Dissecting Sponsor Statements
The following is a step-by-step dissection of the
statements in favor of the SF Handgun Ban made by the proposition's
sponsor Chris Daly (and thus far, the only published supporter).
The full text of Daly's statement is at the page bottom.
Statement: Easy access
to handguns can transform heated exchanges or emotional moments into
lifelong injury or death.
Counters:
-
Easy
access also allows quick response and protection to violent criminal
attacks - once every 13 seconds (Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, Fall 1995). Disarming the populace only make criminal
attacks 100% successful.
-
Countless felon interview studies conducted by criminologists show that
criminals will not enter a home they believe might have an armed
resident. Disarming the populace makes everyone a victim.
-
"Emotional moment" crimes are statistically rare. The staggering
majority of crimes with handguns are committed by gangs, and 71% of
“victims” have prior criminal records (N.C. Police Department from 1992
to 1993, “Risk of Being Shot Seems Tied to Lifestyle, Study Says”,
Charlotte Observer, Nov. 25, 1994).
-
"Emotional moments" (known among criminologists as "crimes of passion")
are rarely momentary, but are proceeded by years of violence -- police
have responded to domestic disturbances at least once in 90% of cases
(Straus, Murray A. 2000. "Family violence." P. 982 in Encyclopedia of
Sociology, 2nd Ed., vol 2. edited by E.F. Borgatta and M. L. Borgatta.
NY: Macmillian Publishing Co.) .
-
If
"emotional moments" are a cause to restrict civil liberties, then Chris
Daly needs to be bound and gagged for his (in)famous and often obscene verbal
outbursts during supervisor meetings. ("Daly goes off again -- this time
at McGoldrick. Supervisor angry his tsunami relief failed, starts
cursing", San Francisco Chronicle, January 26, 2005)
Statement: . . . a handgun in the home makes it 43 times more
likely that a friend, family member or acquaintance will be killed than an
intruder
Counters:
-
This
figure comes from the incredibly sloppy research paper "Protection or
Peril?" by one Arthur L. Kellerman. It has been slammed by every working
criminologist. How sloppy is this research?
-
One
criminologist uses it as an example of poor research design
techniques.
-
It has
two separate entries at JunkScience.com.
-
Even
Kellerman admitted to these design errors in his later papers.
-
How was
this study poorly conducted?
-
It only reviewed
two cities, hardly a thorough review.
-
The two cities
compared were not randomly selected, and were in different
countries with different cultures.
-
It used only
incidents that involved someone getting killed. Kellerman admits
that his study did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders
are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm." In
other words, he ignored a vast amount of data showing the positive
impact of firearms in the home that come from brandishing.
This is very important given that only 0.1% (1 in a
thousand) instances of the defensive uses of guns results in the death
of the predator. (Gary Kleck, “Point Blank: Guns and Violence
in America.” New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991)
-
The study did not
identify who was shot. Thus these "friends" ("acquaintance" as
classified by the FBI) included fellow drug dealers shot over a
gangland turf wars.
-
86% (37) of the
reported deaths were suicides (see next section for details).
-
Kellerman also
admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders
"purposely avoided a home known to be armed." This is a classic case
of a “study” conducted in order to achieve a planned result.
- In his critique of this “study”,
criminologist Gary Kleck notes that Kellerman's estimation of gun ownership
rates were “inaccurate”.
Statement: . . . suicide mortality increases fivefold with a
handgun.
Counter:
-
 Total suicide rates are not effected by firearm
availability. Nationally, handgun ownership has soared over the
past decades, but the total suicide rate has remained roughly the same
(Prof. Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns: Firearms and their control”, with
supporting data from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1972 to 1995).
Click graph to enlarge.
-
 Worldwide, suicide rates fall between 9-20 people
per 100,000 population regardless of firearm availability.
One year in Japan, their suicide rate was twice that of the U.S., but
firearms are not available to the Japanese public.
Click graph to enlarge.
- Banning country music might be more
effective – one study shows 51% of the suicide differential can be
traced to country music. (Steven Stack, Jim Gundlach, “The Effect of
Country Music on Suicide”, Social Forces. Volume: 71. Issue: 1., 1992)
Statement: It limits handgun
possession to those who protect us . . .
Counter: If Daly means the
police, then we are all in trouble. Due to funding restrictions -- voted in by city supervisors
-- the police cannot "protect" anyone (i.e.,
they cannot effectively prevent violent crimes).
-
95% of the time
police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest the suspect.
(Witkin, Gordon, Guttman, Monika and Lenzy, Tracy. “This is 911 ...
please hold.” U.S. News & World Report, June 17, 1998)
-
“. . .most criminals
are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about
running into the police.” (Wright and Rossi, “Armed and Considered
Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms”, August 1994, Aldine
de Gruyter)
-
There were 168,881
crimes of violence for which police had not responded within an
hour (United States Department of Justice stats for 1989).
-
75% of
protective/restraining orders are violated. (Ellen Sorokin,
“Anti-stalking laws usually are unable to protect targets.” Washington
Times, April 16, 2000)
-
There is only one
on-duty cop for every 1,813 citizens - so be prepared to ask your
rapist to wait. (US Justice Department police manpower estimates for
1998, and US Census Bureau population estimate for 1999)
- The courts have consistently ruled that the
police do not have an obligation to protect individuals. (see Warren v.
District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.
App. 1981)).
Statement: For years the National
Rifle Association and its front groups have spent millions to spread
misinformation and rig the political process.
Counter: Given the above, it looks
like Chris Daly is the true source of misinformation.
Original text of Chris Daly's ballot statement:
How many more? On November 27, 1978 Dan White assassinated Mayor George
Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. On May 9, 2005 a disgruntled
ex-employee walked into a South of Market nonprofit and killed a
hardworking father of two with a handgun. Every day, neighbors live in
fear that someone they love could be murdered. By December 2004, 56 of 87
San Francisco homicides that year involved handguns.
Easy access to handguns can transform heated exchanges or emotional
moments into lifelong injury or death. 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. In
addition, suicide mortality increases fivefold with a handgun.
Proposition H takes two meaningful steps to reduce handguns in San
Francisco. It limits handgun possession to those who protect us, and ends
firearms sales. Proposition H is substantially different from the measure
signed by Mayor Dianne Feinstein in the 1980s that was defeated in court.
For years the National Rifle Association and its front groups have
spent millions to spread misinformation and rig the political process.
When the NRA can't buy politicians, then try legal challenges, scare
tactics, and even blacklisting (www.nrablacklist.com). Proposition H is
San Francisco's chance to speak up.
No single strategy will solve San Francisco's epidemic of violence. We
need new investments in education, community development and jobs as well
as meaningful gun reform. Fewer handguns in the flow of commerce will make
it more difficult to obtain one. |
