[shooterx10]

by bill barnes and burke strunsky

NRA out of S.F.

SAN FRANCISCO HAS long been a leader for justice, fighting apartheid and advancing same-sex marriage equality. Now, with 87 homicides so far this year – 56 of which involved handguns – it's time to continue this work for justice. We'll have that opportunity at the next election.

Thanks to the political courage of Sups. Chris Daly, Michela Alioto-Pier, Tom Ammiano, Bevan Dufty, and Matt Gonzalez, San Franciscans will consider a measure to make our communities safer by essentially banning private ownership of handguns and ending the sale, manufacture, transfer, and distribution of all firearms in the city.

For years the National Rifle Association has spent millions to spread misinformation: owning a handgun makes you safer, the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a gun, and meaningful firearm reform makes communities dangerous. When the NRA leaders can't buy politicians, they try legal challenges, aggressive media campaigns, and blacklisting efforts (go to www.nrablacklist.com).

The truth is, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to individuals. Since 1939, the Supreme Court has found that the Second Amendment doesn't give an individual a Constitutional right to own a gun. The amendment clearly focuses on granting that right only to a "well-regulated militia." Even though the NRA and its powerful friends convinced former attorney general John Ashcroft to opine that it did apply to individuals, federal courts have ruled it doesn't, upholding Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in Seegars v. Ashcroft.

Handguns make our homes more dangerous. Scientific data indicates that, far from providing protection, owning a handgun makes it more likely that a gun-related death will occur that isn't in self-defense. The New England Journal of Medicine found that a handgun in the home makes it 43 times more likely that a friend, family member, or acquaintance will be killed than an intruder. According to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, firearms are the second leading cause of death for kids 19 and younger. In addition, rates of successful suicide increase fivefold with a handgun.

Meaningful gun reform is one part of making communities safer. New investments in education, community development, and jobs are also needed to provide real alternatives to violence. Nevertheless, fewer handguns in the flow of commerce will make it more difficult to obtain one. A community conversation about the violence caused by handguns will lift our city up, as neighbors talk to one another about strategies to increase the peace in our neighborhoods.

More than 20 years ago, the District of Columbia enacted a similar handgun ban and is on its way to a 20-year low of homicides. Yet Republicans in Washington are working to repeal the law. It was the only vote counted by the NRA in deciding which candidates to support last year. The passage of our measure will help bolster national efforts for sound gun policy.

Since so much is at stake, the NRA, other pro-gun groups, and their savvy media machine will stop at nothing to prevent San Francisco from voting to make our communities safer, and local media coverage hasn't helped. That's why your support is so needed today. Recently in the San Francisco Chronicle, NRA attorney Chuck Michel said, "We're already in the process of putting together the petition for an injunction to try to keep it off the ballot." The NRA wants to silence San Francisco, but we're ready to speak up.

We won't win by spending more than the NRA, or by running a campaign of fear. We'll only win when you join us in a groundbreaking campaign of hope to make San Francisco safer, by going to www.stophandguns.com or calling the campaign at (415) 440-8903.

Bill Barnes is an elected member of the Democratic County Central Committee and a spokesperson for Ban Handgun Violence. Burke Strunsky, a former assistant district attorney, is the coordinator of Ban Handgun Violence.

Here is the link. (http://www.sfbg.com/39/15/x_oped.html)

[owen]

Considering the higher prosecution rates of black defendents, won't this just result in more African-Americans in prison?

:evil:

[JohnBT]

"More than 20 years ago, the District of Columbia enacted a similar handgun ban and is on its way to a 20-year low of homicides."

Dern, it took long enough. Would have thought it would have worked a tad faster. ;)

JT

[R.H. Lee]

San Fransyphco is like a bowl of granola. Them that ain't fruits or flakes is nuts.

[io333]

They've had 87 homosides in 12 days?

[rock jock]

:barf: :barf: :barf:

[mbs357]

I think it's so halarious when people say that guns being in the home make it more dangerous.
There are hundreds of ways to die in your own home, and half of them are caused by idiocy. The only way a gun can hurt you is if you are negligent.
Negligent in the way you handle it and negligent in the way you teach your children about guns.

[Guy B. Meredith]

Why is it that no one ever complains that auto ownership is dangerous in that owners and passengers are more likely to be injured in accidents and to participate in drive-by shootings?

[sigma 40ve]

How many of their good intentions have killed people?


I stand "corrected" ,didn't mean to offend anyone. Gotta be PC when talking about Kommiefornia.

[DelayedReaction]

More than 20 years ago, the District of Columbia enacted a similar handgun ban and is on its way to a 20-year low of homicides.

You have GOT to be kidding me! Show me a study that proves this, and then explain this...

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html

I should caution that I just searched for and found that site really quickly, but it seems like a reputable source for information about DC crime statistics. Not only does DC have the highest rate of murders in any city in the country, but their murder rate increased 13% when the nation overall decreased by an average of 1.2%!

[LAR-15]

Your more likely to be shot in DC than in Baghdad.

[Standing Wolf]

One of my favorite beaches is in San Francisco, along with some of my favorite restaurants.

Life in the United States is much better.

[CannibalCrowley]

How many of their "guns" that carry the AIDS bullet have killed people?Huh?

[Old Fuff]

That was an outstanding article for anyone who thinks the Democrats have changed and aren't going to push for more gun control.

SURE ....... :scrutiny:

[AF_INT1N0]

Well they're half right. Having a gun in the house does increase the chance of someone dying by gunshot. Though that person is usually going to be a bad guy. Who should not have been there in the first place.

[K-Romulus]

1) the "studies" used surveys of of ALL firearms ownership. There was no distinction made between legal owners (i.e., THR members), and illegal owners (i.e., the uncle in BFC).

2) there was never any conclusive establishment made that the owned firearm was the actual murder weapon in the "deaths."

Plus, the same studies found that people in the data were 3x or so more likely to be killed OUT of the home, than IN the home. What does that tell you in light of my point #1? :rolleyes:

[beerslurpy]

Letter to the editor:
That was the most misinformed gun-related article I have read in a long time. It may have been an opinion, but it contained several assertions of fact that are quite clearly intended to mislead. I offer the following corrections:

The authors claim that DC is about to hit a 20 year low in murder rates. However, DCs "20 year low" is only "low" in relation to the high it hit in the mid 80s, 10 years after the currently 29 year old ban was passed. DC crime skyrocketed so much after the ban that the only positive crime figures available in the past 30 years are in relation to the small periods when it was even worse than usual. DC is still the murder capitol of the nation by a wide margin and will remain so until it allows its citizens to defend themselves against predation. A great demonstration of what DC could become with relaxed weapons laws is available via a mere 10 minute train ride to the south. This puts you (or any DC criminal) in Fairfax County, Virginia, where both concealed and open carry are legal and violent crime is nearly 80 percent lower.

The "43 times more likely to injure" statistic was from the famous Kellerman study that was discredited when Kellerman finally released his data. The injury data consisted mostly of two groups that clearly have no bearing on the likelihood of gun accidents. First, it included "gun owners" that were proprietors of illegal businesses who were murdered by armed competitors. It seems clear that they posessed guns because they considered it likely that they would have to fend off other criminals, rather than the guns causing them to adopt a life of risk and crime. In any case, their deaths were hardly accidental. The second group that shouldnt have been included were suicides. Clearly, if one wishes to commit suicide, a firearm discharging into their vitals is not going to be an accident. The Kellerman study was completely bogus and no study has yet stepped forward to support its ridiculous assertions.

The authors also claim that the Supreme Court decided that the 2nd amendment isnt an individual right in 1939. First, US v Miller did not decide whether the 2nd was an individual right or not, only what weapons might be protected under that right. However, in the background to the decision, the justices did make a very compelling case for an individual right. In discussing the history of the amendment, they outlined that the "militia" of the 2nd amendment does not include regular army groups like the National Guard or the Marines, types of armies that the States are expressely forbidden from maintaining without permission from Congress. Rather, the Supreme Court found "plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense"..."And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Thus it can clearly be said that while the "militia" may have a monopoly on the ownership of firearms, the "militia" consists of all citizens and cannot be disarmed.

Subsequent lower court decisions have interpreted US v Miller to mean things that it did not, in the interests of reaching what they felt were the "right decisions" in certain difficult cases. This gave rise in the 70s to the "collective right" theory of the 2nd amendment, which is clearly incorrect. I beleive it is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court finally sets the matter straight. I am not the only liberal who has come to this conclusion- in fact nearly all constitutional law scholars who examined the 2nd in detail have come to the same conclusion I have- the 2nd amendment is just as strong a protection of individual freedom as all the other amendments in the aptly named Bill of Rights.

The reason your communities are dangerous is because they are full of criminals that dont obey any gun control laws and victims that are well known for obeying all of them. Banning handguns in SF will neither reduce crime nor get handguns out of the hands of people who will misuse them. In fact, it will create an even more iron-clad guaruntee that criminals will only be attacking unarmed victims unless they somehow manage to rob an off-duty cop.

[KaceCoyote]

oops

[KaceCoyote]

Yaknow sigma 40ve, A gay fella like me could take offence. If you wanna make a stereotype go ahead. Call them stupid blissninny wackjobs, but dont pull the gay HIV infected card on me sir. You wont get far in my book.



Yaknow folks sometimes its real tough for me to fight for the 2nd amendment...with friends like these?

[beerslurpy]

Are you gay or just from SF? Im not getting the source of your anger.

[KaceCoyote]

I'm gay, I have friends in SF. I have gay friends in SF, I have gay friends in SF who hate and dispise Cali's stupid anti 2nd amendment slant.

[jefnvk]

Are you gay or just from SF? Im not getting the source of your anger.

This would probably answer it:

Yaknow sigma 40ve, A gay fella like me could take offence

[Valkman]

The truth is, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to individuals.

They'd like to believe this, but our government just said different. They must've missed that. This is just a regurgitation of the same ol' facts that ain't facts.

[secamp32]

I'm when ever I'm home a in constant fear that one of my guns will attack me without provocation. I know I'd sleep better at night knowing a gun ban was protecting me and my family. :barf:

[mbs357]

I have never been afraid of guns, been around them all my life.
I get hurt a LOT more just sitting around than I ever have going shooting or handling firearms.
Me and my uncle were launching staples across the rooms of an unfinished house earlier. OMG COULD BE A WEAPON BAN IT
We also cut some things with a box cutter. OMG ANOTHER WEAPON
I also poked myself with a screw, the wound was the size of a hangnail but it bled. WEAPON
What I'm trying to say is a lot of things can be used as weapons. Sure, banning guns might keep more off the streets. But what's goign to happen when someone breaks into a SF citizen's home armed with box cutters? If you were in their place would you want to use a bat? If I were in that situation (and it doesn't matter what he has, knives, guns, a sharp tongue) I would want the BEST chance of survival and defense I have, and that chance is lies within firearms.
If there were danger in keeping guns in the home it would be far surpassed by the ability for the gun to defend me if the time came.
The problem is people themselves. Instead of melting down guns to try to solve a problem, melt down idiots and criminals. The would would be so much better. Commit a crime, into the oven and you become goo.

I keep guns in my home for the same reason I keep a fire extinguisher next to my desk, have smoke detectors, electrical breakers and fuses, and seatbelts in vehicles; because my life is important to me. I feel that I'm more likely to knoco my fire extinguisher over, have the nozzle hit something, break off, and the whole thing plow through my head sending it through the wall. Or the fuses or breakers failing and my house burning down. Or my seatbelt or airbag maiming and maybe killing me in an accident. ANYthing can be used to kill a person, we are extremely frail.
If you have all the things I've listed above and more to help save your life but have no firearms for defense, you are a hypocrite.

Also, in reply to number 24, (don't worry, I know you're being sarcastic. =p) there is absolutely NO way (well, maybe a few wild, crazy .000000000000000000000000001% rare things) that can cause a pistol (or any other gun) to go off without it being acted upon by something. If the user is responsible, the gun will be safetied while cocked, uncocked, or empty. If the gun's safety is off, and the gun is cocked, something has to pull that trigger to make the hammer fall. The gun is an inanimate object, something needs to make it do something.
Once again, I'm more afraid of an electrical fire than my guns going off by themselves and killing me and my neighbors (of course), and I'm DEFINATLY more worried about someone breaking into my home and harming me than my guns deciding to kill me.

[Nightfall]

SAN FRANCISCO HAS long been a leader for justice, fighting apartheid and advancing same-sex marriage equality. Now, with 87 homicides so far this year – 56 of which involved handguns – it's time to continue this work for justice. We'll have that opportunity at the next election.
Persecuting gays because they're not popular and choose a different lifestyle: BAD

Persecuting gun owners because they're not popular and choose not to be victims of violence: GOOD

Justice my arse. :rolleyes:
More than 20 years ago, the District of Columbia enacted a similar handgun ban and is on its way to a 20-year low of homicides.
Holy crap, is this guy really using DC as a shining example of gun control success? Is this some kind of bad joke? He wants SF to be more like the murder capital of the USA? :scrutiny:

[Silver Bullet]

“I’ll take ‘Reaping what you sow’ for $40, Alex.”

“This city became known as the ‘Washington DC of the West’ ten years after it banned firearms in the early twenty-first century when its murder rate soared thereafter.”

“What was San Francisco?”

“That is correct. With its citizens disarmed and at the mercy of both criminals and government, they were truly in double jeopardy.”

[R.H. Lee]

Let SF ban handguns. The murder rate will increase and we'll be rid of some of 'em.

[gunsmith]

I live here.

life under the dictatorship of the dems is interesting and fustrating as heck.

[adobewalls]

Someone please refresh my memory, isn't the most common murder weapon actually a screwdriver or hammer?

[Billll]

I've read a good deal of the Miller decision at one time or another, and it looked to me like the court pretty much affirmed the individual right to arms, although seeming to hedge this to positely include only those weapons applicable to militia use. This implies that the individual has a protected right to the sort of armament one would expect to find attached to an infantryman. The sad part about Miller was that no one was there to point out to the court that sawn-offs were used during WWI, appearantly to such great effect that they were banned for use in WW2.

[RavenVT100]

Blah Blah Blah Justice

Blah Blah Blah Gun Violence and Homicides

Blah Blah Blah NRA lies about stuff.

Blah Blah Blah Kellerman Study

Blah Blah Blah Partial quote of 2nd Amendment

Paraphrasing: It's a good skill to have.

[QuarterBoreGunner]

I'm going to post the exact same thing I did over on calguns (http://www.calguns.org)-

You know, that article was so badly written and so full of half-truths and outright disinformation, that I'm inclined to believe it's the equivalent of a print ‘troll’ post.

Seriously, that was so bad that it has to have been written just to stir up interest.

It can’t be serious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I'm with Kace; leave the homophobia at home, kids. It's insulting and you're just playing into the typical stereotype of the gunowner. And yes I *do* live here.

Get the picture?

[greg700]

You have got to love the "on it's way to a 20 year low"

It's kindof like I am "on my way to being a billionaire, current trends notwithstanding."

They chose their words very carefully, since they couldn't claim a 20 year low. Even then, it would be meaningless unless compared to murder rates BEFORE the gun ban.

[Warbow]

adobewalls wrote:

Someone please refresh my memory, isn't the most common murder weapon actually a screwdriver or hammer?

No. :)

[homeka45]

Got about a third of the way through that article before my eyes glazed over. What a steaming load of tripe. No wait, I like tripe, but that article just repeated the same old hackneyed rubbish the dems have been spewing for ages. :barf:

[Brian Dale]

... 43 times more likely ...It's --- The Lie That Wouldn't Die!!!

Good piece, beerslurpy.

[sigma 40ve]

I stand "corrected" ,didn't mean to offend anyone. Gotta be PC when talking about Kommiefornia.

[longeyes]

They'll get their wish: D.C. by the Bay.

And they can change their theme song to...

"I left my life in San Francisco..."

[USAFNoDAk]

And if you gooooooooo,

To Sannnn FrannnnCiscooo,

Make sure you bear,

Some Mithril underwear.

Like banning handguns will make S.F. a safe, utopia. Hah! What are these people smoking?

[OF]

Nice letter, Slurpy. Here's hoping they don't round-file it...

Don't hold your breath.

- Gabe

[Don Gwinn]

If you banned guns 20 years ago. . . . and now crow that you're on your way to a "20-year low" . . . . is that not substantially the same as the statement below?

"We banned guns 20 years ago, and now, 20 years later, we've got murders reduced so much that we're almost as safe as we were before we banned guns--but not quite."

Wow. . . they did something to reduce murder which demonstrably did not reduce murder and could very well have increased it, but after 20 years of throwing decent people in prison, they've managed to claw their way back to near their old murder rate--but their city is STILL more dangerous than it was before the ban.
And that's not the argument AGAINST it, folks, that's the argument for why the rest of us should follow suit RIGHT NOW!

:scrutiny:

[Don Gwinn]

On the other hand, I think it's AWESOME that San Francisco has discontinued the practice of Apartheid.

[OF]

Heheheheh. :)

[beerslurpy]

Well I havent received a response, and I would not bet on it being published, unless they wanted to troll their own readers and get lots of angry letters. I would troll my own readers all the time if I owned a newspaper, which is probably one of the reasons I dont lol lynched.

The thing that really saddens me is that these ignoramouses actually have positions of signficant authority in the local Democratic party. These idiots are responsible for choosing reasonable paths and making carefully crafted compromises that will enable them to win elections and pass useful legislation. So why do they sound like a bunch of freshman year Berkeley revolutionaries? You would think that maturity would be a requirement to safely bear such responsibility.

Another thing, I was reading the transcript of the Scopes "monkey" trial and I feel exactly like Darrow did talking to the prosecutor/preacher. The truth is in front of them screaming at the top of its lungs and setting off signal flares, but these guys just cant see it no matter how you turn their head for them. Its frustrating as hell. Its also sad that "progressives" have gone insane and ended up on the lunatic fringe in this country (world).

[grampster]

My e mail to the editor:


Dear Editor,

I just read the article under the heading "Opinion" written by Bill Barnes and Burke Strunsky.
I am just so grateful that the header did not say "Truth" because the drivel that Barnes and Strunsky have written is so woefully incorrect, disingenuous and outright false. The most charitable thing I could say about the pap that they hold to is that it is so childish in its naive conclusions that it actually caused me to laugh out loud.

One wonders what the price of tea would be as we broke at midday to toast the King had our founders and the patriots of the Revolution been disarmed in the face of England. I hope you do see that the law is passed to outlaw all firearms in your fair city. It will certainly make the rest of the country much safer for the rest of us as all the criminals will move to SanFrancisco.

[Silver Bullet]

Expect a migration to Oakland, where it will be safer (assuming they don't already have a similar law.)

[Silver Bullet]

The good news is, housing will get a lot more affordable in San Francisco !