Wednesday, December 29, 2004

Gun Control: True Lies in San Francisco

"The homicide rate in Washington, D.C., in 2002 was 9.4 incidents per 100,000 people. In San Francisco that year, the rate was 5.2."

A key gambit of gun banners is the judicious use of misapplied statistical data. In the above quote, the writer referenced FBI crime data that covers metropolitan areas. The mythical "9.4 incidents per 100,000 people" for "Washington, D.C." includes residents of five Maryland counties, 17 in Virginia, and two from West Virginia. This report is also the source of the stated rate for the SF metropolitan area, which includes only two additional counties: Marin and San Mateo. The "D.C." homicide rate is understated because Virginia and West Virginia, which allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms for personal protection, had homicide rates of 5.3 and 3.2, respectively. Maryland, with gun control policies similar to California, had a rate of 9.4, two to three times higher than the pro-gun rights states, but still about 20% of the D.C. rate.

Since these three states' counties had a combined population of 14,553,552, over 25 times D.C.'s population of 570,898, the D.C. homicide rate was significantly diluted. Also, the author compares "apples to oranges," since the San Francisco metropolitan area is completely covered by similar gun control laws, while the D.C area is not. In reality, while the SF metropolitan area experienced the 5.2 rate, Washington D.C. had a homicide rate of 46.2, nearly five times the article's assertion: "Although gun sales in California must be recorded, residents are not required to have a permit for handguns kept in a private home or business, so it's unclear how many San Francisco residents would be affected by the law."

California law requires a permit in the form of either a Handgun or Hunter Safety Certificate prior to purchasing a firearm. The state issues these certificates upon successful completion of proper coursework taught by a state-certified instructor. (4) When purchasing a firearm, the contact information on the Safety Certificate is linked to the serial number on the firearm, and these records are stored. Law enforcement contacts confirm that when called to a residence for situations like domestic violence or an arrest warrant, to avoid additional risk, they check the California Department of Justice database to see if residents own firearms. Thus, the process involved to purchase a firearm in CA creates a de facto registration database which could be employed in a confiscation scheme.

"I think banning handguns is the central issue for gun violence prevention, and it's been somewhat of a third rail -- people haven't wanted to talk about it."--Eric Gorovitz, West Coast director of the Alliance for Justice

Mr. Gorovitz knows better than to be disingenuous, as the article states he has "spent a decade working for gun control policy statewide and nationally." A quick visit to any gun control web site proves that banning guns as "the central issue for gun violence prevention" has long been discussed at local, national, and international levels.

"How many more Michael Moore films does it take to tell us that the Second Amendment is absolutely archaic, and other nations do it better than we do? We should absolutely go forward with it despite the constitutional challenges." - Supervisor-elect Ross Mirkarimi

Two points here. First, we have an important admission from the gun control movement that the Second Amendment guarantees each citizen's right to keep and bear arms, and that it must be done away with to accomplish the goal of civilian disarmament. It is interesting to note that they cite someone who uses innuendo and misdirection for great financial gain as a supporting information source. Secondly, they desire fertile ground for dictatorship. This elected official thinks in absolutes. He believes part of the Constitution, the source of our civil rights, is "absolutely" wrong. He considers himself the "absolute" authority in deciding exactly which rights we deserve. Theoretically, the only way to create "absolute" reliability in human behavior is to eliminate personal liberty. Absolute authority would then enable absolute certainty of outcome for those in control.

Why trust people who lie to justify their stated goals, especially when gun control is consistently shown not to result in the stated goals of increased security and reduced crime? Gun control advocates in San Francisco have finally exposed the truth: it's not about "safety" or "violence prevention," but about banning guns and controlling you.


Taking potshots at Santa: "Being Santa can be a dangerous job. Scott Slodysko of Shamokin, PA, knows that all too well. He was riding atop a fire engine Monday evening, all dressed up as St. Nick, when someone shot him in the leg with a pellet gun. 'We were at the intersection when I heard a popping sound,' Slodysko, a 23-year-old volunteer fireman, told The News-Item of Shamokin. 'It felt like a bee stung me -- like a very bad bee sting.' The projectile didn't penetrate the skin, but did cause 'a black-and-blue mark about the size of a silver dollar,' according to Slodysko. Quick work by police in the town, about 30 miles northeast of the state capital of Harrisburg, turned up a 17-year-old suspect. The unnamed assailant confessed to firing out of a second-story window as the Kringle motorcade slowly passed below."

The gift of firearms safety training: "Of all the gifts I always looked for under the Christmas tree, it was the slender, long, heavy packages I adored the most. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that those easily-identified boxes most likely held a hunting firearm. But unlike any other gift that can be given, a firearm requires work after the gift opening. With this new gift there are several important issues that the gift giver has to address. Regardless if the new gun is an air gun or a firearm, teaching the proper safety handling of the weapon is of utmost importance."

No comments: