San Francisco Approves Gun, Military Recruiting Ban

[st.jerome]

Isidore_AK:

A question for you anti-gunners…

Are you against self-defense in any form?

No, I’m for self-defense. I do question the notion that killing is justifiable.

For example, if someone is coming toward your child, you’re going to grab something solid and heavy and your going to hit the assailent over the head with it. Do you intend to kill? My point of view is that you could care less whether he dies or not–you want him down. You want him to stay down until you can get your child to safety. So if you act to incapacitate the attacker and you happen to use lethal force, you’re free and clear. If, however, you knock him down, and he’s staying down, and then you continue to hit him, that’s unnecessary force. The same principle holds true with a gun.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Exactly. You shoot to STOP an attacker – meaning, until they are no longer a threat to you because once they stop being a threat, there is no longer a reason to shot. If that means, the person turns around and starts running away, then that means you stop shooting at that point because they are no longer a threat. If, on the other hand, they keep advancing, then you keep on shooting until you STOP them – they stop being a threat to your safety. If a person should die as a result of those actions, that is unfortunate but it was his actions that brought it upon himself – he did not have to attack you, he could have given up or run away the second he saw your gun, etc.

 

[vern_humphrey]

st.jerome:

No, I’m for self-defense. I do question the notion that killing is justifiable.

For example, if someone is coming toward your child, you’re going to grab something solid and heavy and your going to hit the assailent over the head with it. Do you intend to kill? My point of view is that you could care less whether he dies or not–you want him down. You want him to stay down until you can get your child to safety. So if you act to incapacitate the attacker and you happen to use lethal force, you’re free and clear. If, however, you knock him down, and he’s staying down, and then you continue to hit him, that’s unnecessary force. The same principle holds true with a gun.

You really need to do your homework.

You are arguing as if you were articulating some new and different idea. In fact not a single person here – and especially those who carry guns – have a significantly different view of self defense.

You defend yourself (or your family) to stop the attack – not to kill.

The only difference is that we realize that in the real world, attacks can be very violent, and you may be forced to use extreme measures. But once the attack stops, you are no longer justified in continuing to strike or shoot the attacker.

 

[st.jerome]

vern humphrey:

The only difference is that we realize that in the real world, attacks can be very violent, and you may be forced to use extreme measures.

OK. Something like war would be an extreme measure. All the weapons used in war are intended to kill the enemy. I don’t mean to get off topic, but wouldn’t war, in the name of defense of your country, rule out a preemptive strike?

 

[vern_humphrey]

st.jerome:

OK. Something like war would be an extreme measure. All the weapons used in war are intended to kill the enemy. I don’t mean to get off topic, but wouldn’t war, in the name of defense of your country, rule out a preemptive strike?

If a man is charging me with an ax, do I have to let him chop off my head before I defend myself?

International self-defense is so critical and so many lives are at stake that early intervention is a moral imperative. Imagine if the French and British had stopped Hitler when he marched into the Rhineland.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:
We have clearly shown that liberalized carry laws are associated with reductions in violent crime – at no cost to the taxpayer.

When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. The “guns reduces crime” argument is based almost exclusively on arguments by John Lott. His data has been shown to be substantially flawed. For more on lot, see

bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott

Make your pro-gun arguments on culture or constitutional grounds, but not on the notion that it reduces crime, because that argument doesn’t hold water.

 

[Isidore_AK]

st.jerome:

No, I’m for self-defense. I do question the notion that killing is justifiable.

For example, if someone is coming toward your child, you’re going to grab something solid and heavy and your going to hit the assailent over the head with it. Do you intend to kill? My point of view is that you could care less whether he dies or not–you want him down. You want him to stay down until you can get your child to safety. So if you act to incapacitate the attacker and you happen to use lethal force, you’re free and clear. If, however, you knock him down, and he’s staying down, and then you continue to hit him, that’s unnecessary force. The same principle holds true with a gun.

Do you have any personal experience with firearms? If all you know is what you’ve seen on TV then your knowledge of what firearms can do will be very exaggerated. Real guns are not as deadly as they are made to appear by Hollywood…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. The “guns reduces crime” argument is based almost exclusively on arguments by John Lott. His data has been shown to be substantially flawed. For more on lot, see

bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott

Make your pro-gun arguments on culture or constitutional grounds, but not on the notion that it reduces crime, because that argument doesn’t hold water.

And the claims on that site have been thoroughly debunked – including the claims that Mustard “admitted” the Lott Studies were flawed.

It’s funny how, although those on this side of the discussion have been accused of using the NRA as a source, no one has. But on the other side there is no hesitation in using the Brady propganda machine.

 

[wabrams]

Arba Sicula:

Beat is in Brooklyn? Where? It’s a huge city in its own right with some 2.3 million people and many. many different neighborhoods. Where is it that they want to get out of? Red Hook? Okay. Bush Terminal? Okay. East New York? Okay. Park Slope? They’d be fools to want to leave that posh neighborhood. DUMBO (Down Under Manhattan Bridge Overpass)? A great, vibrant neighborhood risen like a phoenix from the old 19th century shipping docks. Carroll Gardens? Very upscale, yuppy streets, good restaurants and shops.

Maybe they’d prefer the South Bronx? (Remember the movie “Fort Apache”?)

That has happened to me in a rough neighborhood along the Gowanus Canal around 1 a.m… There were “toughs” on stoops there, but no one bothered me. I just locked the car and walked to the nearest subway station.

I couldn’t tell you where they are in Brooklyn. I know they’re both from Queens and they both say where they are in Brooklyn is a hell hole.
Arba Sicula:

You folks in the boonies have strange notions of the dangers of New York City. It’s a lot safer city than many in the “heartland” or the Old South where every one can go around waving a pistol.

Columbia, SC is no where near being in the boonies. And down here and the midwest we don’t go around waving a pistol: if we did that, our weapon would be confiscated and our behinds would be in jail. You city slickers need to get out the city and see the rest of the country.

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. The “guns reduces crime” argument is based almost exclusively on arguments by John Lott. His data has been shown to be substantially flawed. For more on lot, see

bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott

Make your pro-gun arguments on culture or constitutional grounds, but not on the notion that it reduces crime, because that argument doesn’t hold water.

Your wrong: the studies done as to the effect of liberal gun laws were mostly done in the mid-90’s. Those studies, and any newer ones that include them, show the huge drop in crimes in the states with conceal and carry laws in the early 90’s. Those states now only have a slight decline in crime annually. Why? Because they have already reaped the benefits of liberal gun laws and keeping those laws on the books keeps the crime down to this day.

 

[st.jerome]

Isidore_AK:

Do you have any personal experience with firearms? If all you know is what you’ve seen on TV then your knowledge of what firearms can do will be very exaggerated. Real guns are not as deadly as they are made to appear by Hollywood…

That’s OK. I’m really not arguing that issue. Sure, in some instances a gun does not kill, and in other instances, all you need is a brick to kill someone. But I would add that firearms used in war, and other such conflicts, tend to be very high-powered. So I would add that.

 

[st.jerome]

vern humphrey:

If a man is charging me with an ax, do I have to let him chop off my head before I defend myself?

International self-defense is so critical and so many lives are at stake that early intervention is a moral imperative. Imagine if the French and British had stopped Hitler when he marched into the Rhineland.

If a person is charging, or an army is marching, then its not preemptive. The U.S.A, for example, did not preemptively strike the Nazi’s. Its true that Germany had not landed on American soil (in any significant way). But the Nazi’s had attacked our allies and so we defended. Do you shoot a person with an ax who is not charging anyone? Do you keep your finger on the trigger, or do you shoot that person if he says he’s going to charge someone but has not done it yet?

 

[Isidore_AK]

st.jerome:

That’s OK. I’m really not arguing that issue. Sure, in some instances a gun does not kill, and in other instances, all you need is a brick to kill someone. But I would add that firearms used in war, and other such conflicts, tend to be very high-powered. So I would add that.

Actually, in that regard, you are dead wrong. The M-16, & AK-47 both use an intermediate sized round between that of a true rifle, and that of a pistol. If anything, military ammunition is less-lethal than hunting ammunition.

The standard issue 9mm pistol ammunition is considered barely adequate for self defense by most professionals. A .40 or .45 is usually reccomended.

The .223 ammunition used by the M-16, is a round that was developed to be smaller, lighter, and have less recoil (a lower amount of recoil is created by reducing the power or the cartridge) so that a soldier could carry more of it, and have more control over their wepons during full-auto or burst fire. In civilian use it is considered a superb varment round. Its used to kill ground hogs and coyote’s. The 7.62x39mm ammunition used by the AK-47 is a little more powerful than the .223, but is still very underpowered for a rifle round, and was developed by the Soviets for the same reasons we moved to the .223. In fact, in the 70’s the Russians moved to a round that was even smaller than the .223, the 5.45mm (the .223 is 5.56 in metrics).

The idea that military weapons (small arms here people! I’m not talking about machineguns!) are high-powered is a myth. Most hunting weapons use a MUCH higher powered round than military small arms, and civilian pistol ammunition tends to be more lethal as well. It drives me nuts when the media & politicians start talking about ‘Assault Weapons’- They don’t have a freaking clue as to what they’re talking about!!!

 

[st.jerome]

Isidore_AK:

Actually, in that regard, you are dead wrong. The M-16, & AK-47 both use an intermediate sized round between that of a true rifle, and that of a pistol. If anything, military ammunition is less-lethal than hunting ammunition.

The standard issue 9mm pistol ammunition is considered barely adequate for self defense by most professionals. A .40 or .45 is usually reccomended.

The .223 ammunition used by the M-16, is a round that was developed to be smaller, lighter, and have less recoil (a lower amount of recoil is created by reducing the power or the cartridge) so that a soldier could carry more of it, and have more control over their wepons during full-auto or burst fire. In civilian use it is considered a superb varment round. Its used to kill ground hogs and coyote’s. The 7.62x39mm ammunition used by the AK-47 is a little more powerful than the .223, but is still very underpowered for a rifle round, and was developed by the Soviets for the same reasons we moved to the .223. In fact, in the 70’s the Russians moved to a round that was even smaller than the .223, the 5.45mm (the .223 is 5.56 in metrics).

The idea that military weapons (small arms here people! I’m not talking about machineguns!) are high-powered is a myth. Most hunting weapons use a MUCH higher powered round than military small arms, and civilian pistol ammunition tends to be more lethal as well. It drives me nuts when the media & politicians start talking about ‘Assault Weapons’- They don’t have a freaking clue as to what they’re talking about!!!

OK, you’re right. But I’m still not arguing that issue.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

No, you have it backwards. When I have my gun with me I feel safer because I know I have a means of self defense.

Because you are in an environment where you believe yourself to be unsafe. It’s like carrying a rifle in Alaska. You feel safer against polar bears and grizzly bears. And that’s fine because you have good reason to need protection.

But, in your town in Pennsylvania? What’s the name of your town? Robbers’ Roost?

When I don’t have my gun with me, I feel less safer because I know that if something should happen, I am less equiped to deal with the situation.

What is your environment that you even think that “something might happen” necessitating having a firearm at hand? Even South Philly isn’t that dangerous!

 

[Arba_Sicula]

wabrams:

I couldn’t tell you where they are in Brooklyn. I know they’re both from Queens and they both say where they are in Brooklyn is a hell hole.

Perhaps they’re in one of the bad places. But, how can they generalize about the entire borough of Brooklyn?

Columbia, SC is no where near being in the boonies.

Okay. It has a population of 116,000, making it a mid-sized town.

And down here and the midwest we don’t go around waving a pistol: if we did that, our weapon would be confiscated and our behinds would be in jail. You city slickers need to get out the city and see the rest of the country.

And see what? Lots of hicks in the sticks ready to point their ever-present guns at me? Thanks, but, no thanks.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Sir Knight:

If you restrict my ability to defend myself, then you need to assume responsibility for my protection. See my above post, a court has already ruled in support of this belief.

I really can’t understand you. From my point of view, you seem to be saying that you are in an environment that is so dangerous that you do well to go around armed. I know of very few places that are like that - Bruckner Boulevard in the Bronx outside the New York Post printing plant is a very rough and dangerous place in the small hours of the morning, but who the hell would want to be there then?

And, if you live in such a place, wouldn’t it be better to be carrying a shotgun out in the open, ready for action than a concealed pistol?

 

[wabrams]

Arba Sicula:

Perhaps they’re in one of the bad places. But, how can they generalize about the entire borough of Brooklyn?

I don’t know. Do you want me to get you their phone numbers so you can call and ask yourself?
Arba Sicula:

Okay. It has a population of 116,000, making it a mid-sized town.

And once you add in all the suburbs and municipalities jammed up against the city, you have over 500k.
Arba Sicula:

And see what? Lots of hicks in the sticks ready to point their ever-present guns at me? Thanks, but, no thanks.

I guess it could be better than a city in an urban sprawl, sitting safely in your over priced and exclusive apartment, sipping latte’s, chattering on and on about how if YOU feel safe, then surely everyone else must and no one should be able to walk out of their front door with a gun.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

vern humphrey:

We have clearly shown that liberalized carry laws are associated with reductions in violent crime – at no cost to the taxpayer.

So, go and carry your gun in the hills of Arkansas, and ward off the violent crime that you are faced with there.

But, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and Chicago, and New York City with their huge densely packed populations aren’t Little Rock, and what is acceptable in a rural state and a small city isn’t even thinkable in large metropolitan areas.

My wife laughed at the remarks you gun-lovers are making. She said that you ought to come up here and ride in a packed subway car in rush hour. (Think sardine cans) Then, after that experience, she said that you ought to consider what it would be like if lots of those people could whip out guns if they came to the end of their ropes or got a bit of rage, etc. Slaughter city, that’s what it would be.

One simply can’t compare conditions where you live with those of where I live.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

wabrams:

And once you add in all the suburbs and municipalities jammed up against the city, you have over 500k.

I don’t count NYC’s neighboring counties in my totals, just the city, so I didn’t include nearby counties for your town.

I guess it could be better than a city in an urban sprawl, sitting safely in your over priced and exclusive apartment, sipping latte’s, chattering on and on about how if YOU feel safe, then surely everyone else must and no one should be able to walk out of their front door with a gun.

Except for the bit about “chattering on and on” I admit that you’ve got it pretty straight. The topic comes up only now and again and we don’t belabor the obvious because pretty much everyone in NYC, including the Conservatives, are anti-carry.