

said that he didn't think the state should charge the $100 they do for civilian carry permits; in his opinion, if a person passes the course and background check, they should get the permit for free.

You are projecting your local prohibitionist attitude as applying to the whole country, which it most certainly does not.

A majority of people in my state (NC), including a majority of Democrats, own guns, by personal choice.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

112. Pure straw... It leaves your mini14's, deer rifles, shotguns, tasers,

brickbats, knives, napalm, machine guns, Gatling guns, homemade thermonuclear devices, Nine Irons, Machetes, Pit Bulls, Lions and Bears, Trap doors, Bowie Knives, Razor edged pendulums, zombies and swords.

In over half a century of being in a lot of bad places, I've never had to use a gun to keep safe including the two times I've been drawn down on.

I think that the poor people in SF will do just fine without handguns... I agree with the majority of people who live there and made that choice.

I know this guy in TX who is big on the 2nd amendment called David Koresh that could help you with this argument... Never mind. He's dead now.

[jody]

119. What part is straw, the CA constitution I quoted? Handguns are the choice

of professionals for self defense where engagement is about seven yards. Just ask law enforcement officers what they prefer to carry for self-defense.

The only straw I see is the barrier gun-grabbing cretins want to construct to oppose criminals.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

124. Your quote does not mention firearms at all. "Gun grabbing cretins?"

That's a little personal. Keep it to the topic and not the person or personalities.

[jody]

143. Which quote do you mean, the CA constitution? What tools do you

propose that law-abiding citizens use for self-defense?

Why not let them use the same tools that LEOs use because LEOs do not have an inalienable right to self-defense. LEOs' right of self-defense comes from government.

As to cretins, I believe you are acquainted with gun-grabbers who use that term when referring to pro RKBA types.

[EFerrari]

147. Jody, in all sincerity, in what situation would you be safer with a gun?

I'm not some "politically correct" nut. I'm really asking.

[jody]

154. I could list many but I'll just give you one. An intruder attempted to

break in to a friend's home. The wife showed her handgun to the intruder and he promptly left. No shots were fired, just the presence of an armed victim was sufficient.

In 2003, 68.8% of the 4.9 million victims of violent crime took self-protective measures and only 1.8% of those victims used a weapon.

3.5 million of those victims taking self-protective measures helped the situation.

See DU thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Whether you choose to keep and bear arms, whether a firearm, mace, pepper spray, etc. is you personal decision but, in most states a citizen has an inalienable right to defend them self.

It turns out that handguns are the most effective, efficient tool for many citizens and many police departments offer training to citizens who have CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) permits.

[EFerrari]

157. I'm sorry to seem or be stupid, but how do we get to the fact

that hand guns are the best measure of self-protection?

(I'm taking my only bro out for a birthday dinner, and I'll be back in a coupla hours.

Thanks,
Beth)

[jody]

168. Experience of people who use arms for self defense. Given a choice

of knives, chemical weapons, stun-guns, handguns, rifles, and shotguns,
people find handguns easy to carry in a pocket or ladies purse while being convenient if needed. It's very difficult to carry shotguns and rifles and other arms have a very limited range.

If someone chooses to obtain a CCW permit for a handgun, they should be properly trained not only in the proper use of the handgun arm but in the circumstances that allow its use.

[EFerrari]

235. I'd like to see a source. Thanks. n/t

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

150. The constitution quote... And personally, I think that the LEO's should

be better armed that the general populace.

If you were a delusional non-diagnosed psychopath who has spent the last three years watching reruns of Gunsmoke and had become Marshall Dillon believing that Doc was speaking to him in code from god, I would really prefer to be in a place that would make it hard as hell for you to get a weapon that would be easy to conceal and kill from a distance with.

That way, when you went marching down the street armed like The Terminator, the police would be able to "neutralize" you quickly and efficiently.

(I don't think you'll hear it from me)

[jody]

156. Why should LEOs be better armed when they are not obligated to

protect law-abiding citizens unless she/he is in custody?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

160. If you have to ask that question, I give up.

That is tooooooo bizaro for me to argue with.

Yikes!

That really scares me.

[jody]

164. If you can't answer my question, that's really bizarre. Are you ignoring

the simple fact that self-defense is a personal problem?

[GHOSTDANCER]

148. O cuz DC & Chicago are some of the safest places you can visit?

I mean come on? They used these two places as examples to push this bullshit on the populace. Criminals don't obey laws, They won't obey this one either. This law will only leave innocent law obeying citizens further unprotected then they already are.

[EFerrari]

149. Hmm. How many good people do you know that have kept

their family safer with a gun?

[TMAS]

159. If guns can't keep you safer,

Why do so many rich individuals hire body guards who carry guns? I would guess that they can't count on the police to protect them.

Unfortunately, I can't afford a bodyguard for my family. Should I expect the police to protect them, when I know they can't? Why is it OK to have armed people to protect money but I shouldn't be allowed to use one to protect my family.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

LOL!!!!111!!

That's a good one!

[EFerrari]

236. High profile people are more likely to be targets, for one thing.

And, if you check out hollywood security consultant Gavin de Becker's "The Gift of Fear", at no point does he reccommend arming yourself with anything but your BRAIN.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

153. HOLY SHIT! I just googled "gun" in the news and couldn't find a single

story in this week's news about a homeowner saving life by owning a gun.

But there sure was a lot of other bad stuff about guns...

This is sooo surprising. Could some people be exaggerating?

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=mozilla-search&ie=...

[jody]

161. Not surprising since some perhaps most incidents where a victim

has used a gun to thwart violent crime are not reported.

You do know that in 2003, there were 246 justifiable homicides by private citizens and 370 by law enforcement officers? See Crime in the United States - 2003

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

163. Don't you think there'd be one or two this week with the 34,600

news stories about guns?

[jody]

166. Not at all and the 34,600 number probably includes duplicates. n/t

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

167. I'll give you that... Say half of them are dupes... That leaves 17,300

stories.

You think there would be at least a few thousand telling how someone bravely saved his or her family with a gun rather than let his five year old carry it onto a school bus or blew away a teacher in school.

[jody]

172. Citizens using firearms to prevent crime doesn't make headlines.

I personally know several people who used their firearms to prevent an attack but did not report the crime.

Self-defense is a personal problem and that's the major position taken by those of us who are pro RKBA.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

174. Sure, and we are going to find WMD in Iraq any day now.

And we will discover that Ruby worked for Nixon.

LOL!

[jody]

176. Now Tom, we both know * lied about WMD so what does that have to do with

a law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

179. That was a reply to the statement that "people protecting themselves

with firearms never make the news."

Could it be that it just doesn't happen that much?

[jody]

182. FBI stats can't deal with what is not reported. John Lott's work is

controversial and his book "More Guns, Less Crime" has staunch supporters and rabid critics.

"Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" by the Committee on Law and Justice, National Research Council, examined about 80 research papers and said "In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide."

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

193. John Lott???? Of The American Enterprise Institute?

He is a "Resident Scholar" there.

A little about the group.

"The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is an extremely influential, pro-business right-wing think tank founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown. It promotes the advancement of free enterprise capitalism, and succeeds in placing its people in influential governmental positions. It is the center base for many neo-conservatives.

History

Originally set up as a spokesperson for big business and the promotion of free enterprise, the AEI came to major national prominence in the 1970s under the leadership of William Baroody, Sr., during which time it grew from a group of twelve resident "thinkers" to a well-funded organization with 145 resident scholars, 80 adjunct scholars, and a large supporting staff. This period of growth was largely funded by the Howard Pew Freedom Trust <1>

Ronald Reagan said of the AEI in 1988:

"The American Enterprise Institute stands at the center of a revolution in ideas of which I, too, have been a part. AEI's remarkably distinguished body of work is testimony to the triumph of the think tank. For today the most important American scholarship comes out of our think tanks – and none has been more influential than the American Enterprise Institute."

In 1986, the Olin and Smith Richardson foundations withdrew their support from AEI because of substantive disagreement with certain of its policies, causing William Baroody, Jr. to resign in the ensuing financial crisis. Following criticism by conservatives that the AEI was too centrist, it moved its programme further to the right and became more aggressive in pursuing its public policy goals. <2> (http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?r... )

More recently, it has emerged as one of the leading architects of the Bush administration's foreign policy. AEI rents office space to the Project for the New American Century, one of the leading voices that pushed the Bush administration's plan for "regime change" through war in Iraq. AEI reps have also aggressively denied that the war has anything to do with oil.

In June 2003, AEI and another right-wing group, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, launched a new website NGOWatch.org/NGOwatch.org (http://www.NGOWatch.org ) to expose the funding, operations and agendas of international NGOs, and particularly their alleged efforts to constrain US freedom of action in international affairs and influence the behavior of corporations abroad. <3> (http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18733 ) AEI states that "The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies, as well as the effectiveness of credible NGOs."<4> (http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.329,filter.foreign/ev... ) Ralph Nader responds with "What they are condemning, with vague, ironic regulatory nostrums proposed against dissenting citizen groups, is democracy itself." <5>

(http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8107 )


Personnel

* Douglas J. Besharov, Resident Scholar and a Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Maryland.
* Robert H. Bork, Senior Fellow and rejected Reagan Supreme Court nominee.
* Karlyn Bowman, Resident Fellow.
* Montgomery Brown, publication staff member.
* Virginia Bryant, publication staff member.
* Kathryn Burrows, publication staff member.
* Lynne Cheney, the wife of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, is an AEI senior fellow.
* Richard Cohen penned a vociferous response to Dennis Kucinich's assertion that the war is about oil.
* Jon Entine is an adjunct fellow at AEI
* Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Resident Fellow and co-author of Women's Figures (http://www.iwf.org/pubs/figures.shtml ).
* Michael Fumento works at AEI.
* Reuel Marc Gerecht Resident Fellow
* Newt Gingrich, Senior Fellow and former Speaker of the House <1995-1999>.
* Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Senior Fellow
* Kenneth Krattenmaker, publication staff member.
* Michael Ledeen A former consultant to the NSC and to the U.S. State and Defense Departments his latest book is entitled, "The War against the Terror Masters."
* Juyne Linger, editor.
* John R. Lott, Jr. is a relentless opponent of gun control and the author of a book titled "More Guns, Less Crime."
* Michael Novak, neoconservative Catholic who strongly favors capitalism and criticizes liberation theology and liberal Catholic initiatives
* Richard Perle a vocal media supporter of the US-Iraq war.
* Lee Raymond, CEO of ExxonMobil, is the vice chair of AEI's board of trustees.
* Harlan Crow, Dallas real estate magnate, serves on AEI's board of trustees
* Nazanin Samari, Research Assistant.
* Leigh Tripoli
* Ben J. Wattenberg, Senior Fellow and host of the PBS series Think Tank (http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/index.html ).
* Roger Bate, visiting fellow

Current list of Scholors and Fellows is available here (http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter./scholar_byname.asp ).



Alumni

* Anne Brunsdale
* James Buchanan
* Dick Cheney
* former President Gerald R. Ford
* C. Boyden Gray
* Alan Keyes
* Jeane Kirkpatrick
* Irving Kristol
* Kenneth Lay
* S. Robert Lichter - former holder of the AEI's DeWitt Wallace Chair in Mass Communications <6> (http://www.ashbrook.org/events/lecture/1993/lichter.htm... )
* Constantine C. Menges
* Joshua Muravchik
* Antonin Scalia
* L. William Seidman
* George P. Shultz
* William E. Simon
* Herbert Stein
* Ben J. Wattenberg

From: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Ent...

Fuck, man. If he's one of your heroes... You're in the wrong place.

He's also the author of "Exploding the Fireworks Safety Threat," which basically says that there is no danger in fireworks and they ought to have no regulation.

You are showing your true colors on this one, man.

[jody]

197. My, my you do go off on a tangent without reading. Lott is not my hero,

is Sara Brady your hero?

If either Lott or Brady come up with facts, then I'll look at the facts. I've already cited a major review by the National Academies that looked at about 80 studies and concluded they were all flawed.

Can you cite a single study that reliably concludes that banning handguns reduces crime?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

199. No problem... we are 4th in the world for murders by firearms...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir

Definition: Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.


Country Description
1. South Africa 31,918
2. Colombia 21,898
3. Thailand 20,032
4. United States 8,259
5. Mexico 3,589
6. Zimbabwe 598
7. Germany 384
8. Belarus 331
9. Czech Republic 213
10. Ukraine 173
11. Poland 166
12. Canada 165
13. Costa Rica 126
14. Slovakia 117
15. Spain 97
16. Portugal 84
17. Uruguay 84
18. Lithuania 83
19. Bulgaria 63
20. United Kingdom 62
21. Australia 59
22. Hungary 44
23. Switzerland 40
24. Latvia 30
25. Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of 26

Many of the countries with strict gun laws aren't listed because they aren't in the top 25.

Next?



BTW, Your source?

On edit, did you notice that our total is greater than the following 21 countries combined?

[jody]

201. Japan with strict firearm laws has a much higher suicide rate that the US.

So what?


U.S. areas in which citizens can freely keep and bear arms have lower homicide rates than metro areas that ban or limit RKBA.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

202. Because of the culture, Jody. Suicide has been an "acceptable"

road to take for quite a while in Japan. Hell, one of their best sellers today is an instruction book on suicide.

Just as the wild west mentality has been here. We have the anarchist's cookbook.

They are trying to change that mentality.

[jody]

206. I've already cited a National Academies study that concluded there

are no reputable studies that show a causal relationship between firearm ownership and crime/suicide.

Please tell me where the Committee on Law and Justice, National Research Council of the National Academies went wrong? I'm sure they will be delighted to have you point out their errors.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

213. they admit their data is specious themselves:

Drawing causal inferences is always complicated and, in the behavioral and social sciences, fraught with uncertainty. Some of the problems that the committee identifies are common to all social science research. In the case of firearms research, however, the committee found that even in areas in which the data are potentially useful, the complex methodological problems inherent in unraveling causal relationships between firearms policy and violence have not been fully considered or adequately addressed.

Nevertheless, many of the shortcomings described in this report stem from the lack of reliable data itself rather than the weakness of methods. In some instances—firearms violence prevention, for example—there are no data at all. Even the best methods cannot overcome inadequate data and, because the lack of relevant data colors much of the literature in this field, it also colors the committee’s assessment of that literature.

DATA RECOMMENDATIONS

If policy makers are to have a solid empirical and research base for decisions about firearms and violence, the federal government needs to support a systematic program of data collection and research that specifically addresses that issue. Adverse outcomes associated with firearms, although large in absolute numbers, are statistically rare events and therefore are not observed with great frequency, if at all, in many ongoing national probability samples (i.e., on crime victimization or health outcomes). The existing data on gun ownership, so necessary in the committee’s view to answering policy questions about firearms and violence, are limited primarily to a few questions in the General Social Survey. There are virtually no ongoing, systematic data series on firearms markets. Aggregate data on injury and ownership can only demonstrate associations of varying strength between firearms and adverse outcomes of interest. Without improvements in this situation, the substantive questions in the field about the role of guns in suicide, homicide and other crimes, and accidental injury are likely to continue to be debated on the basis of conflicting empirical findings.

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html /

You are bailing water with a sieve.

[jody]

216. "data is specious"? Please tell me precisely where the conclusion

the committee made and I cited is flawed.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

218. I quote:

Drawing causal inferences is always complicated and, in the behavioral and social sciences, fraught with uncertainty. Some of the problems that the committee identifies are common to all social science research. In the case of firearms research, however, the committee found that even in areas in which the data are potentially useful, the complex methodological problems inherent in unraveling causal relationships between firearms policy and violence have not been fully considered or adequately addressed.

Nevertheless, many of the shortcomings described in this report stem from the lack of reliable data itself rather than the weakness of methods. In some instances—firearms violence prevention, for example—there are no data at all. Even the best methods cannot overcome inadequate data and, because the lack of relevant data colors much of the literature in this field, it also colors the committee’s assessment of that literature.

DATA RECOMMENDATIONS

If policy makers are to have a solid empirical and research base for decisions about firearms and violence, the federal government needs to support a systematic program of data collection and research that specifically addresses that issue. Adverse outcomes associated with firearms, although large in absolute numbers, are statistically rare events and therefore are not observed with great frequency, if at all, in many ongoing national probability samples (i.e., on crime victimization or health outcomes). The existing data on gun ownership, so necessary in the committee’s view to answering policy questions about firearms and violence, are limited primarily to a few questions in the General Social Survey. There are virtually no ongoing, systematic data series on firearms markets. Aggregate data on injury and ownership can only demonstrate associations of varying strength between firearms and adverse outcomes of interest. Without improvements in this situation, the substantive questions in the field about the role of guns in suicide, homicide and other crimes, and accidental injury are likely to continue to be debated on the basis of conflicting empirical findings.

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html /

You are bailing water with a sieve.

[jody]

223. You need to read more carefully. The summary has multiple sections.

I asked if you can refute the specific committee conclusion I cited and you have not yet done so.

Are you familiar with statistical research methods?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

224. Quote and link the fucking "conclusion" you are talking about.

You made a general statement and I rebutted with text from the report with a link.

It's a huge text and my quote is from their Major Conclusions page found here: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/2.html

[jody]

228. I did not make a general statement, see

the Executive Summary Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review under “Firearms, Criminal Violence, and Suicide” on page 7:

"In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide."

I asked you to point out where the committee erred in their conclusion.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

225. Quote and link the fucking "conclusion" you are talking about.

You made a general statement and I rebutted with text from the report with a link.

It's a huge text and my quote is from their Major Conclusions page found here: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/2.html

[iverglas]

233. you might try asking google for ...

analogies intelligence.

And then you might despair of using them. Sometimes, the bulb just burns too dimly.

Of course, if you do use one and are faced with claims of incomprehension, you might want to just look up "disingenuous" in the dictionary.

One can never be sure which it is.

Dim ... or disingenuous?
Dim ... or disingenuous?

Maybe there's another explanation, but I'm afraid I can't help, since I'm still looking for it after all these years.



(subject line edited to reflect actual content of post once written)

[TMAS]

162. Well

Have you ever seen a report of someone protecting his/her family with a gun in the newspaper. I guess it never happens then.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

165. Hardly ever... A lot more stories about interfamilial shootings.

[jody]

180. How many stories can you cite if you google "interfamilial shootings"?

Does that mean none occurred?

I assumed you meant "interfamilial shootings" and not "intrafamilial shootings".

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

184. I googled "gun kill brother" 1080 responses.... One of the more tragic...

Last Friday, a 13-year-old was accidentally shot to death at his home in Meadowridge subdivision. He and two 11-year-old twins were skipping school when they found a .30-30 rifle in a closet, according to Marion County Sheriff's Office reports.

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2005110...

There are, unfortunately, so fucking many stories like this that it should make a sane person sick.

[jody]

189. Drowning is 16 times more dangerous that firearms.

In 2002, 48 children 13 and under were accidentally killed with a firearm but 795 accidentally drowned. See WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 2000 – 2002.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

194. Using your source: 2000 to 2002

Drownings 12K
Firearms 88K

Right, Guns are good. sheesh.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Ent...

[jody]

198. You need to make a proper query because the numbers I gave are correct.

Your example was an accidental shooting involving 11 and 13 year old kids. I countered with accidental drownings for 13 and under versus accidental firearms for 13 and other.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

200. I'm just looking at gun deaths vs. drownings.

As broad and unspecific as I could get to accumulate honest untainted data without bias.

[jody]

203. But you have changed the topic. You introduced an example with

a 13 year old child and 11 year old twins involved in an accidental shooting.

I offered stats that show drowning rates for 0-13 year olds are much higher than accidental shooting rates. Having lost that point, you now try to change the topic.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

205. No, you asked about familial killings. I provided an example...

I doesn't matter if they were 50. We had a local incident this past weekend where a guy shot his brother to death over the proceeds of a yard sale. 50 & 60 somethings.



On edit... Here's one:

Illinois man charged with killing four family members

WHEATON, Ill. An Illinois man has been charged with killing four family members in September.
Prosecutors say Eric Hanson shot his parents in the head in their home after earlier bludgeoning his sister and brother-in-law to death in a separate locations in Chicago's western suburbs.

They allege Hanson used a sophisticated scheme to steal tens of thousands of dollars from his parents in the months before the killings.

He was arrested in Wisconsin the next day. He's being held there while his ... More: http://www.whnt.com/Global/story.asp?S=4075746

[jody]

207. I googled but couldn't find the incident, so I assume it didn't happen.

That's the google research method recommended by my good friend Tom Yossarian Joad.

ON EDIT ADD:
I googled "gun kill brother" as you stated and got zero hits.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

210. Okay, the above story was googled by "huntsville killing brother"

And in going back it was "gun killed brother". My bad, but I do give links with everything.


From one of the links...

During the last few years, we have often heard the terrible news of men killing co-workers, and even brothers.

Elijah Brown, 21, of Kansas City, laid off because of production downturns, went on a rampage and killed six people.

Joseph Parker slashed and killed two former co-workers and wounded three other people at a supermarket where he used to bag groceries.

Doug Williams, 48, gunned down 14 co-workers, killing six, at a Lockheed Martin aircraft parts plant in Meridian, MS.

Jonathon Russell, 25, shot and killed three co-workers and wounded five others at the Modine Manufacturing Co. in Jefferson City, MO.

Emanuel Patterson, 23, opened fire at a temporary employment service in Huntsville, AL, killing four fellow job-seekers and wounding a fifth.

William Baker, 66, killed four people, then himself at a Navistar International engine plant in Melrose Park, IL.

Michael McDermott, 42, killed seven people at a Wakefield, MA, Internet consulting company.

Robert Harris, 28, shot five people to death at a Dallas-area car wash.

Mark Barton, 44, after brutally murdering his wife and children, killed nine people at two Atlanta brokerage offices and later committed suicide.

Matthew Beck, 35, shot four lottery executives to death in Newington, CT.

Arturo Torres, 43, killed four former co-workers at maintenance yard in Orange, CA.

Arthur Wise, 43, opened fire at Aiken, SC, parts plant, killing four.

Alan Miller shot and killed three people at two different businesses where he worked in central Alabama – he had complained of rumors being spread about him.

At a Jackson, MS firehouse, Kenneth Tornes, 32, killed four superiors, as well as his estranged wife.

Los Angeles city electrician Willie Woods, 42, shot four supervisors to death at C. Erwin Piper Technical Center.

James Simpson, 28, a former employee at a refinery inspection station in Corpus Christi, TX, killed the owner of the company, his wife and three workers.

Tuan Nguyen, 29, recently fired from a Santa Fe Springs, CA, electronics factory, killed three people.

Alan Winterbourne, 33, opened fire in an unemployment office in Oxnard, CA, killing three state workers and injuring four others. He later killed a police officer.

James Pough, 42, went on a shooting spree in a General Motors Acceptance Corp. office in Jacksonville, FL, killing 10 people and wounding four others. GMAC had repossessed his car.

Joseph Wesbecker, 47, killed eight people and wounded 12 others at a printing plant in Louisville, KY.

Richard Farley, 40, angry that a former co-worker in Sunnyvale, CA, had rejected his advances, stormed into the company and killed seven people with a shotgun.

The man whose actions prompted the phrase “going postal” was Pat Sherrill, 44, who when he was about to be fired, opened fire at a post office in Edmond, OK, killing 14 people.

And there are others who murdered their own brothers:

Mansook Valjee, a well-known businessman, murdered his brother Himantlal, while the brothers were arguing over renovations being undertaken at a family-owned building.

Earl Jackson Jr., 28, stabbed his younger brother, Rahman, to death over something the value of which was under $10.

Johnny Bauer shot and killed his brother Joey, and then went back to his own home, poured gasoline all over the home, started the house on fire and then shot himself.

http://www.webedelic.com/church/cainf.htm

Ain't guns great!

[stepnw1f]

211. Shit... Great Job Man!

Thank you!

[jody]

215. "gun killed brother" returned one hit. Using your logic, that's one

accidental firearm death for the entire Internet data base.

That's a very low accident rate, only one away from perfect at zero.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

217. 1,080 hits... here's the link.

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=mozilla-search&ie=...

[jody]

221. That's among the most ridiculous things you've ever posted. You

want me to let you take credit for "Ultras kill brother, sister-in-law of PDP leader Tasadduq" as a family death in the U.S.?

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

227. Have you ever used google before?

There will be things that didn't happen in America there.

Most people would know that without being told and know there are going to be many international stories in the mix.

I'm sorry, I should have explained it to you. You know what they say about assuming.

[jody]

229. You really don't know how flawed your statement was based on

your own google? Now that's even more hilarious.

[iverglas]

232. you should also explain, maybe

that when you say you googled "gun killed brother", the quotation marks are in your text, not in the search terms. That's actually what should be assumed -- otherwise your sentence would read

I googled gun killed brother

and that would be kinda like saying

He said when are you going to his friend

and, like, that's kinda why we have punctuation in the first place, and most people sort of intuitively grasp this. But some people are just kinda literal-minded ... or like to pretend they are ... and that's why when I describe a search, I put it like: gun killed brother, or gun killed "little brother".

Here's a good one that turned up right at the top of my gun killed brother search:

http://annoyinglittletwerp.typepad.com/annoyinglittletw...

Gun Control Nearly Killed My Brother.

... As <the author's brother> was closing the car door 2 thugs approached him - one had a gun - which he pointed at my brother. After my brother explained to them - as calmly as he could - that had nothing of value for them the armed one ordered my brother to lie down on the ground and pistol whipped him on the head. They took my brother's knapsack-which had his wallet-my mother's atm card, ids, my brother's spare card-key for the car etc-and pistol whipped his head again.

... If Sam had been allowed to CC <"concealed carry"> what we would now have is Sam with his car and 2 dead - to quote Kim Dutoit - 'goblins'.

Clever and charming, this guy. Ooooops, pardonnez moi. The author is a gal (I'll bet she'd say).

First, I've never quite understood how having a concealed weapon on one's person -- or even a weapon in full view on one's person -- is going to be much help when faced with someone who is already pointing a gun at one's head. Most criminals might not pass the Miller Analogies Test, but they're usually smart enough to draw before they say "stick 'em up".

And Kim Dutoit ... I think I've heard the name before ... let's ask google ... ah yes ...

http://www.hellblazer.com/fair-use/pussification-of-the...
"The Pussification Of The Western Male"
Some relatively amusing commentary thereon:
http://philosoraptor.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_philosorap...
"The duToitification of the Western Conservative"

Oh, and the author also says:

my 6.2-180 brother is terrified and it turns out that one of his close frind was very likely held-up by the same "gentlemen" earlier in the year. And just in case you're wondering, my brother and his friend are white - those two 'pinnacles of society' are black.

How about we offer a dollar (say, $1.25 Canadian) for anybody who can find an rkba-head rant that doesn't contain either a racist or a misogynist subtext of some sort?

[Romulus]

241. that's some guy's sermon posted on the internet

With no evidence or cites to back up these claims, or any idea of the time period beyond the label of "last few years." It seems to be a "faith based" set of evidence. Not to mention, the sermon was about fratricide, and includes numerous stabbing incidents.

If guns cause lethal crime, can someone, anyone, explain why Switzerland (with firearms laws nearly identical to the US) has trended a lower murder rate than the UK, Canada, or Australia?!?

[slackmaster]

190. A friend of mine defended himself with a gun on Halloween night

My friend was dressed as a pirate. His costume included a real muzzle-loading Dragoon-style caplock pistol. A man tried to pick a fight and refused to leave my friend's property. My friend said "Get out of here or I'll beat your ass with this!" while displaying the pistol. The man left in great haste.

No crime was committed other than a few moments of trespassing. There is nothing to report, so the incident will never show up on Google.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

195. Sounds as if a 9 iron would have done the same job.

Or at least a pitching wedge.

[slackmaster]

245. GOLF IS A GAME FOR VILLAGE IDIOTS!

Pirates don't play golf.

[Romulus]

246. maybe reality is not as Google tells it . . .

The lack of Google hits could be because many stories are hidden behind "membership" firewalls, like this story:

http://staugustine.com/stories/110805/new_3440805.shtml

(Nov. 8, 2005)

The St. Johns County man who shot and wounded one of three intruders at his Cypress Spring Court home last week won't face any criminal penalties, deputies said Monday.

Sgt. Chuck Mulligan of the St. Johns County Sheriff's Office said detectives see the incident as a justifiable shooting. . .
"The man acted to protect his family," Mulligan said. "There's nothing moving forward as far as prosecuting this individual."

The shooter, whose name has not been released by the St. Johns County Sheriff's Office, fired at Jonathon M. DeMartino, 24, Jesse E. Demers, 19, and Lee Anthony Martino, 20, all of Palm Coast, when the three men burst into the home Thursday evening.

. . .

Mulligan said the three men had come to the home because someone told them prescription medications were in the house. . ."The man who lives there owns those medications legally," Mulligan said. "The family was having a pleasant evening watching TV together when the men came through the door. When you're in your house and someone breaks in, you don't know what those people are going to do."

[hogwyld]

196. The great people of San Francisco

voted in a law for their community and city. They have decided that is how they want to live. If you want to keep your guns, feel free to move to another area that allows it. I respect and support their decision, I hope you all do too.

[slackmaster]

244. A minority of people voted in this unconstitutional law

And even if a majority of San Franciscans really want it, state law prohibits it.

I respect and support their decision, I hope you all do too.

I respect their right to their opinion, but really the measure should never have been allowed on the ballot because it's illegal.

[Rainscents]

219. Who put this up on the ballot anyway? Police? Or was it by the people?

This is question I need to know.

[EFerrari]

237. From what I understand, four members of our board of supervisors

put it on the ballot. They are elected, not appointed.

[Romulus]

250. YaaY! Another LBN flame-fest sent to the Dungeon!

Wick', can we end this before the DU bandwidth gets taken up any more with pointlessness?

[SteppingRazor]

251. Locking.

Since a large portion of the gungeon has already contributed to this thread anyway -- and since divergent views have already been expressed and deveolved into several flaming thread -- I don't see the point in continuing this discussion in the gungeon.

[SteppingRazor]

252. Locking.

What I said in the last post....