|Arguing for my life
||[Jan. 9th, 2005|12:48 pm]
I'm a lefty gun owner who lives in San Francisco. There is a proposed ban that would prevent all SF residents from keeping a handgun in their business or residence. |
I'm against this ban for numerous reasons: it doesn't cover non-residents, there is no talk of renumeration, there is no specified penalty for failure to comply, the ban will fail in the courts as it did in 1982, it's unconstitutional, and it's just plain wrong-headed in my opinion.
As you might imagine, I have many lefty friends who unlike me, do not see gun rights as civil rights... yet. In my journal I've gone through many posts trying to convince unlike-minded people. I've tried stats, discussions of risk, metaphors... if you're interested, read away. I had the flu during most of those posts, so the comments are fast and furious.
After all of it, I've come up with two sources I think most people will trust, and two small reasons to vote against the ban. These won't convince people of anything bigger than that, but if I can help this ban fail, I'll be pleased with that step.
Here's what I've got:
2004 US Attorney General Opinion finding that the 2nd amendment does protect an individual right to own guns. Various case law supports this as well.
From the Center for Disease Control: During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws.
The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)
(I highly recommend looking at the links. I think one of the problems in the gun debate is how few people look at the source material. I posted this here as well, in a somewhat less polite form.)
I guess all I'm hoping to do is to 1. illustrate the right to gun ownership and 2. illustrate that gun laws do not reduce crime the way some may hope.
This is a complex situation... saying that you need to change economics and attitudes is harder than taking away my gun. It's hard for me personally because I'm more ACLU than NRA. But like I said, baby steps.
Any thoughts on this are appreciated. I do feel like I'm fighting for my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
2005-01-12 02:49 am (UTC)
gun rights = civil rights
Or lefties are easier to take seriously if they are armed.
What if 1 in 5 veggitarians were carrying concealed? Would they be taunted while sipping wheat grass smoothies across from Mcdonalds?
What if 1 in 5 byciclists were armed? Would they be taken more seriously on the road?
What if 1 in 5 gay people were armed? Would hate crimes against gays even exist anymore?
What if 1 in 5 women were armed. Would rapes happen as often?
I have carried a gun for years, and I have never drawn it. But I would if my life was threatened by violence. I would if anyones life were threatened by violence. I beleive that both my family and I are safer in public because I am armed and capable of using a firearm. I also beleive that since it is easier to obtain a CCW in Washington as opposed to California, I am safer here than I am there. The possibility of law abiding people living there everyday tasks in public while armed makes this a hostile environment for criminals that want to mug, rape, kidnap and rob.
Remind your friends that their neighborhood is safer because your gun is in it. Criminals would love to know that all the homes in SF were gun free, or at least those occupied by law abiding citizens. If they are unsure, then even unarmed homes are safer.
2005-05-31 08:52 pm (UTC)
Re: gun rights = civil rights
youre right. its like with nukes. nukes prevent us and everybody else from going to war on each other at the same time. the real value of a gun is that it prevents crime from happening, not stops it while it is in progress. and i think that if a criminal is able to obtain a gun (from .38 to 50 cal) illegaly, the public should be able to obtain it legally.
I've went shooting with them once. Nice folks.
Recent article about the SF chapter:http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/03/BAGMTB4NTL1.DTL
I fully support people looking past their perceived notions about guns (perhaps that they're only for NASCAR-watching beer-drinking truck-driving troglojock hunters) and realizing that guns can be a tool of equality. Not everyone can run away from a fight. Not everyone has the time to learn martial arts. And, and this might not be what people want to hear, but there are good reasons to have guns outside of self-defense. Just wanting to do target practice is a good reason to me. I don't know that I'll ever use my gun in self-defense. I just know I want to keep my right to keep it.
2005-02-21 09:10 am (UTC)
i'm not a member but i was thinking bout joining
i'm not a member i was just looking for a good group thats not based on games and this is the first good one i've found and i might join any way... i have to agree, guns can be a usefull thing, and people definetly should have the right to own them and carry them, i personaly think that its not the gun thats dangerous, its the person that pulls the triger, any one person could could kill with nothing but their hands. and any way... a man walks into a bank /with a gun/ and robs it, do you really think he's worried about the law?. even if they do ban guns its not going to lower the crime level, its just going to disable the people trying to defend themselves. any who, i hope i'm not being annoying, or in any way bothering any one
California in general and San Francisco in particular suffers from the fault of "patching the problem". Crimes? Ban guns! (And ninja stars while you're at it.) There is no focus on the underlying causes of crimes: poverty, poor education, the fact that people find it appealing to commit crimes because they have very little to lose.
I'm sorry I don't have anything more constructive to add. The bias against guns and gun owners here is ridiculously high and probably impossible to change, as evidenced by the fact that such a ban was proposed in the first place. If you own guns, you're a crazy right-winger or stupid redneck. The best way to change someone's mind is to take them shooting. Unfortunately, most of the people who have these preconceptions would never agree to go shooting in the first place. Personally, I think most of the gun enthusiasts I know like them because of the fun factor, not necessarily because they think they need to own 30 guns to protect their house (one shotgun would be good enough). However, that "fun factor" is lost upon people who don't really know much about them. If that is the case, then 30 really would seem a bit much and lend credence to the "crazy" stereotype.
by the way, the 'here' link is broken.
The truth is you are fighting for your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. GOOD FOR YOU!! never give up
2006-02-22 05:17 am (UTC)
It's simple really, just remind them that this gun control debate was resolved over 200 years ago when the second amendment to the constitution was adopted.
"A well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"... necessary to the security of a free state,..."
No one anywhere in the world, since those words were written, has argued successfully that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, without infringement, is NOT necessary to the security of a free state.
Challenge them to do so.
I didn't know there was a such thing as a progun lefty.
yeah, I'm sort of a tax and spend libertarian