Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Skip Your Bowling Night, Grill Some High-Yield Corn on the Cob, and Pour Yourself a Jack and Coke: They'll Be Coming Tonight for Your Rainbow Ketubah and Your Gun
Texas bans gay marriage. San Francisco bans handguns. Washington state bans smoking in restaurants, bars, and bowling alleys. On the brighter side, one county in California rejects a mostly symbolic ban on genetically modified crops, and one county in North Carolina repeals a ban on mixed drinks. Take your victories where you can.
|11.9.05 @ 11:15AM|#
Jesus heself said, "Get thee behind me Satan!"
How REASONable was that?
(He also killed an olive tree that pissed him off. Do any
Californians know that?)
|11.9.05 @ 11:19AM|#
Even when I was pro-gun-control I never quite understood how a city could ban part of the Bill of Rights. They can't ban freedom of religion or the laws against self-incrimination, so how can these Second Amendment bans be kosher?
|11.9.05 @ 11:22AM|#
This SF gun-ban thing is fucking freaking me out. I happen to
live in an ultra-liberal area, and am wondering if this bullshit is
going to spread across the country like these goddamned smoking
bans.
SF residents have until April to "turn in" their weapons. Does
anyone know if the city is actually going to pay fair market value
on these handguns, if anything?
And how many criminals are going to "turn in" their guns?
|11.9.05 @ 11:27AM|#
Yeah, and Detroit apparently just banned
common sense, reelecting what is easily the most corrupt mayor in
the nation.
Of course, on the
other hand...
|11.9.05 @ 11:28AM|#
Even when I was pro-gun-control I never quite understood how
a city could ban part of the Bill of Rights. They can't ban freedom
of religion or the laws against self-incrimination, so how can
these Second Amendment bans be kosher?
The Second Amendment has never been incorporated through the 14th
Amendment, so the states don't have to follow it.
|11.9.05 @ 11:29AM|#
"And how many criminals are going to "turn in" their
guns?"
Hmmm....I'm thinking of a number between zero and none. :)
Re: smoking/gun bans
Don't ya just love it when property rights are put up for majority
vote? They seem to lose quite frequently.
|11.9.05 @ 11:29AM|#
Jeez, SF makes NYC look like the heartland. I'm kinda glad I don't live there anymore.
damaged justice|11.9.05 @ 11:30AM|#
How many "one step forward, two steps back" does it take before civilization crumbles?
Mike|11.9.05 @ 11:34AM|#
San Francisco's ban is most likely going to be overturned by the
CA Supreme Court, just like Feintein's ban was back in the
day.
As for Detroit, America's only Third World City had hizzonah
Coleman Young for three decades. There's a big "us vs. them"
mentality in Detroit with Detroiters backing the loudest and
blackest candidate around, especially if the suburbs don't care
much for him.
|11.9.05 @ 11:38AM|#
Jennifer,
Because, not everyone agrees on the individual interpretation of
the Second Amendment (it is my reading of the text, pre-text
history, etc.) and the Supreme Court has never incorporated it into
the Constitution.
|11.9.05 @ 11:40AM|#
That should read:
...and the Supreme Court has never incorporated it via the 14th
Amendment to apply to the states.
|11.9.05 @ 11:40AM|#
Re the North Carolina mixed-drinks thing, these three
"I-don't-so-nobody-else-should-and-it-should-therefore-be-illegal"
comments are bad enough:
"I've always been a dry man," said Elbert Blackwell, a retired
dairy farmer. "I never drink beer or wine or nothing. It'd be best
if they got along without it."
Danny Crute, a retired tobacco farmer, said, "There's enough
bad things going on, and I just think if you promote bad, you're
going to have worse things down the road."
"I don't believe in alcoholic beverages, period," said Jean
Lawson, a retired educator, citing strong religious
convictions.
. . . but that middle one . . . oy vey . . .
Danny Crute, a retired tobacco farmer, said,
"There's enough bad things going on, and I just think if you
promote bad, you're going to have worse things down the
road."
"People shouldn't have bad, bad alcohol, just YUMMY YUMMY TOBACCO!
YUMMMMMMMMMMMM!"
|11.9.05 @ 11:41AM|#
The Second Amendment has never been incorporated through the
14th Amendment, so the states don't have to follow it.
What? I just Googled the text of the amendment, and it doesn't seem
to say anything along the lines of "Of the first ten amendments,
these are the only ones we actually mean: (list)"
|11.9.05 @ 11:42AM|#
Detroit is America's only Fourth World City. There's more than a
few Third World Cities.
Seems like they pick the dimmest, most incompetent dude they can
find to stick it to their imagined oppressors. Hmm. Why am I
thinking about George Bush right now?
|11.9.05 @ 11:44AM|#
What? I just Googled the text of the amendment, and it
doesn't seem to say anything along the lines of "Of the first ten
amendments, these are the only ones we actually mean:
(list)"
The Amendments are selectively incorporated via the 14th Amendment
to apply to the states. It's a patchwork process by Supreme Court,
and total incorporation has never held a majority on the court.
That's why the 2nd, 3rd, and grand jury clause of the 5th don't
apply to the states.
|11.9.05 @ 11:44AM|#
Phil--
If you ever find a copy of Florence King's book Southern Ladies
and Gentlemen, get it and read it. (Especially if you find a
copy printed in the 70s, not the slightly re-edited version she
released a few years ago.)
She explains perfectly the Southern mentality behind these
quotes.
Larry A|11.9.05 @ 11:46AM|#
They can't ban freedom of religion or the laws against
self-incrimination, so how can these Second Amendment bans be
kosher?
What do you think the Texas vote was all about? The fundamentalist
Christians banned gay marriage because their reading of the Bible
says it's wrong, thereby preventing those whose religious opinions
disagree from acting on their beliefs. The one thing that both
sides agreed on is that this is a first step in establishing a
Christian government.
The Second Amendment has never been incorporated through the
14th Amendment, so the states don't have to follow it.
States don't have to follow the Second Amendment, or much of the
rest of the Constitution, because neither Congress nor the Supreme
Court want to be bound by a musty old parchment written by dead
white males.
Mike|11.9.05 @ 11:48AM|#
Newly re-elected Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick also leased a Lincoln Navigator using city funds to ferry around his wife and kids. Not to mention the thousands of dollars he charged to city credit cards. So not only is he dim and incompetent, he's a confessed crook too.
|11.9.05 @ 11:49AM|#
For a freedom loving people, we sure like to get in other
people's business don't we?
To celebrate, I'm buying one of
these. But there's so many good ones I can't decide.
Mike|11.9.05 @ 11:52AM|#
If its a t-shirt you want, I'd recommend getting one of these and wearing it around San Francisco.
|11.9.05 @ 11:58AM|#
Phil,,
Its called hypocrisy. Think of the analagous situation of liberals
who can't stand drug laws but would ban every individually owned
firearm if they could.
|11.9.05 @ 12:09PM|#
The more and more I examine politics, the more and more I'm
convinced that most political decisions are made to intentionally
inconvenience some order to maintain someone's narrow view of the
world.
Take the SF gun ban. In this day and age, gun control isn't really
an issue of crime or public safety, it's about culture. The urbane
and sophisticated denizens of SF (and indeed, most major American
cities) hold gun owners to be ignorant, potentially violent,
cretins. After all, no "civilized" person would want to own a gun
and those who do have no place in "their" society.
The same can be said for the gay marriage issue in Texas. This
amendment isn't really about "protecting marriage" since
homosexuals getting hitched would in no way endanger heterosexual
unions. It's about a religious majorities hatred of homosexuals and
the maintenance of the mores of "their" society.
In other words, we all want to create our own little utopias, and
we'll do it by gleefully screwing over the people we don't
like.
TallDave|11.9.05 @ 12:13PM|#
AG/Hakluyt,
Not entirely true. When the Court finds that a federal bill of
rights liberty cannot be denied by a state without denying a
federal rgiht to due process, then it's incorporated into the 14th.
YOu can also challenge state laws other ways, such as under the
Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article 4.
|11.9.05 @ 12:16PM|#
While the 2nd Amendment does say that individuals have the right
to keep and bear arms, it needs to be read in the context of the
militia clauses of the Constitution. With that right comes
responsibilities. Training and formal organization can be
constitutionally required (and as a policy matter should be). In
fact one proposed draft of the amendment made it explicit that no
one could be forced to own a gun if their religious principles were
against it, but that was deemed unnecessary.
It may also be a constitutional limit on the use of mercenaries (be
they Hessians or the Blackwater corporation).
|11.9.05 @ 12:16PM|#
Sigh.
Considering other things the Supreme Court has decided. . . Kelo,
Raich . . . . sigh.
|11.9.05 @ 12:17PM|#
Akira,
There has never been a documented case of someone being killed by a
gay marriage in Texas history.
However, several dozen people are killed by firearms in San
Fransico every year.
Now, you can argue convincingly that a handgun ban will not be
effective in addressing that problem, but it is foolish to ignore
the obvious motivation of gun controllers in favor of an
identity-politics victim strawman, and claim that the desire to
prevent real, actual gun murders is somehow equivalent to the
desire to prevent the purely-speculative harms of gay marriage.
TallDave|11.9.05 @ 12:21PM|#
FYI militia did not mean then what it connotes now. At the time, a militiaman was essentially anyone with a gun.
|11.9.05 @ 12:22PM|#
Rhywun, while TX as a whole voted for Prop 2, Houston does have at least two gay gun groups.
|11.9.05 @ 12:26PM|#
I've not been a fan of the CA initiative system for a while now.
It's simply a way for hacks to write bad law, (half of which seem
to get struck down eventually, the other half worked around or
simply ignored) gives voters the impression that we live in a
majority rule system and causes disillusion when the "system"
doesn't work the way they thought.
Still, after this vote, seems the drama over the outcomes may be a
bit premature.
|11.9.05 @ 12:28PM|#
Across the colonies and the early US there were mandatory
militia drills and call-ups for all free property owners
(Pennsylvania largely being an exception because of its large
Quaker population/political influence). Officers may have been
elected, but there were still a military command structure.
And even where the militia was allowed to fall into disuse,
Congress still had the power to :"To provide for organizing,
arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part
of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,
reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the
Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to
the discipline prescribed by Congress"
|11.9.05 @ 12:30PM|#
Joe, I think you make a good point about motivations, but would
you challenge Akira's argument if it were about banning steak
knives on the grounds that no vegan needs one? Several people a
year are, afterall, killed by them too.
I think Akira has it right...these different issues are about
tribalism...controlling and imposiing one tribes will on the
outsiders...left or right political footing, it's the same
shoe.
|11.9.05 @ 12:31PM|#
matt,
See: Scott R. Erekson, Is the Day of Reckoning Coming? � The
Collectivist View of the Second Amendment is Going the Way of
"Separate But Equal", 40 Idaho L. Rev. 757, 757-762
(2004).
See the following case for the Supreme Court's most on point
discussion of the Second Amendment: United States v. Miller 307
U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (holding that a short-barreled rifle bears no
"reasonable relationship to the preservation and or efficiency of a
well regulated military").
|11.9.05 @ 12:34PM|#
matt,
Mandatory milita drills or not, at English law long recognized the
individual right to bear arms whether in a militia or not, and such
law was brought over to English colonial America.
|11.9.05 @ 12:35PM|#
matt,
"The right of self defence [sic] is the first law of nature�.
Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, is under any colour [sic] or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on
the brink of destruction." - 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries
on the Laws of England 300 (1765)
|11.9.05 @ 12:38PM|#
No smoking in bowling alleys? WTF? I don't smoke, mainly because I really don't like the smell of cigarettes / cigars / pipes, but I am on a summer bowling league. If that ban were enforced here in Las Vegas, all the alleys would have to shut down--in my experience, at least 80% of the league bowlers and a not insignificant number of open bowlers smoke. Sheeeesh.
|11.9.05 @ 12:39PM|#
joe:
The anti-gay bigots in Texas would strenuously argue that gay
marriage is indeed about life and death. 'cause dem gays spread dem
aids, right?
It's all about freedom, stupid.
fyodor|11.9.05 @ 12:40PM|#
joe,
Good point. I've said before that people here too easily demonize
gun controllers rather than addressing their genuine
arguments.
That said, I like how you dismiss "the desire to prevent the
purely-speculative harms of gay marriage." I ultimately agree with
you, but I recognize that if gay marriage were to really break down
the marriage in the way social conservatives fear, think of what
that would do to increase crime! We know the damage caused by an
insecure homelife just as we know the damage caused by shooting a
handgun at someone. I'll grant that the effect of gay marriage is
an added logical step. But then, the effect of banning handguns is
speculative as well. So it's not clearly a case that the handgun
banners have good reason while the gay marriage banners are moronic
bigots (I know you didn't say that, but you did say it was
different, so: how so?). I think both sides are best addressed by
thinking of them as sincere, but misguided. I might go a step
further and speculate that fear and the belief that the world would
be better if only everyone were like me are also underlying factors
in both groups. But of course, that's speculation.
|11.9.05 @ 12:44PM|#
all the alleys would have to shut down--in my experience, at
least 80% of the league bowlers and a not insignificant number of
open bowlers smoke.
Oh, they'll do fine, just like here in NY. Smokers will just have
to go outside - damn the inconvenience. The freedom to smoke
indoors, and maybe outdoors someday, is essentially a lost cause in
America.
|11.9.05 @ 12:55PM|#
"Are there any American cities where guns AND gays are
welcome?"
Well, Portland Oregon for one. It's no San Francisco, and measure
36 did pass, but Portland is widely thought of as gay friendly.
CHL's are "shall issue", no prob. We even have a machine gun store
in the burbs, just bring your tax stamp.
|11.9.05 @ 12:58PM|#
if gay marriage were to really break down the marriage in
the way social conservatives fear
I'll be happy to take the position that gay marriage bans stem from
bigotry, given that no one has furnished any logical means by which
traditional marriage will be harmed by gay marriage. Incessant
claims that "the santity of marriage must be protected" do not
amount to any kind of rational defense.
|11.9.05 @ 12:59PM|#
Supports of the gun ban say that they wrote it so that it no longer contradicts state law as Feinstein's bill apparently did. Current gun owners will receive no compensation, which seems like a regulatory taking issue besides just a 2nd amendment concern.
|11.9.05 @ 1:02PM|#
By the way, the gun ban passed despite opposition from The Police Officers Association as well as an NO Recommendation from the SF Chronicle. Even the SF Chronicle...come on....
|11.9.05 @ 1:03PM|#
Are there any American cities where guns AND gays are
welcome?
Well, there is the Gay Communist
Gun Club.
|11.9.05 @ 1:07PM|#
TallDave, "FYI militia did not mean then what it connotes now.
At the time, a militiaman was essentially anyone with a gun." And
at that time, anyone with a gun was expected to answer to call of
the government to turn out when mustered.
fyodor, MNG, I repeat: there are several dozen murders with
handguns in SF every single year. There has yet to be a
demonstrated harm from gay marriage. MNG, "your" argument about teh
gays spreading teh aids would be somewhat comparable, if two people
in a marriage could somehow cause other people to be infected with
HIV. While a rational nexus exists between the presence of firearms
and people being shot by firearms, no such nexus exists between the
legal recognition of gay marriages and the AIDS epidemic. To make
the former leap, one only needs a poor understanding of the
efficacy of prohibitionary laws; to make the latter, one needs to
introduce prejudice and paranoia about gay people.
"But then, the effect of banning handguns is speculative as well."
The effect of having handguns available on gun violence, on the
other hand, is not speculative. If there really were no handguns,
there really would be no gun crime. (I know why this is an
inadequate argument for gun bans, btw, so don't bother pointing out
the rather obvious flaws here.)
In other words, support for a handgun ban can be explained merely
by being misguided about the link between such a ban and the level
of violent crime; but to support a ban on gay marriage as an
anti-AIDS or pro-child position, it is necessary to include bigoted
ideas about gay people into your logic.
|11.9.05 @ 1:08PM|#
I'm pretty sure VT is open to both guns and gays.
Yeah, and maybe NH too. And ME?
|11.9.05 @ 1:08PM|#
I wonder if this SF gun ban will result in a glut of cheap guns
in the California market, thus lowering an economic barrier.
Jesus, these anti-self-protection liberals are so idiotic..
|11.9.05 @ 1:09PM|#
fyodor,
I've said before that people here too easily demonize gun
controllers rather than addressing their genuine
arguments.
There are sjust as many speculations on the harm of guns as on the
harm of gay marraige. I mean really, the fact that they think that
grabbing people's guns will reduce crime, the murder rate, etc.
borders on what anti-gay marraige people say about the suppose
harms of gay marraige.
|11.9.05 @ 1:23PM|#
The effect of having handguns available on gun violence, on
the other hand, is not speculative
Maybe not, but it seems that gun-control proponents seem to confuse
"gun violence" with "violence, period." And statistics are
misleading--if some guy tries to kill me and I shoot him in the leg
this is listed as an example of "gun violence," as though the
gunshot was the worst aspect of the incident.
|11.9.05 @ 1:23PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
Your insults are poisoning the debate.
Comment by: Hakluyt at November 9, 2005 01:14 PM
Was this intentionally or unintentionally ironic?
R C Dean|11.9.05 @ 1:23PM|#
I've said before that people here too easily demonize gun
controllers rather than addressing their genuine
arguments.
Just because an argument is "genuine" doesn't mean I need to waste
my time addressing it.
Prohibiting the ownership of guns to anyone other than the
criminally violent and the insane is simply wrong. Wrong morally,
wrong from a utilitarian analysis, and unconstitutional to
boot.
People who are pushing gun control are invariably doing so for
non-rational reasons - an irrational fear of guns, the cultural
distaste for the non-urban-elite types who own guns, etc. Trying to
change their irrational fears or cultural identity anywhere except
a shooting range is futile.
Get a gun-hater out on the range with a .22, though, and you have a
better than even chance of making a convert.
As to the "incorporation" argument - the dicta (admittedly
non-binding) on the subject supports incorporation. The language of
the Amendment itself practically demands incorporation (in contrast
to, say, the First Amendment, which is explicitly a limitation on
Congress, rather than a statement of human rights presumptively
valid against all governments).
The most elementary reading of the Second Amendment shows that the
right to keep and bear arms is in no way a collective right or
dependent in any way on an organized militia. The militia clause
simply gives emphasis to one purpose for the right, and does not
limit or condition it in any way.
Mike|11.9.05 @ 1:42PM|#
Matt,
You brought up Pennsylvania not forcing people to join militias due
to the large Quaker population. You should also note this from the
PA Constitution:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves
and the state shall not be questioned."
This one of the few state constitutions that explicitely guarantees
individuals that right.
|11.9.05 @ 1:47PM|#
So why aren't you all mad about the federalism issue here?
Shouldn't San Francisco have the right to issue limits on firearm
ownership?
They didn't ban all firearms.
I live in San Francisco and voted for the ban, not because I hate
some stereotype of gun owners, but because there are too many gun
deaths in my neighborhood already.
I don't want to live in a society where everyone is packing
heat.
Now you want a rifle or a shotgun at home, for protection or for
sport or in case of invasion or revolution?
I'm all for it.
But there's too many handguns in San Francisco.
|11.9.05 @ 1:55PM|#
Mike,
Forty four of the states have some sort of arms right. Further,
these Second Amendment analogues are � unlike the language of the
U.S. Constitution � limits on plenary power; as such they are
limitations on a sovereign that is not normally limited � an
important sign of how desirous a population is of arms rights.
|11.9.05 @ 1:56PM|#
Jimbo-
Do you think that all the thugs, rapists and murders in San
Francisco will suddenly obey the law and turn in their
handguns?
The people you WANT to have guns are the ones who will turn them
in. With all due respect, why do you not see that?
I am a mother of two who carries a handgun. A Kimber 1911 .45 to be
exact. I am licensed to do so. I have brandished this weapon twice,
and both times I was faced with a group of neighborhood thugs in my
grocery store parking lot, most likely looking to carjack, mug, or
worse.
I was outnumbered, in the dark, and surrounded. They didn't have a
gun, but I did. Do you suppose I could have become a violent crime
and/or murder statistic. You bet. They didn't need a gun to hurt
me, but I did need a gun to protect myself.
There is a human side to this story. I did not bother reporting
this incident to the police, so this is one of those infinite
number of defensive handgun uses--where a shot never even
fired--that is never recorded statistically. (By the way, I never
even pointed it at them, a glimmer of the stock seems quite
effective.)
Mike|11.9.05 @ 1:57PM|#
Jimbo,
1. San Francisco should not have the right to ban
firearms. This is not merely a federalism/states rights/city rights
issue, this is an right that is guaranteed by the US Constitution,
the supreme law of the land.
2. Banning handguns will only take them out of the hands of
law-abiding citizens. Do you think the people who shoot others in
your neighborhood are going to rush to the police station to turn
in the guns?
3. Guns of all sorts are used approximately 2.5 million times per
year in this country to PREVENT violence.
3. What if I'm not content to have a shotgun at my home? What if I
work/live in a bad area and want to be armed going to and from
work? An armed society is a polite society.
4.An armed society is a polite society. If you don't want to live
in a society where everyone is packing heat, I advise you to move
to the United Kingdom, a country that recently banned all
handguns.
5. One of my favorite sports is handgun target shooting, shouldn't
I be able to partake in this sport if I live in SF?
|11.9.05 @ 2:03PM|#
Jimbo, I will bet you $100 that, effective one year from the
date the ban goes into effect, there are more firearm deaths in San
Francisco than there were the year prior to the ban.
For an additional $50, I'll bet that there are more unlicensed
handguns in circulation, too.
|11.9.05 @ 2:07PM|#
"The militia clause simply gives emphasis to one purpose for the
right, and does not limit or condition it in any way."
Glad to hear someone else say it.
|11.9.05 @ 2:08PM|#
I don't want to live in a society where everyone is packing
heat.
1. I wasn't aware that before this ban that everyone in SF was
packing heat.
2. The only people who will be packing heat now
are criminals.
I understand your position, but this will not make SF a safer
place. Gun bans never do.
The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be
infringed. This is clearly an infringement, even if they didn't ban
all guns. It's a federally protected right, which is why it's not a
state's rights issue. Of course, as we see in this thread, though,
the nature of the 2nd amendment is a source of much debate.
|11.9.05 @ 2:10PM|#
Phil-
To be fair, it's possible that the number of firearms deaths will
decline but the overall murder rate will increase. It is possible
that some criminals might switch to other weapons if they know that
the rest of the population lacks guns, since carrying a gun becomes
riskier on the legal front.
Not saying that it's the most likely outcome, but it's possible.
Either way, if you render the population unable to protect itself I
have no doubt that the murder rate will increase over time, all
other things being equal.
|11.9.05 @ 2:21PM|#
thoreau, I think that what you describe is the most likely outcome, but I'm willing to risk a C-note on my suspicions. Criminals who kill tend to like to do so without having to get too close, without getting evidence on them, and with the ability to run quickly.
|11.9.05 @ 2:21PM|#
As I pointed out before, IF there is a glut of cheap guns due to
this SF ban, I can see many of these previously legally-owned
weapons finding their way back into the city, this time in
criminals' hands.
Do liberals even think for two seconds.. or is this all just
emotion?
|11.9.05 @ 2:22PM|#
Re Seattle's smoking ban:
"It goes into effect next month and also includes an outdoor
smoking ban within 25 feet of doorways, windows and ventilation
intakes.
Violators can get $1,500 fines, and offending businesses can lose
their licenses."
So if I go out and smoke within 25 feet of any door, window, or
vent, I can be hit with $1,500 worth of fines, and the business
that I'm next to can lose it's license? Does this turn every
business into it's own police force, pushing people 25 feet away
from the doors to avoid being shut down? Or will this just tax the
911 systenm all to hell with 100's of extra calls every day.
In fact, I'm gonna put 911 on speed dial just for shits and
giggles. By the time the cops show up, the smoker will be long
gone.
|11.9.05 @ 2:23PM|#
Jennifer at 1:23, I don't disagree. My point is just that the
"gun bans = no more violence" argument is simply dumb, whereas the
"gay marriage ban = no more AIDS and child molesters" is both dumb
and bigoted. It is perfectly logical to believe in gun control and
have no animosity or prejudice towards gun owners, while it is not
possible to want to ban gay marriage without holding prejudiced
ideas about gay people.
RC, you make this bald assertion that people who support gun
control "invariably" are prejudiced towards gun owners, then state
that getting them out on a gun range will change your mind. Tell
me, do you think getting James Dobson into a gay dance club would
change his mind?
Phil,
Due to economic and demographic factors, violent crime is rising
nationwide. Don't take the bet, Jimbo.
|11.9.05 @ 2:26PM|#
Oh, btw, I commented in a thread about six months ago that the
decade-long drop in violent crime was turning around, and there was
a small increase. Many, many, many of you proceeded to call me
unpleasant names for suggesting such a thing.
Well, nyah nyah nyah, now the FBI says I'm right. :-P
|11.9.05 @ 2:31PM|#
*sigh* I should have skipped the voting lines and just gone out for dinner last night.
|11.9.05 @ 2:34PM|#
"Well, nyah nyah nyah, now the FBI says I'm right. :-P"
Time to gin up the abortion mills, eh, joe?
R C Dean|11.9.05 @ 2:46PM|#
A Kimber 1911 .45
Sweet piece. A lot to carry around, though. My buddies at Kahr Arms
finally have a .45 on the market that may find its way into my
Christmas stocking.
RC, you make this bald assertion that people who support gun
control "invariably" are prejudiced towards gun owners, then state
that getting them out on a gun range will change your
mind.
I've never met anyone who was a strong supporter of gun control (as
opposed to people who just hadn't thought about it) who wasn't
grounded in an irrational fear of guns and/or gun owners.
"Invariably" was meant as a description of my experience.
Tell me, do you think getting James Dobson into a gay dance
club would change his mind?
Hilarious, really - I can just see James getting slamming down a
few martinis, doing a little E, and getting his groove on before
slipping off with some leather-clad hunk.
I wasn't equating the psychology of anti-gay bigotry with that of
support for gun control. I think they are very different.
|11.9.05 @ 2:49PM|#
Rhywun-The really cute thing is that, as WSDave mentioned, the antismoking ban makes it illegal to smoke within 25 feet of any door, window or vent. So, for all intents and purposes, smoking outside of a private home is now illegal in any urban area. Hell, any area that is even moderately built up. And, since enforcement is such a gray area, it's probably going to fall to the police to do the legwork. Given enforcement areas, mostly the Seattle Police. With their track record, I wonder which unpopular business is going to find itself the victim of random enforcement first, the hip hop club, the gay bar, or the strip club. Oh wait, the strip clubs have to have "parking garage levels of lighting" at all times now, and no lap-dances or individual tipping. So I guess the boys in blue can go beat down those queers and kids with that load off their mind.
|11.9.05 @ 2:54PM|#
It is not logical to support gun control and have no animosity or prejudice toward gun owners. The support for gun control has to be based on something and usually this consists of some variation of the less guns=less crime argument. If you support gun control as a mechanism to lower crime, then you defacto accuse gun owners of having a greater propensity to commit crimes. The very nature of gun control is based on an unfounded assumption that an otherwise law abiding citizen is more likely to commit a violent crime if they own a gun.
|11.9.05 @ 2:54PM|#
"If you ever find a copy of Florence King's book Southern Ladies
and Gentlemen, get it and read it...She explains perfectly the
Southern mentality behind these quotes."
Jennifer, I can only hope that your suggestion was meant to be a
joke - either that or you haven't spent much time in NC cities like
Raleigh, Charlotte or Greensboro.
|11.9.05 @ 2:55PM|#
Joe-
While I support gay marriage, I have heard plenty of conservative
arguments that had nothing to do with outright hatred of gays,
aids, the bible, et cetera.
Forgive my gobbledy gook paraphrasing, but here goes: "Society"
(meaning the government) should reward behavior (social
engineering) that is deemed "good" for society. Besides the
"male/female marriage has worked for thousands of years" arguments,
there are statistical studies that argue for their side. Making
children is good for society for financial reasons: future tax base
and supporting a future generation. Children in two parent
male/female families are less inclined to live in poverty and
commit crime (fatherlessness IS an indicator of crime and
poverty).
Now, I think there are rational, factual challenges to these
arguments. My point in posting is, not all arguments presented by
the right are flat out open bigotry. I find, in general, people to
the left tend to lay this blanket generalization based on the
public image of all righties being bible thumping haters. (Just as
people to the right have their dirty hippie commie pinko
stereotypes to claim) I've spent considerable time listening to
right wing radio (as well as left), and I find those stereotypes
exist, but are not as widespread as reported or believed.
Some people are sincere in their beliefs, and they are not
necessarily rooted in bigotry. Yes, some are. Painting with such
broad strokes does nothing to further rational discourse.
|11.9.05 @ 3:01PM|#
Thanks for the comments, the handgun ban was not an easy vote
for me.
However, I don't subscribe to the "an armed society is a polite
society" argument.
I tend to believe a good society is an unarmed public. (Making here
a distinction between the public shere and the
home/outdoors).
I was mostly doubtful of the measure because it is local and
handguns are already so prevalent. I also voted for it as a
symbolic gesture, since it's very clear it will be overturned in
court.
I'm very aware the ban won't stop criminals from carrying
guns.
The question is how do we as a society stop that?
Maybe there is no good answer, and so we let people who work in bad
areas pack heat.
That might be the pragmatic answer, but its a sad one. There's also
a bit too much of the gung-ho, I'll just pull a gun on those punks
in some of the arguments against hand gun control.
I guess I'd like to find a way that guns were confined to the
home/shooting range/outdoors, and not have to worry that a
confrontation on the street over, say, parking (not uncommon in an
urban area) ends up with one or both people pulling out a
gun.
And as a procedural matter, its already clear that some guns can be
constitutionally banned (e.g. some automatic weapons, recoilless
rifles, etc.) so why not allow other kinds of bans so long as
reasonable firearms remain available to citizens?
Sorry for the ramble, but take it as one handgun-ban voter trying
to think through some tough issues.
|11.9.05 @ 3:02PM|#
Couldn't ever give up my Kimber. It was "smithed" for my hands and everything is custom. I have learned to carry large, heavy purses and found some great ways to "wear".
|11.9.05 @ 3:06PM|#
Um, joe?
FBI: Violent crime
rate declines again
Monday, October 17, 2005
------------------------------
"The U.S. violent crime rate declined 2.2 percent last year,
continuing a decade-long downward trend in serious offenses, the
FBI said Monday.
All major categories of violent crime in the United States declined
in 2004, bringing the rates of the most serious offenses, including
murders, rapes, robberies and assaults, to a level 32 percent lower
than those reported in 1995, the new figures show.
The rate of property crimes -- such as burglary, larceny and auto
theft -- declined 2.1 percent as well last year.
The only category of violent crime in which the number of incidents
rose was forcible rapes -- to 94,635 in 2004 from 93,883 in 2003,
an increase of 0.8 percent. But accounting for an increase in
population, the rate of forcible rapes dropped 0.2 percent."
Where are you getting contradictory information from?
|11.9.05 @ 3:08PM|#
Jimbo-
I say this to provoke thought, not be a snit :)
How many innocent, unarmed citizens should die so that some people
"feel" better about society?
I couldn't even consider your argument, though I think quite well
intentioned, until there was a proven way to disarm the criminal
element.
And I ask you to look at my situation again. I was surrounded by
several gunless thugs in a parking lot once, and followed by
another group that split into two and surrounded me a second time.
My right to carry my handgun is the only reason I came out of there
not being a victim of crime. There are MILLIONS of stories like
mine. Millions.
I do not want to die or be seriously harmed to make a point.
I'll let the others handle the larger 2nd amendment issue, and with
great restraint I'll not go into the "your car is more likely to
kill me than anyone's gun" place.......
|11.9.05 @ 3:11PM|#
If I lived in SF, I'd buy a shotgun.
Guns and Gays are very welcome in Houston. Try the Montrose area or
even MidTown.
There are thousands of men in Texas who this morning can say, "Of
course I'd marry you, it's just that the Republicans won't let
me."
I voted against the ban, but I still think the State can define
marriage.
|11.9.05 @ 3:18PM|#
Agreed, the "armed society is a polite society" is a ridiculous
slogan.
The 2nd amendment does have limits and cannot be taken to
ridiculous extremes. For example, I cannot arm myself with anti
aircraft missiles, landmines, and so on. Apparently, the right to
bear arms can be infringed. So the second amendment is, in
practice, already limited, primarily to sidearms, it seems. So now
the discussion isn't if arms can be regulated, but
which ones. And by whom.
|11.9.05 @ 3:36PM|#
The first amendment does have limits and cannot be taken to ridiculous extremes. For example, I cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater or threaten to kill the president and so on. Apparentlyu, the right to free speech [i]can[/i]be infringed. So, the first amendment is, in practice, already limited, primarily to what is considered safe speech. So now the discussion isn't if speech can be regulated, but what speech. And by whom.
|11.9.05 @ 3:45PM|#
Celtlion--
I was sincere. Of course, the book was written before places like
Raleigh and Charlotte and Greensboro got all "Yankeefied."
Technically, they're not the South anymore. But I'm willing to bet
the people quoted in that article were of deep-rooted native
stock.
|11.9.05 @ 4:25PM|#
There never was a "South" to start with. There was a region which had a whole of variation (in kind and degree) in it though. All one need do is compare Charleston S.C. pre-WWII with New Orleans pre-WWII to the black belt of Alabama and Mississippi pre-WWII to piedmont of Tennessee and Kentuckt pre-WWII.
|11.9.05 @ 4:28PM|#
Someone Else:
While I'm glad your hand gun saved you, I'm not convinced there are
millions of cases like yours.
My gut and brains tell me that as a society, we'd all be safer if
there were no handguns.
Obviously, though, that's not going to happen any time soon.
And its good you didn't go to the "my car is more dangerous"
argument, since I don't own a car and get around by bicycle.
I'm with you if you want to make arguments about the lethality of
cars (though I wouldn't vote for a ban on cars (except in Golden
Gate Park) because I understand their utility).
|11.9.05 @ 4:31PM|#
When Texas bans handguns and SF bans gay marriages, now that will be newsworthy.
|11.9.05 @ 4:34PM|#
yo jimbo..errr..not to be confused with the Japanese classic,
Yojimbo.
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida
State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun
Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per
year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The
National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone
"almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for
protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every
1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone
"probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in
defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either
threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a
gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not
wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't
be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2%
of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense,
which means that the media could also find out and report on them
if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a
stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member
or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth
that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a
family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was
facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over
a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm
-- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential
victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing
multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable
handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from
the defender's home.
Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of
Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University
School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
|11.9.05 @ 4:51PM|#
My gut and brains tell me that as a society, we'd all be
safer if there were no handguns.
Well, you personally might be safer if handguns didn't
exist. I'm guessing you're a fairly big guy? Me, I'm small enough
that pretty much any healthy guy could probably cause me serious
hurt if he wanted to. Yeah, Mother Nature and sexual dimorphism are
both completely unfair bitches to me. You're telling me, and
Someone Else from earlier in the thread, that we shouldn't be
allowed to protect ourselves because you feel more scared
if we're allowed to do so?
Sorry, I'm not convinced.
|11.9.05 @ 4:53PM|#
However, I don't subscribe to the "an armed society is a
polite society" argument.
Why not? While one cannot make direct statistical comparisons, it
doesn't take a genius to see that the regions of the US with the
strictest gun control also have the highest rates of violent
crime.
I tend to believe a good society is an unarmed public. (Making
here a distinction between the public shere and the
home/outdoors).
Why?! You admit that those who are going to be
disarmed by this law are the law abiding. How can you possibly,
rationally justify disarming people who intend you no harm?
And it's a moot point, anyway. California's concealed carry laws
are discretionary issue, and generally, the only way to get a
permit in CA is to be white and donate money to the Sherriff's
re-election campaign.
I was mostly doubtful of the measure because it is local and
handguns are already so prevalent. I also voted for it as a
symbolic gesture, since it's very clear it will be overturned in
court.
What.
The.
Fuck?!
I'm very aware the ban won't stop criminals from carrying
guns.
So you happily acknowledge that you support a law that will
embolden criminals? That will disarm the law-abiding? How do you
justify being so contemptuous of your fellow human beings?
The question is how do we as a society stop that?
I have a crazy idea, so just bear with me. Ok, here goes: Maybe we
could stop it by, you know, incarcerating violent criminals for
really l o n g periods of time. Like, you know, for the rest of
their lives.
Maybe there is no good answer, and so we let people who work in
bad areas pack heat.
Or maybe we let any law-abiding citizen choose to carry (or not)
whatever they feel to be the most reasonable weapon for their self
preservation.
That might be the pragmatic answer, but its a sad one. There's
also a bit too much of the gung-ho, I'll just pull a gun on those
punks in some of the arguments against hand gun control.
Why are you so afraid of people who are open and willing to speak
up about their intolerance for being victimized?
I guess I'd like to find a way that guns were confined to the
home/shooting range/outdoors, and not have to worry that a
confrontation on the street over, say, parking (not uncommon in an
urban area) ends up with one or both people pulling out a
gun.
Ah. There it is. The old classic "Blood in the streets" argument.
This one's been trotted out every time anyone mentions liberalizing
any gun laws. I have yet to see anywhere that it's come true.
And as a procedural matter, its already clear that some guns
can be constitutionally banned (e.g. some automatic weapons,
recoilless rifles, etc.) so why not allow other kinds of bans so
long as reasonable firearms remain available to
citizens?
Reasonable is a weasel word. Proscribing the ownership of handguns
to law abiding citizens is, on its face, unreasonable. Also,
automatic weapons are not federally banned, simply very heavily
regulated.
Sorry for the ramble, but take it as one handgun-ban voter
trying to think through some tough issues.
Illuminating, to say the least.
|11.9.05 @ 5:03PM|#
While I'm glad your hand gun saved you, I'm not convinced
there are millions of cases like yours.
Typical hue and cry of the social utilitarian.
My gut and brains tell me that as a society, we'd all be safer
if there were no handguns.
Well, they're obviously feeding you faulty information as
practically every study done on the subject shows that more crimes
are stopped with firearms than committed with them.
Obviously, though, that's not going to happen any time soon.
And its good you didn't go to the "my car is more dangerous"
argument, since I don't own a car and get around by
bicycle.
So if an object is of no utility to you, then it is of no utility
to anyone?
I'm with you if you want to make arguments about the lethality
of cars (though I wouldn't vote for a ban on cars (except in Golden
Gate Park) because I understand their utility).
Ah. It all makes sense now. Except, it doesn't. Firearms are
arguably the most effective means of defending oneself, and yet you
argue they have no inherent utility? Explain, please.
|11.9.05 @ 5:06PM|#
So wait, if a guy is packing heat, and you are, doesn't that give him more incentive to shoot and harm you versus just robbing you?
|11.9.05 @ 5:17PM|#
There never was a "South" to start with. There was a region
which had a whole of variation (in kind and degree) in it though.
All one need do is compare Charleston S.C. pre-WWII with New
Orleans pre-WWII to the black belt of Alabama and Mississippi
pre-WWII to piedmont of Tennessee and Kentuckt pre-WWII.
Hak, I would only agree with that up to a point. I am sure that the
difference in "variation" was great up to WWII. However, I think
that radio, television and a migration of people who have suddenly
realized that they do not have to pick up a snow shovel ever again
if they do not want to have greatly weakened the difference in
variation and created this "South" of which so many speak.
I have lived in the Georgia piedmont, central Alabama and south
Mississippi - when I occasionally go back to visit, I am struck by
what seems to me the homogenization of these regional differences.
Oh, some are still there, but I fear only two or three generations
away from being swallowed whole by this "Southern" thing. Even the
differences in accent of those aforementioned areas are slowly
disappearing, alas.
|11.9.05 @ 5:24PM|#
"So wait, if a guy is packing heat, and you are, doesn't that
give him more incentive to shoot and harm you versus just robbing
you?"
In a purely game theoretical sense, no. Once an initiation of
violence carries a high probability of actually getting the
perpetrator killed, there is less incentive to engage in the
violent act in the first place. Because firearms are relatively
easy to employ in a manner that results in a fatal wound, you have
to be pretty sure that your sneak attack leaves no opportunity for
a counter movement by your victim. Consider too that the armed
citizen is carrying a concealed firearm, so there is no prior
knowledge on the part of the bad guy as to whether this person
falls into the must kill now camp or not.
|11.9.05 @ 5:28PM|#
Are there any American cities where guns AND gays are
welcome?
I've never been there, but I would imagine Las Vegas...?
|11.9.05 @ 5:28PM|#
So wait, if a guy is packing heat, and you are, doesn't that
give him more incentive to shoot and harm you versus just robbing
you?
Here in Milwaukee, a couple of years back, there was an instance
where a man robbed a local woman at gunpoint in front of her
daughter. When the woman failed to show that she was sufficently
afraid of thug (he said she was showing him an "attitude"), he shot
her in head, killing her. When they eventually caught the scum, the
police asked him why he picked that particular woman. He said it
was because she was white and whites wouldn't be likely to be
carrying a gun.
Ancedotal eveidence, I know, but I rather take my chances in a
gunfight then to "give the thief what they want" and have them
decide to kill me anyway just for kicks.
|11.9.05 @ 5:28PM|#
"Society" (meaning the government) should reward behavior
(social engineering) that is deemed "good" for society.
One can "reward" me all one wants by prohibiting me from marrying
whomever I please, but I'm still not going to be producing any
babies for society any time soon.
|11.9.05 @ 6:29PM|#
While more mundane than the hot button topics of the election- for anti-tax fans, National City, CA rejected a tax increase.
|11.9.05 @ 6:33PM|#
So wait, if a guy is packing heat, and you are, doesn't that give him more incentive to shoot and harm you versus just robbing you?
While this has some degree of intuitiveness to it, it doesn't seem
to be the case. After all, anyone might be carrying a gun,
or a knife, or be a kung-fu master, so why don't muggers just
attack all their victims with lethal force immediately? The
practical answer seems to be that most criminals are looking for a
relatively easy and monetarily rewarding career. Getting into
fights for your life over $20 isn't it.
|11.9.05 @ 6:42PM|#
A serious proposal to Jimbo: If you really think banning
handguns will stop murder, ask yourself how much the War on Drugs
has done to stop drug dealing.
The only way, as I see it, that you can disagree with the logic
implied by that statement, is if you think that murders are
committed by Joe and Jane Average who fly off the handle and kill
someone in a moment of rage. Problem is, it just ain't so; the
great majority of murderers* already have felony records, which
means it's already impossible for them to legally own weapons. And
while you might say "But they can get them from their
legally-owning neighbors", I refer you to the drug analogy above -
felons don't seem to have any problem getting hard drugs, which
damn near nobody owns legally. Plain and simple, gun prohibition is
not going to stop the bad guys from having them.
Oh, and who posted the link to that godawful "choiceshirts.com"
site? Those are some of the most stomach-turningly "patriotic"
things I've ever seen.
|11.9.05 @ 7:38PM|#
Are there any American cities where guns AND gays are
welcome?
I've never been there, but I would imagine Las
Vegas...?
Well, Jim Walsh, you might think that, but there is a strong Mormon
component and Catholic component to the local leadership here.
Nevada voters recently passed (with 65%-70% majorities) a NV
Constitution "Defense of Marriage" amendment, and not all the votes
for it came from the rural counties. Remember -- prostitution,
although legal in 13 or 14 (out of 17) counties of NV, is as
illegal in Clark County as it is in Topeka, KS. What I'm trying to
say is that there is a large number of people living in Metro Las
Vegas who would be thrilled if all the gays would suddenly turn
hetero, or, barring that, would just get the fuck back in
the closet.
|11.9.05 @ 11:34PM|#
Zurich is looking better all the time...
Heh, I was also thinking the answer to my question might be Z�rich.
Big city + Switzerland = the answer to my prayers :-) And, I speak
German!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245