artistcalledian 0 #76 November 10, 2005 QuoteCould you explain why I've recently begun thinking of Brits as ignorant, childish, and socially retarded? you know you love us really... just don't shoot ok !________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #77 November 10, 2005 no promises...I AM trigger happy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NickDG 23 #78 November 10, 2005 Boy, this is a tough one. On the one hand I don't think it's good to monkey with the Constitution, but I know there are some people who shouldn't have handguns. I guess I feel like taking everyone else's gun away is all right as long as I can keep mine. New York City has had the Sullivan Law since about 1911. You can't legally own a handgun without a police permit. Note: this isn't a permit to carry, but a permit to own. And they are very hard to get. Until this SF thing that was probably the toughest gun law in the country. However, you can still buy a handgun on the streets of New York, or if you are really industrious, you can drive across the bridge to New Jersey and buy one. The big thing with SF is since we are made to register our weapons they know pretty much where you are and what you have. Are these folks going to start getting letters saying, "Hi, we've noticed you haven’t turned in your gun . . . " There is going to be a Constitutional fight over this and probably a few shootouts too. NickD BASE 194 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #79 November 10, 2005 I'm still wondering, ignoring all the other aspects...if they are offering compensation to all the people they are telling have to turn in their property to the government...or is the gov't just seizing it without compensation. If nothing else, seems like it's illegal seizure to me, forget about gun rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #80 November 10, 2005 QuoteI guess I feel like taking everyone else's gun away is all right as long as I can keep mine. And thus another person joins the DNC. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #81 November 10, 2005 Quote>Really? If they turned to run, you'd fire? If they turn and run from my bedroom door, then that also means they are turning and running straight at my daughter's bedroom door. What would you do? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #82 November 10, 2005 >What would you do? If they turned to run? Follow them to the door then call the police. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #83 November 10, 2005 Quote>What would you do? If they turned to run? Follow them to the door then call the police. You would follow them to the door? Bad move my friend. They may be running while getting out their own weapon. If they start running, your best move is run the other way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
missg8tordivr 0 #84 November 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteBut if someone is in my house, I'm not going to wait and see. I assume they'll kill me. I think a more realistic assumption would be that they want to take your stuff... But seriously, you would pull your gun and pull the trigger? No yelling "Get out of my house" or even "I have a gun. On your knees boy. The Police are coming." Not being judgemental here. Just trying to understand. In the conceled weapons class they do tell you the laws about when and how you can legally defend yourself with a gun. I haven't taken the class yet, but I do believe that you have to discourage any further intrusion, if there is someone in your house...by yelling "I am home, get out" or something similar. No way I am gonna inform this person that I have a gun. If the continue, they are obviously under the impression that they can over power me or take me out.....at which point if they come around the corner they won't be happy about what they hear next.*** F LORIDA! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #85 November 10, 2005 Quote>What would you do? If they turned to run? Follow them to the door then call the police. Let me try again as you cut the important part out (on purpose, but try and fit in the scenario instead of your normal tricks, it's a waste of Sangiro's bandwidth, which of course we never do). They turn and run towards your child's bedroom (or the stairs, it the same direction and you don't know which way they'll turn - down the stairs or into your kid's room. You could shoot only now, then it's too late if they chose the kid instead of the exit). If you had the gun, per the scenario you and sinker set up, do you shoot or not? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #86 November 10, 2005 QuoteIf you want to compare to other developed nations pick some whose socioeconomic structures and mentality has any resemblance to the US. That is, a fair amount of heavy industry, lower class population, a regular batch of social problems, a modern much less traditional mind set, a much larger and more heterogenous population, an open as opposed to an isolationistic society, etc etc. you'd be hard pushed to find another country to compare to."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #87 November 10, 2005 The 9th circuit may let that go, but I doubt the Supremes will be having much of it. Things like this make me pretty glad I moved out of Commifornia. Well, that and the house prices.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #88 November 10, 2005 Quote The big thing with SF is since we are made to register our weapons they know pretty much where you are and what you have. Are these folks going to start getting letters saying, "Hi, we've noticed you haven’t turned in your gun . . . " We don't really register our weapons. Sales records are kept for handguns, but if you move...SF only knows of 22,000 handguns. I'm quite sure there are many many more. And you don't have to turn in your gun, per the 'law.' Just can't be on you within city limits. So you can sell it, store it outside the city, etc. Couple that with an unwilling police force and there is no means of enforcement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #89 November 10, 2005 Quote If all you want is to defend your home, surely a shotgun is the best weapon anyway. Not if you have kids... If the intruder gets his hands on them, you can't use a shotgun. Bullets provide far better pinpoint accuracy.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #90 November 10, 2005 Actually, the statute as I read it was that all citiizens were required to turn in any firearms they owned by a specific date. QuoteSales records are kept for handguns, Nice thing about my state is that the constitution prevents them from even keeping records of sales. The state police tried for a while. It went to the state supremes and they made them stop and destroy all the records. They are notified of sales so they can re-check against criminal databases, but they have to purge the record within 30 days. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #91 November 10, 2005 QuoteActually, the statute as I read it was that all citiizens were required to turn in any firearms they owned by a specific date. Nope. It's an option (that no one would opt for, given the lack of payment), but it is only required that the resident not possess within city limits. Section 3. Limiting Handgun Possession in the City and County of San Francisco Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun unless required for professional purposes, as enumerated herein. Specifically, any City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her government employment, including but not limited to peace officers as defined by California Penal Code Section 830 et.seq. and animal control officers may possess a handgun. Active members of the United States armed forces or the National Guard and security guards, regularly employed and compensated by a person engaged in any lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment, may also possess handguns. Within 90 days from the effective date of this section, any resident of the City and County of San Francisco may surrender his or her handgun at any district station of the San Francisco Police Department, or to the San Francisco Sheriff's Department without penalty under this section. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #92 November 10, 2005 gotcha...missed that part...it was a while ago. Do they define handgun anywhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #93 November 10, 2005 No, and for that matter, even the penalties for violation are TBD. However, it's possible that they are piggybacking on a state definition for handgun. In any event, good writing never entered the equation on this bill. I believe there was a bit of a rush to take advantage of the vote of a departing Supervisor. There was absolutely no public discussion before 5 of them voted to put it on the ballot. http://mccullagh.org/sf/handgun-ban/ has the full text, along with prior state case law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #94 November 10, 2005 QuoteBecause they're fun, because they're useful, because we can. We'll pay for this stupidity eventually. Gun crime has gone down 13 years in a row, to a 40-year low. And that is despite the fact that there are more guns than ever in circulation, and 35+ states which now issue concealed handgun carry permits to their citizens. That is strong evidence to suggest that gun ownership and gun carry by honest citizens, does not cause gun crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #95 November 10, 2005 QuoteSwitzerland is one of the world's richest countries with practically no lower class, extrodinarily low crime rates in general (gun related or not), and only 6 Mio inhabitants. Add to this a subdued and traditionalistic mind set. Therefore, crime is not caused by the mere presence of guns. Crime is caused by certain social conditions. Where those bad social conditions exist, you'll get crime regardless of what gun control laws are in place. The way to reduce crime is not to take away guns from honest people, but to deal with the social conditions which breed it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #96 November 10, 2005 Quoteof course he was wielding a gun, but do you think he could have shot those kids if he didn't have a gun... Someone who wants to kill others will find a way. If he hadn't had a gun, he could have used explosives, or fire, or poison. Cain slew Abel in the world's first-ever murder (according to the Bible), and that was long before guns were invented. The Bible doesn't tell us how he did it, but he must have used a stick or a rock. Ya' gonna' ban sticks and rocks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #97 November 10, 2005 QuoteQuoteBecause they're fun, because they're useful, because we can. We'll pay for this stupidity eventually. Gun crime has gone done 13 years in a row, to a 40-year low. And that is despite the fact that there are more guns than ever in circulation, and 35+ states which now issue concealed handgun carry permits to their citizens. That is strong evidence to suggest that gun ownership and gun carry by honest citizens, does not cause gun crime. I'm not sure what your reply has to do with my post. You cut out the part between the "whys" and "stupidity" which makes it seem as though my point is something it's not. Just to be clear, I'm not for gun control. I have a lifelong appreciation for firearms. Don't mangle my words again, please. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #98 November 10, 2005 QuoteCan someone please explain to me why it is considered OK to shoot a buglar. Burglary is not a capital offense. If anyone shoots an unarmed burglar they should be prosecuted for murder. End of story. Because when someone breaks into your house, you don't know what his motive is. He might just want to steal your TV, or he might be there to kill everyone. By breaking-in in the first place, he's already demonstrated that he has no regard for the law. So our law allows the homeowner to presume that his life is in danger, and to use deadly force in response. This can get you in trouble however. You have to wait until he's actually inside, generally - you can't shoot through the door, even if he's outside kicking mightily to break it down. And it's better not to shoot them in the back if they're fleeing. There are lots of ways to get in trouble here, if you're not careful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #99 November 10, 2005 QuoteNow we just need to have a good 'activist' judge rule the law unconstitutional. It doesn't even take an activist - just a judge that knows the Constitution, or the previous circuit court precedent. It's a slam-dunk it will be overturned. News: The National Rifle Association sued Wednesday to overturn an ordinance voters here overwhelmingly approved a day earlier that bans handgun possession and sales of firearms in the city. In 1982, a state appeals court nullified an almost identical gun ban here largely on grounds that the city cannot enact an ordinance that conflicts with state law that allows for the sale and possession of handguns and ammunition. The NRA filed its lawsuit Wednesday with the same court, the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, asking the judges to nullify the law that demands the surrender of handguns by April... San Jose Mercury News Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #100 November 10, 2005 QuoteIf anyone shoots a Burglar that they KNOW is unarmed...they should be prosecuted. I disagree. First, there is no way to know that. And second, even if somehow you did, and unarmed burglar can still kill you. Especially if you are a frail or weak, like the elderly, or a woman facing a 220-lb. man. A 90-lb. 70-year-old lady should not have to defend herself with hand-to-hand combat against a larger, younger, stronger man. A gun is the great equalizer, that gives the homeowner the edge over an attacker, no matter how big they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
