Sunday, January 30, 2005

January 31, 2005 - A Gun Ban in San Francisco? How Gay is That?!

Today's Commentary: January 31st, 2005

Hello Thinkers!

How is that "global warming" treating you all today? It was so damn hot this January morning in the People's Republic of Massachusetts that my back door was frozen shut.

If you have a blog on like I do ( - an archive of these editorials), you may have seen a link on the admin screen asking if you want to advertise on your site. Being the shameless capitalist that I am, I submitted my blog figuring I had nothing to lose. Below is their response to me shortly after my submittal.

Thank you for your interest in Google AdSense. After reviewing your
application, our program specialists have found that it does not comply
with our policies. Therefore, we're unable to accept you into Google
AdSense at this time.

We did not approve your application for the reasons listed below. If
you are able to resolve these issues, please feel free to reply to this
email for reconsideration when you have made the changes.


- Sensitive content


Further detail:

Sensitive content: Google believes strongly in freedom of expression
and offers broad access to content across the web without censoring
search results. At the same time, we reserve the right to exercise
discretion when reviewing sites for AdSense. We've found that your
website contains content that we don't allow at this time. AdSense
policy doesn't currently accept sites that advocate against any
individual, group, or organization.

What a bunch of homos!

Speaking of homos, it seems the residents of the left coast are simply never content playing second fiddle to anyone. Especially the Land of Oz known as San Francisco - they have the 9th Circuit Court making some of the most insane rulings in the nation, they are the epicenter of pacifism in the face of Islamofacists, and they were so pissed by being beaten to the gay marriage punch by Massachusetts, they cranked up the fairy-mating full speed, in violation of California law, just to prove - mirror, mirror, that THEY were the gayest of them all.

But now it seems San Francisco has set their sites, so to speak, on ripping the title of "Murder Capitol of the US" from Washington, DC. How are they doing this? By filing legislation to completely ban all handguns from their city limits. Not just carrying in public, mind you - but a total ban on handguns from any and all homes and businesses. Existing gun owners would have to turn them in.

The stated goal of this legislation? It is "a response to San Francisco's skyrocketing homicide rate, as well as other social ills. There have been 86 murders in the city so far this year [as of the Dec 15th date of the SF Gate article] compared to 70 in all of 2003."

So who was the bay area rocket scientist that decided "Hey! Let's do what Washington, DC did!"

For 14 of the past 15 years, Washington DC has held two infamous national titles. They are the aforementioned murder capital of the US and home of some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US. These are apparently not only unrelated in the minds of Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein and Michael Moore, but mutually exclusive. This is of course, despite the fact that each of them have a gun - or armed guards to protect them.

Yes, Michael Moore needs a gun to protect his fat ass, but he believes you don't:,2933,144921,00.html

And yes, Ted Kennedy needs a gun to protect his fat ass, but he believes you don't:

And yes, Senator Diane Feinstein needs a gun to protect her fat ass, but she believes you don't:

While I will concede that the DC gun ban is not the exclusive cause of high murder rates in DC, it is not a difficult leap of faith to conclude that armed criminals will be most active in areas where the public cannot fight back.

So how do politicians get their constituencies to follow their flawed logic? Misinformation. During the early 1990's, the Clinton administration claimed that according to the CDC, eleven children a day are killed by guns. These messages were accompanied by visuals featuring blonde haired, blue eyed toddlers reaching for a revolver in a closet or nightstand. The reality? In order to get the 11-a-day figure, you had to include "children" in their 20's - the vast, vast majority of whom were gang members involved in drug transactions or turf wars. I guess that's not a visual the soccer moms would probably relate to, huh?

Then there's the dangers of "aquaintance murders". You may have heard that a house with a gun in it is 10 times (or whatever) more likely to have a friend or relative killed in it. Sounds nasty, eh? That is until you find out that the term "friend" includes members of rival street gangs.

According to John Lott's book, "The Bias Against Guns", more children under five die by drowning in 5 gallon plastic water buckets than do children under ten by any type of accidental gunshot.

I could go on debunking stories of "cop-killer" bullets, plastic handguns that evade metal detectors, or guns that just "go off" a la Jayson Williams, but then I would have to tell you that the tooth fairy does in fact, not exist.

By the way, who here can define "assault weapon?"

So why the misinformation from various organizations? Government funding and revenue from antigun private foundations. There is money to be made by trying to disarm law abiding citizens. This is not a small task, considering a recent Gallup poll found that 40% of American adults own a gun and 1/3rd of American adult women own a gun. Think about those numbers.

John Lott also wrote a book titled "More Guns, Less Crime." I don't know if I would suggest you read it. The book is not an easy read. Lott is an economist and he did a dizzyingly impressive statistic analysis on gun control laws and their effects on crime. His findings? There is no more effective deterrent to violent crime (rape, murder, robbery) than to allow trained, law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. Even non-gun owners benefit. However, certain types of property crime that avoids direct victim contact (ie. car theft) does rise. But hell, I'll take that over a knifepoint mugging any day.

And if you don't believe Lott, think about this scenario. You need to score some Oxycontin in a big way. You stake out a dark mall parking lot late one night and see two people walk out to their cars. One is a lady in her late 70's carrying a purse over her shoulder. The other is a man in his 30's with a conspicuous bulge high on his right hip under his jacket. Question: Which one are you going to mug? Answer: Neither! You are going to wait until another woman in her 70's walks out of the mall alone.

And by the way, before I get tagged for being homophobic for my earlier remarks, I will state emphatically that I am not anti gay. I could not care less what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes. In fact here's a bunch of homosexuals that I support. Why? Because they get it:

I have no idea how Matthew Shepard felt about 2nd Amendment rights, but he might be alive today had he exercised them.


Post a Comment

<< Home