Washington DC may get competition as "Murder Capital"

[lawrocket 3]

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

"San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city. "

The reasons??
""The hope is twofold, that officers will have an opportunity to interact with folks and if they have a handgun, that will be reason enough to confiscate it," [Bill Barnes] said. "Second, we know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."

Who is exempt?

"Under the language of the measure, the ban would not apply police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else "actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment." "

So, I see this going on:
San Francisco cops stop and question people without probable cause to confiscate a weapon. Let's say, for example, they are just doing safety and fire checks, or seeing if the business tax certificate is up to date.

The cops respond to a higher crime rate, robberies, burglaries and assaults. Oakland becomes the new cultural center.

Street gangs open up private security firms. They aren't robberies. They are merely collecting their protection money to prevent any unwanted crime from occurring.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Tink1717 2]

Nope, Baltimore will be the next murder capital. The street crime here is beyond belief.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

"Second, we know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city."

I'm so glad the goverment has such a huge interest in saving people from themselves.

Shit the only thing you REALLY own in this life, IS your life. Now they want to take THAT away?

This is why current society is headed for distruction. Humans are currently resisting evolution.

Quote

So, I see this going on:
San Francisco cops stop and question people without probable cause to confiscate a weapon. Let's say, for example, they are just doing safety and fire checks, or seeing if the business tax certificate is up to date.

The cops respond to a higher crime rate, robberies, burglaries and assaults. Oakland becomes the new cultural center.

Street gangs open up private security firms. They aren't robberies. They are merely collecting their protection money to prevent any unwanted crime from occurring.

People will read this as humor. That's sad.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[markd_nscr986 0]

Hmmm.......I think I see a pattern.........the cities with some of the most stringent firearms laws in the country having some of the highest murder and street crime rates?Hmmm.......sounds like those firearms prohibitons and anti ccw laws really do a lot of goodWonder what Sarah Brady would say?

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Hmmm.......I think I see a pattern.........the cities with some of the most stringent firearms laws in the country having some of the highest murder and street crime rates?Hmmm.......sounds like those firearms prohibitons and anti ccw laws really do a lot of goodWonder what Sarah Brady would say?

As many have pointed out, correlation != causation.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[akarunway 1]

If approved by a majority of the city's voters, the law would take effect in January 2006. Residents would have 90 days after that to relinquish their handguns.====================================================================they will get mine when they " pry my dead, cold hands from around it."

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[PhillyKev 0]

Hadn't you guys heard? Camden took the title this year. You know, in New Jersey, where some of the most restrictive gun laws exist.

[markd_nscr986 0]

***As many have pointed out, correlation != causation.




Eschew Obfuscation!

Malu Cachu !

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Hmmm.......I think I see a pattern.........the cities with some of the most stringent firearms laws in the country having some of the highest murder and street crime rates?Hmmm.......sounds like those firearms prohibitons and anti ccw laws really do a lot of goodWonder what Sarah Brady would say?

Sarah would say: "These gun-control laws are prevented from being effective because of neighboring areas which don't have the same laws, allowing guns to flood into these areas despite good laws. We must spread gun-control laws across the country to allow them to work!"

Note: Just don't ask Sarah why the crime rates in the neighboring areas with guns, are lower than the areas where guns are banned. She doesn't have an answer for that question...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

As many have pointed out, correlation != causation.

So you agree that the mere presence of legal gun-owning citizens does not necessarily produce high gun crime rates?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Another news link to this story: Fox news

City residents will vote next year on a proposed weapons ban that would deny handguns to everyone except law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards.

If passed next November, residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses. The proposal was immediately dismissed as illegal by a gun owners group.

The measure would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing or distribution of handguns, and the transfer of gun licenses...

For those of you here who sometimes claim that no one wants to take our guns away from us, well, here is another example of just exactly that.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Hmmm.......I think I see a pattern.........the cities with some of the most stringent firearms laws in the country having some of the highest murder and street crime rates?Hmmm.......sounds like those firearms prohibitons and anti ccw laws really do a lot of goodWonder what Sarah Brady would say?

As many have pointed out, correlation != causation.

Correlation does not equal causation. But, one thing has been demonstrated - there is no correlation between a increase and gun control and a decrease in gun violence, or violent crimes. In fact, there is a correlation between stricter gun laws and increased violent and property crimes.

If you cannto even show a correlation between strict gun control and lower crime, you sure as heck cannot show causation.

On the other hand, you can correlate lower violent crime with less restrictive gun control. While correlation does not equal causation, at least there is a correlation between the policy and the goal.

And what is lacking in the gun control policies is a correlation between the policies' goals and the actual results, making it pretty tough to truthfully justify stricter gun control to prevent vioent crime.

It's much like saying "We are going to war with Iran because they have WMD's. Removing WMD's will make it the nation safer and the region more stable and spread democracy to an oppressed people."

It didn't work in Iraq, so why ty the same thing over and over?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

As many have pointed out, correlation != causation.

So you agree that the mere presence of legal gun-owning citizens does not necessarily produce high gun crime rates?

.

Yes. I don't have any problem with the 2nd Amendment either.

I disagree that the data proves that high gun ownership reduces crime. Chicago indicates to the contrary right now. Crime is altogether too complex a problem for simplistic explanations.

I think gun ownership requires a high degree of responsibility that many owners don't exhibit. I'd mandate initial and recurrent training for all gun owners. Could be given by private gun clubs or the NRA (just like private CFI's give initial and recurrency training to pilots). I don't think that would violate the 2nd ("well regulated...").

Most of all:

Use a gun in any crime
Go to jail for a long long time.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,175]

So how does Toronto compare with Houston in terms of violent crime? Both are English speaking cities in North America.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So how does Toronto compare with Houston in terms of violent crime? Both are English speaking cities in North America.

How does Camden compare to Philadelphia? That's a much closer comparison I'm in Philadelphia looking at Camden right now. Here we have shall issue requirements for CCL. There, you can't get CCL except in extreme cases (bodyguards, armed car guards, etc.)

[sfc 1]

Quote

City residents will vote next year on a proposed weapons ban that would deny handguns to everyone except law enforcement officers, members of the military and security guards.

For those of you here who sometimes claim that no one wants to take our guns away from us, well, here is another example of just exactly that.

Although I don't agree with this proposal, if this become law it will because the people choose to, there is no they as you claim, that is what living in a democracy means. Would you rather impose your opinions against the majority despite that?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So how does Toronto compare with Houston in terms of violent crime? Both are English speaking cities in North America.

I don't know. How do crime stats differ betwen Mubai, India and Mexico City, Mexico, both with metropolitan populations of about 18.1 million?

The fact is gun control is made for the purposes of changing before and after. The policy is that violent crime is to decrese following implementation of strict gun control policies. Unfortunately, the results do not correlate with the intent. Therefore, without correlation of it, causation is impossible to show.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

if this become law it will because the people choose to, there is no they as you claim, that is what living in a democracy means. Would you rather impose your opinions against the majority despite that?

The American system was set up to avoid the frightening injustices of "majority rule." Would you rather a majority of people decide how you should be treated, or would you rather have a set of ground rules for them to follow?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Although I don't agree with this proposal, if this become law it will because the people choose to, there is no they as you claim, that is what living in a democracy means. Would you rather impose your opinions against the majority despite that?

There's this little thing called the bill of rights. It's purpose is to insure certain inalienable (look it up) rights are not infringed, no matter what the will of the people is. Included in that bill of rights is the right to bear arms.

[sfc 1]

Quote

Quote

Although I don't agree with this proposal, if this become law it will because the people choose to, there is no they as you claim, that is what living in a democracy means. Would you rather impose your opinions against the majority despite that?

There's this little thing called the bill of rights. It's purpose is to insure certain inalienable (look it up) rights are not infringed, no matter what the will of the people is. Included in that bill of rights is the right to bear arms.

Interesting idea, but if this right were so inalienable other cities would not have been able to enact legislation e.g. DC.
The courts have upheld the law so far, guess we will have to wait and see what happens on appeal.

[PhillyKev 0]

Right...there's never been an unconstitutional law upheld before.

[sfc 1]

Quote

Right...there's never been an unconstitutional law upheld before.

The supreme court interprets the constitution and applies it. All of the laws it upholds are by definition constitutional, it is very simple really. Whether we like the decisions they make or not does not change the fact that they are always right.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Use a gun in any crime
Go to jail for a long long time.

The NRA and I agree with that. Look up Project Exile. The NRA backed it, and anti-gun people opposed it even after it was shown to be effective. They'd rather hand out bike locks.

---
Honestly, I would have no problem with the registration required to do this (disclaimer: big "if") if I could trust the people holding the list not to use it against gun owners.

Since that's never happened in history (and in fact the opposite has happened every time), I still refuse to condone any sort of registration.

Quote

I don't think that would violate the 2nd ("well regulated...").

How many times must I explain to you that "well regulated" does not mean "should have many regulations?"

It means 'in good working order.'

ps - oh yeah, and it worked so well for Canada.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Baltimore is terrible in terms of straight numbers, but the "Murder Capital" title is meeted out based on per capita numbers. Baltimore is large enough that even with its one per day average, it usually isn't even in the top five.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Right...there's never been an unconstitutional law upheld before.

The supreme court interprets the constitution and applies it. All of the laws it upholds are by definition constitutional, it is very simple really. Whether we like the decisions they make or not does not change the fact that they are always right.

Bull...look up Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson. And besides, did the issue ever go to the Supremes? I'm pretty sure it's never made it past district justices, but I'm not sure.

[Kennedy 0]

I had this argument with kallend a few months ago. Peope for the opposing viewpoint seem unable to distinguish between what is "temorarily legal" and what is "right."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*