40% Of San Francisco Residents Planning To Leave Deteriorating City

Harambe wrote:

Yessiree Bob wrote:

Oh look, it's the MAGAt simpleton who jacks it to fear, crime and riot porn weighing in again.

Try suggesting reasonable gun control as a way to reduce America's unusually high homicide rate. See what they say. lol.

I'm pretty big on the second amendment myself, but the self-contradiction by the law-and-order types when faced with common sense efforts to reduce rapid access to guns (and therefore lower violent crime) is always fun to see :)

Because criminals don't get their guns from legal sources. It's pretty common sense that criminals don't like following the law, don't you think?

Let it Rupp wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Try suggesting reasonable gun control as a way to reduce America's unusually high homicide rate. See what they say. lol.

I'm pretty big on the second amendment myself, but the self-contradiction by the law-and-order types when faced with common sense efforts to reduce rapid access to guns (and therefore lower violent crime) is always fun to see :)

Because criminals don't get their guns from legal sources. It's pretty common sense that criminals don't like following the law, don't you think?

Well, if criminals won't follow the law, why do we care about laws at all? Seems suspect coming from a law-and-order type like yourself. But I get that contradicting yourself from one post to the next is standard for you lot.

Let it Rupp wrote:

Nope, all the evidence points that these liberal-run cities are sh!tholes, due to their leadership. All around the country. I don't know why you can accept that and feel the need to troll everyone who points this blatant fact out. Did your conservative dad refuse to pay for your philosophy degree or something? What's the obsession with "boomers?"

Oh boy, more assertions with 'evidence' with nothing to back it up. I love it.

And boomers are fun to mock because they get rather butthurt (they don't understand the internet).

And they often have weird, outdated, and calcified views they will ardently argue in the face of any opposing information.

Let it Rupp wrote:

Harambe wrote:

Try suggesting reasonable gun control as a way to reduce America's unusually high homicide rate. See what they say. lol.

I'm pretty big on the second amendment myself, but the self-contradiction by the law-and-order types when faced with common sense efforts to reduce rapid access to guns (and therefore lower violent crime) is always fun to see :)

Because criminals don't get their guns from legal sources. It's pretty common sense that criminals don't like following the law, don't you think?

"All the evidence" points to you being totally wrong.

Every gun owner is law abiding, until the moment they're not.

Tell you what. Stay out of those “sh!tholes.” We who live and enjoy life in them don’t get you, we don’t want to get you, and we don’t GAF what you think.

Can we actually discuss the data?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-is-starting-to-look-more-like-16239804.php

https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Francisco-California.html

Most sources show violent crime is WAY down in SF since the 1990s.

Other sources make it seem like more of a wash:

https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Property crime is the type that affects the "media" and "online" wealthier types so maybe a short-term a rise in thefts will cause the think-pieces from rich white folks about how the city is changing even if for the majority of people it's been improving.

Obviously data are the silver bullets to most of you all's agenda so I encourage to ignore this post.

The Grim Reaper wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

Because criminals don't get their guns from legal sources. It's pretty common sense that criminals don't like following the law, don't you think?

"All the evidence" points to you being totally wrong.

Every gun owner is law abiding, until the moment they're not.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/13/orlando-shooting-what-we-dont-know/85811424/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/04/las-vegas-shooter-bought-33-guns-last-12-months/730634001/

I think the policies to control mass shootings, which are terrifying but not particularly deadly in the grand scheme, and general gun violence, which is quite deadly in comparison to other developed countries, would have to be pretty different.

I am against over-regulating guns for the sole sake of stopping mass shootings. Generally making the purchasing process more onerous could be beneficial, but you'd have to aggressively go after the black market. With like 300 million guns already in the USA it's not like controlling the source would do much in the near future.

It's a complicated question, but it's humorous that it's completely off the table for the law-and-order losers. Totally belies their supposedly honorable intentions. They really just want to punish poor and/or non-white people because they can.

It think it is and it isn't complicated. For the life of me, I can't see the justification for allowing civilians to have assault rifles. As I recall, we banned assault rifles for 10 years back in the 1990s, and the country didn't turn into a totalitarian state.

The Grim Reaper wrote:

It think it is and it isn't complicated. For the life of me, I can't see the justification for allowing civilians to have assault rifles. As I recall, we banned assault rifles for 10 years back in the 1990s, and the country didn't turn into a totalitarian state.

You're right, but the AR ban was basically a ban on scary looking guns. You could still get a semi-auto hunting rifle with effectively the same lethality. I am not a huge fan of rights restrictions that don't really solve any problems, but I accept that you have to do what you can and an AR ban is still 2A-acceptable in my views.

Doesn't help at the AR ban in the 1990s only lasted about a decade and grandfathered in so many guns that we can't really tell if it worked.

The Grim Reaper wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

Because criminals don't get their guns from legal sources. It's pretty common sense that criminals don't like following the law, don't you think?

"All the evidence" points to you being totally wrong.

Every gun owner is law abiding, until the moment they're not.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/13/orlando-shooting-what-we-dont-know/85811424/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/04/las-vegas-shooter-bought-33-guns-last-12-months/730634001/

Nope. The moment you steal or buy an unregistered gun, or buy an automatic/silenced/sawed off gun you are no longer abiding by the law. Guess where the vast majority of criminals get their guns (Hint: scroll down to page 7 to find out).

To the point about mass shootings, well many mass-shootings are performed with illegally obtained guns anyways. Besides, even if you magically banned the sale and production of all guns, destroyed all existing guns, people will still find a way to commit mass murder. I remember a terror attack in France a few years ago where the attacker used a truck to mow down and kill over 80 people. Any amount of legislation that would prevent these types of things would require so much government control, that they would cause more problems than would be solved. The real solutions are difficult which angers people who expect quick fixes to complex social issues, and might include: increase in self-defense skills of citizens (yes, that means more "good guys with guns") and better means of monitoring the mental health of those in the community.

Let it Rupp wrote:

To the point about mass shootings, well many mass-shootings are performed with illegally obtained guns anyways. Besides, even if you magically banned the sale and production of all guns, destroyed all existing guns, people will still find a way to commit mass murder. I remember a terror attack in France a few years ago where the attacker used a truck to mow down and kill over 80 people. Any amount of legislation that would prevent these types of things would require so much government control, that they would cause more problems than would be solved. The real solutions are difficult which angers people who expect quick fixes to complex social issues, and might include: increase in self-defense skills of citizens (yes, that means more "good guys with guns") and better means of monitoring the mental health of those in the community.

I don't think you're going to like what 'better monitoring the mental health of those in the community' entails for personal liberty.

The best process is common sense regulations across the spectrum of gun access, sales, registration, mental health, etc. To ignore some points at the expense of other demands extensive government intrusion in whatever you decide to focus on.

2600 bro wrote:

Can we actually discuss the data?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/San-Francisco-crime-is-starting-to-look-more-like-16239804.phphttps://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Francisco-California.html

Most sources show violent crime is WAY down in SF since the 1990s.

Other sources make it seem like more of a wash:

https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Property crime is the type that affects the "media" and "online" wealthier types so maybe a short-term a rise in thefts will cause the think-pieces from rich white folks about how the city is changing even if for the majority of people it's been improving.

Obviously data are the silver bullets to most of you all's agenda so I encourage to ignore this post.

Shall we get back on track with this thread and remind the boomers that crime is well below historical levels in SF?

"Nope. The moment you steal or buy an unregistered gun, or buy an automatic/silenced/sawed off gun you are no longer abiding by the law. Guess where the vast majority of criminals get their guns (Hint: scroll down to page 7 to find out)."

None of that has anything to do with your initial statement, which was that criminals don't get their guns from legal sources. Lots of crimes are committed with guns that were legally bought, including the Las Vegas and Orlando mass shootings. Those were the only two I looked up, but I suspect if anyone wanted to spend the time, they could come up with a long list of serious crimes that were committed by criminals who got their guns from legal sources.

What law prohibits buying an automatic gun, or a silencer, as you claim? Even a fully automatic machine gun is legal, although regulated. Automatic rifles are obviously legal in many parts of the country. Silencers are legal in 42 states. I think you're wrong (again) when you say that anyone who buys an automatic gun or a silenced gun is no longer law abiding.

As to this point:

"Besides, even if you magically banned the sale and production of all guns, destroyed all existing guns, people will still find a way to commit mass murder."

I think the phrase "don't let the perfect get in the way of the good" might apply. I think it's a loser mentality that we recognize a problem but do nothing to address it because we may only be able to partially address the problem.

We've outlawed rape, and murder, and burglary, but those crimes still occur. Should we repeal the laws criminalizing those things because the laws don't completely eradicate the problem?

I agree that real solutions are difficult, but that's no excuse for not even trying to find a solution. If a politician finds that it's too difficult to find a solution, maybe he shouldn't be in government.

If the guy who walked into the Pulse nightclub had a single shot pistol that fired only one bullet every time he pulled the trigger and required him to reload frequently, fewer than 50 people would have died that night.

Let it Rupp wrote:

The real solutions are difficult which angers people who expect quick fixes to complex social issues, and might include: increase in self-defense skills of citizens (yes, that means more "good guys with guns") and better means of monitoring the mental health of those in the community.

The Republicans are no more likely to improve mental health care in this country than they are to ban assault rifles.

yeah, we aren't fooled by this red herring. You all cheered when Trump allow mentally insufficient people access to guns.

had enough wrote:

yeah, we aren't fooled by this red herring. You all cheered when Trump allow mentally insufficient people access to guns.

*waits for the usual suspects to whine about being obsessed with Trump (he was the last prez, in case you forgot)

Turns out nobody’s fleeing California quelle surprise as they say in France.

Shhhhh you’ll pop the bubble!!!

Gun violence incidents had nearly doubled in terms of the number of incidents over the past two years with 26 homicides so far this year in San Francisco, though Scott said the increase comes after a 58-year low just two years ago.

There have also been 119 incidents of gun violence in San Francisco this year compared to 58 incidents last year. Still, the chief touted the fact that San Francisco police investigators are clearing homicide cases at a rate of about 90% currently.

Aggravated assaults were also up to almost 1,100. Scott acknowledged the importance of bringing the numbers in those categories down.

“We have to get a handle on this,” said Scott.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/07/12/san-francisco-mayor-breed-sfpd-chief-scott-refute-narrative-crime-infested-city/