San Francisco to ban guns?

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-12-16 02:18am

Just heard this report on the radio - apparently a total ban on firearms ownership for all except police officers.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-12-16 02:20am

I think someone may have taken that out of context. Are you sure it isn't something like in order to own a firearm you must have a license?

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-12-16 02:21am

It seems to be limited to handguns, and they haven't passed it, just are proposing it be put to a vote.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-12-16 02:22am

"Fuck that unconstitutional fascist shit" comes to mind if they are in fact going to implement such a law. But I haven't heard anything of it and I seriously doubt its true. At most if this has any basis their probably banning handguns.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-12-16 02:23am

Kamakazie Sith wrote:I think someone may have taken that out of context. Are you sure it isn't something like in order to own a firearm you must have a license?

Nope, full ban on handguns.

linky

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-16 02:26am

Well, if it's going to happen somewhere, San Francisco is a more likely place than others. Fortunately, I doubt it will leave the city.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-16 02:26am

They can't do that, and you used the wrong tags.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2004-12-16 02:32am

Just when the Democrats enjoyed an unprecedented amount of support from me, they have to go and pull this shit...

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-16 02:35am

The actions of the SF Dems are not representative of the party, really. With the current political climate no national Democrats except for maybe Congressmen from very, very liberal districts would actually advocate a full ban on handguns. It would be career suicide.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2004-12-16 02:40am

Just the same, I'm getting sick of having to choose between the First and the Second Amendment. Either way I'm losing my rights.

This is why I'm a libertarian at heart.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-12-16 02:52am

Rogue 9 wrote:They can't do that, and you used the wrong tags.

Oops. Guess I should probably hit the sack. Can a mod fix please?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-16 02:59am

the second that law comes up for review, it will be smote.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-12-16 03:03am

Fuck them. I can't believe they're trying to pull shit like this.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-16 03:14am

Well look on the bright side, they have not banned bows or swords so the SCA can rise up and overthrow the unnarmed/unarmored oppressors!!

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-12-16 03:28am

As an owner of handguns in the Bay Area, I say good riddance and I hope this extends to the greater California. I'm all for rifle ownership, but I see no compelling public need for handgun ownership and a great deal of need to snuff it out.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-16 03:29am

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Well look on the bright side, they have not banned bows or swords so the SCA can rise up and overthrow the unnarmed/unarmored oppressors!!

UP THE REVOLUTION!

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-12-16 03:30am

The Kernel wrote:As an owner of handguns in the Bay Area, I say good riddance and I hope this extends to the greater California. I'm all for rifle ownership, but I see no compelling public need for handgun ownership and a great deal of need to snuff it out.

The only thing it would stop, were SCOTUS to have a fit of temporary insanity, is legal handgun ownership. So suddenly the guns are all in the hands of the criminal element. Brilliant, Holmes.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-12-16 03:33am

Rogue 9 wrote: The only thing it would stop, were SCOTUS to have a fit of temporary insanity, is legal handgun ownership. So suddenly the guns are all in the hands of the criminal element. Brilliant, Holmes.

Gee, when did I say that making handguns illegal is going to remove them all from the streets tomorrow? It's going to require handfuls of legislation, tons of crack enforcement and a general shift in the public perception of firearms. But laws like this are a great first step.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-16 03:38am

The Kernel wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote: The only thing it would stop, were SCOTUS to have a fit of temporary insanity, is legal handgun ownership. So suddenly the guns are all in the hands of the criminal element. Brilliant, Holmes.
Gee, when did I say that making handguns illegal is going to remove them all from the streets tomorrow? It's going to require handfuls of legislation, tons of crack enforcement and a general shift in the public perception of firearms. But laws like this are a great first step.

Are you insane? "We have a problem, lets make a law and then it will all be better"

The bannng if firearms would be like the war on fucking drugs, an utterly fruitless waste of money, that only places innocent people(who bought an illegal gun in order to defend themselves from the criminals that now have all the guns because your bullshit anti-constitution anti-gun wankery is only enforcible against the people that abde by the law on a regular basis) in prison. WHere they will be brutalized, beaten and raped.

It will make home defense almost impossible, and the crime rate will only increase. Just like the OTHER cities with harsh gun control.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-16 03:42am

The Kernel wrote:As an owner of handguns in the Bay Area, I say good riddance and I hope this extends to the greater California. I'm all for rifle ownership, but I see no compelling public need for handgun ownership and a great deal of need to snuff it out.

I see no compelling public need for ownership of sex toys. Not that I have anything against sex toys, I just think it's right for the owners of sex toys to be constrained by my subjective opinion as a non-owner of sex toys on whether or not they really need them. Therefore, I don't think people should be allowed to own sex toys.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-12-16 03:47am

Alyrium Denryle wrote: The bannng if firearms would be like the war on fucking drugs, an utterly fruitless waste of money, that only places innocent people(who bought an illegal gun in order to defend themselves from the criminals that now have all the guns because your bullshit anti-constitution anti-gun wankery is only enforcible against the people that abde by the law on a regular basis) in prison. WHere they will be brutalized, beaten and raped.

False analogy. There are plenty of countries with strict gun laws with almost no possession of firearms (in fact MOST first world countries are like this) whereas even countries with the strictest drug laws still have widespread drug use.

It will make home defense almost impossible, and the crime rate will only increase. Just like the OTHER cities with harsh gun control.

Amusing considering the absolute best home defense weapon is a shotgun.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-12-16 03:49am

Joe wrote: I see no compelling public need for ownership of sex toys. Not that I have anything against sex toys, I just think it's right for the owners of sex toys to be constrained by my subjective opinion as a non-owner of sex toys on whether or not they really need them. Therefore, I don't think people should be allowed to own sex toys.

Oh please, sex toys are not lethal weapons.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-16 04:00am

When washington DC enacted a ban oh handguns in the 70s it experienced a 200% increase in per capita crime rate, while the national increase was 12%

coincidence? I dont think so. seeing as the potential of a victim being armed is a rather nice detterant. Call it target hardening

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-12-16 04:01am

False analogy. There are plenty of countries with strict gun laws with almost no possession of firearms (in fact MOST first world countries are like this) whereas even countries with the strictest drug laws still have widespread drug use.

And hew do you propose these laws are enforced? I suppose criminals will just give up their guns willingly?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-12-16 04:10am

Oh please, sex toys are not lethal weapons.

Sure they are. Haven't you seen Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels?

That said, regardless of the fact that handguns are lethal weapons, it's up to you as the would-be gun grabber that to show that banning handguns would bring objective, verifiable improvements for the public good, and that these improvements justify the government intruding on the rights of gunowners to the extent that an outright ban on handgun ownership would require. Just saying "they don't need these lethal weapons" doesn't cut it, because that's a subjective opinion, and when it comes to public policy neither your nor my subjective opinions about what people should or should not be allowed to own means very little unless backed up with objective data.