San Francisco Seriously Considers Total Ban on Handguns

[Amused]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: notfred
If they could ban handguns for the entire country, and check all cargo at the borders, then I could see this possibly reducing the amount of handgun violence in the US.

Sure!! It worked for drugs, right? Why not for a 500+ year old technology that is easily smuggled or produced underground?

You really missed my point. My point was the only way it might have ANY effect at all, is if you could really prevent people from getting them. You cannot do that with a city-wide ban.

You can't do it with a nationwide ban, either. I think the overwhelming failure of the WoD proves that beyond a doubt.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Feldenak


Exactly....prohibition has always worked.

Stop it. My sarcasm meter is smoking.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Feldenak


Exactly....prohibition has always worked.

Stop it. My sarcasm meter is smoking.

Edit: I'd offer you a beer but I'm working toward the reinstatement of the Volstead Act.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
This makes me want to go out and buy another gun. Mabye a USP this time...I've been eyeing that .40 S&W.

I like mine, but I am going to sell it and get the compact version for concealed carry purposes.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: Injury
Taking guns away from the law-abiding citizens does not protect them from those who will not follow any handgun laws, let alone a ban.

Ha, :thumbsup:

LOL...Spider

 

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: notfred
If they could ban handguns for the entire country, and check all cargo at the borders, then I could see this possibly reducing the amount of handgun violence in the US.

Sure!! It worked for drugs, right? Why not for a 500+ year old technology that is easily smuggled or produced underground?

You really missed my point. My point was the only way it might have ANY effect at all, is if you could really prevent people from getting them. You cannot do that with a city-wide ban.

You can't do it with a nationwide ban, either. I think the overwhelming failure of the WoD proves that beyond a doubt.

No, a natiuonwide ban wouldn't prevent people from getting handguns, either. But, it would make it a lot more difficult than a city-wide ban. So if the nationwide ban isn't going to work, then the city-wide ban CERTAINLY wont. That's what I was trying to say.

 

[Kipper]

You know that Chris Rock stand-up where he says they should make bullets costs $5000?

It's logically improbable, but there is some truth to it...

 

[Ime]

For a city that is supposedly so left leaning, they sure do a good job of pushing the country to the right.

Sometimes I wonder if that's what the city leaders in San Fran actually want.

 

[NuclearNed]

...but on the flip side, this would mean that America's largest liberal metropolis would be virtually defenseless, just ripe for takeover.


Hmmm...

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Ime
For a city that is supposedly so left leaning, they sure do a good job of pushing the country to the right.

Sometimes I wonder if that's what the city leaders in San Fran actually want.

Dave, is that you?

 

[Triumph]

On one side, I despise gun control and the gun control lobby who wish to slowly erode our rights until all manner of firearms are banned throughout the country. On the other hand, I respect the rights of state and local communities to enact their own rules as they see fit best to govern themselves. Basically smaller, locally controlled government versus a federalist form of government. If people want to ban guns, or gay marriage, or pay for health care, or whatever, I'd much rather they do it at a local level where it is much easier to manage, and more in line with the will of the people.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: TravisT
All we can do is pray for an earthquake.

Might as well you spend enough time on your knees!

 

[maddogchen]

Good for them. Let them.

If its a success and cuts down crime then it'll be a shiny example to us all (I wouldn't bet on it though)

And if it fails and crime doesn't go down then we can all laugh at their failure.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Good for them. Let them.

If its a success and cuts down crime then it'll be a shiny example to us all (I wouldn't bet on it though)

And if it fails and crime doesn't go down then we can all laugh at their failure.

I have a quote I like for these kinds of laws:

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
--Albert Einstein

 

[yukichigai]

While I really, truly want our society to be such that a ban like this would work, I know it's not the case. Until the means of acquiring guns illegally is eliminated, or at least severely impeded, then a ban like this may very well do more harm than good.

 

[KC5AV]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
...but on the flip side, this would mean that America's largest liberal metropolis would be virtually defenseless, just ripe for takeover.


Hmmm...

I like the way you think, sir.

 

[FlyLice]

Yea, so only criminals have guns and rob all you hippies!

 

[TitanDiddly]

pioneer in gun control

Control the criminals, not the implements. :|

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: KC5AV

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
...but on the flip side, this would mean that America's largest liberal metropolis would be virtually defenseless, just ripe for takeover.


Hmmm...

I like the way you think, sir.

hahhaha,
for some reason i got the image of an army of rednecks (think deliverance... shotguns, pitchforks and straw hats) crashing a gay parade....

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Good for them. Let them.

If its a success and cuts down crime then it'll be a shiny example to us all (I wouldn't bet on it though)

And if it fails and crime doesn't go down then we can all laugh at their failure.

I have a quote I like for these kinds of laws:

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
--Albert Einstein

I have another quote.

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."
--Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Good for them. Let them.

If its a success and cuts down crime then it'll be a shiny example to us all (I wouldn't bet on it though)

And if it fails and crime doesn't go down then we can all laugh at their failure.

I have a quote I like for these kinds of laws:

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
--Albert Einstein

I have another quote.

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one."
--Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Always run from a knife and rush a gun. - Jimmy Hoffa

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: K1052
It is nice to see they learned from other cities that enacted handgun bans and have cut handgun crime drastically as a result.

Kudos to their forward thinking!

What cities would those be???

Check your sarcasm meter.

Well, you'll notice I didn't outright blast him for that post. I figured there was a pretty good chance it might be sarcasm.

 

[ucdbiendog]

Originally posted by: Injury
Taking guns away from the law-abiding citizens does not protect them from those who will not follow any handgun laws, let alone a ban.

lol

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Triumph
On one side, I despise gun control and the gun control lobby who wish to slowly erode our rights until all manner of firearms are banned throughout the country. On the other hand, I respect the rights of state and local communities to enact their own rules as they see fit best to govern themselves. Basically smaller, locally controlled government versus a federalist form of government. If people want to ban guns, or gay marriage, or pay for health care, or whatever, I'd much rather they do it at a local level where it is much easier to manage, and more in line with the will of the people.

That falls apart when it comes to basic, Constitutional and human rights.

By your argument, I could say states and localities should be able to maintain Jim Crow laws, or slavery.

The 2nd Amendment, and every other right in the Bill of Rights is not on the table when it comes to local control. That was made even more clear by the 14th Amendment.