Quake3World

What the fuck?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... =printable

"The measure also makes it illegal to buy, sell, distribute and manufacture firearms and ammunition in the city."

It didn't work in D.C. It hasn't worked in Chicago. Why are law-abiding citizens so eager to give up their guns (turn them into police by April 1st), when they know all the criminals are still going to have theirs?

I just don't understand how this type of thing can be so popular with the public.

that's daft. how can you ban guns anywhere in america? like you say, criminals aren't going to give theirs up.

yea guns for all ey

Another prime example of retarded politicians and bleeding-heart Rosie O'Donnell liberals in action.
FOR GOD'S SAKE, DON'T FIGURE OUT WHY PEOPLE SHOOT EACH OTHER, JUST BAN GUNS!

reason why we shoot each other is because we're dumb. the majority of americans aren't intelligent enough to handle dangerous weapons.

that being said, im not sure how they're banning guns? i'm against guns and all but i don't see how they can ban it considering that its a federally protected constitutional right. (maybe reading the article helps )

Nightshade wrote:Another prime example of retarded politicians and bleeding-heart Rosie O'Donnell liberals in action.
FOR GOD'S SAKE, DON'T FIGURE OUT WHY PEOPLE SHOOT EACH OTHER, JUST BAN GUNS!

My guess is that in a city like SF, most people don't own guns anyway. When the majority of people in a metropolitan area don't own a gun, and never intend to own a gun under any circunstances besides completely breakdown of the government (doesn't seen like it'll happen anytime soon), any attempt to get other guns off the street seems like a good idea. Believe or not, the best way to lesson the chance of murder by handgun is to, you guessed it, get rid of the handguns.

Granted, this is just a ceremonial law. Beyond doubt, it will found unconstitutional by the courts. And, of course, it would not have much of an (initial) inpact anyway, since criminals would get their guns elsewhere. The main purpose of it is to be a public opinion poll expressing the stance of the city on an issue like this.

I disagree, I don't see it as a public opinion poll. Laws like this are nearly always the work of a noisy minority. And I wouldn't go making assumptions about the numbers of gun ownders in any given area. Hell, if I lived in a major city, I'd be much more inclined to own and carry a hundgun.

Or, you could think of it as a social experiment, which has already been tried two other places without any success.

Handguns were banned in Washington DC, and it became the murder capital of the country.

If the fact that most criminals get their guns illegally is so blatantly obvious to so many people, why don't Rosie O'Donnell and her ilk get it? I mean, I don't have a problem with background checks, I think that you should have to prove that you're a competent, responsible person before you can own a handgun. But banning guns altogether? If I was an armed thug, that's exactly what I'd want to see happen.

80% of murders happen within the family. From that point of view, you're muchbetter off without a gun in the house.

How do you know you're not much better off without a family?

People are going to kill each other, I don't care if it's with a gun or a pencil. Guns are not the issue, the reasons why people feel the need to end someone else's life are.

R00k wrote:What the fuck?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... =printable

"The measure also makes it illegal to buy, sell, distribute and manufacture firearms and ammunition in the city."

It didn't work in D.C. It hasn't worked in Chicago. Why are law-abiding citizens so eager to give up their guns (turn them into police by April 1st), when they know all the criminals are still going to have theirs?

I just don't understand how this type of thing can be so popular with the public.

try explaining this to anyone in the UK, which has always had one of the lowest rate of shootings in the world, even during the 19th century when UK and US gun laws were identical (i.e. there weren't any)

Nightshade wrote:I disagree, I don't see it as a public opinion poll. Laws like this are nearly always the work of a noisy minority.

Whether or not you see it as a public opinion poll, from what I've read that's what the creators of the measure had in mind. I was just trying to bring that perspective into this.

And I don't understand what you mean by a noisy minority. The measure was brought to the voters, and the majority voted yes on it. To me, that a sign that an issue like this goes beyond a noisy minority. However, if you're thinking in terms on the whole country, then yes, SF is a noisy minority of liberals.

Pesonally thought, I'm probably bringing my own bias into this somehow, as I'm pretty much in favor in abolishing handguns entirely. Of course, I also realize this is an impossibility in the United States any time soon.

Well, perhaps in this particular case it was simply the majority expressing their opinion. Usually, I see special interest groups fighting each other to get laws enacted. With guns, it's the bunny-hugging liberal fag0ts whining that if there were no guns there would be no murders.
I personally don't have any guns at the moment, because I don't have a gun vault to lock them up in, and I have a 5 year old daughter. I never cared while my Rottie was still alive, but now that he's gone, I do feel a bit less secure. Not enough to make me run out and buy a shotgun or a .45, but the feeling's there. Most people that have guns will never need them to defend themselves, but I think that if I'm a responsible adult, I should be able to own one without hassle.

The only purpose a handgun serves is to kill other humans, I don't think they should be sold in stores period. Less guns is always better imho.

Say It With Lead Pipes

Kracus wrote:The only purpose a handgun serves is to kill other humans, I don't think they should be sold in stores period. Less guns is always better imho.

You have an astute grasp of the obvious.

So does SF.

Nightshade wrote:Another prime example of retarded politicians and bleeding-heart Rosie O'Donnell liberals in action.
FOR GOD'S SAKE, DON'T FIGURE OUT WHY PEOPLE SHOOT EACH OTHER, JUST BAN GUNS!

Nightshade wrote:I disagree, I don't see it as a public opinion poll. Laws like this are nearly always the work of a noisy minority. And I wouldn't go making assumptions about the numbers of gun ownders in any given area. Hell, if I lived in a major city, I'd be much more inclined to own and carry a hundgun.

Nightshade wrote:If the fact that most criminals get their guns illegally is so blatantly obvious to so many people, why don't Rosie O'Donnell and her ilk get it? I mean, I don't have a problem with background checks, I think that you should have to prove that you're a competent, responsible person before you can own a handgun. But banning guns altogether? If I was an armed thug, that's exactly what I'd want to see happen.

Nightshade wrote:How do you know you're not much better off without a family?

People are going to kill each other, I don't care if it's with a gun or a pencil. Guns are not the issue, the reasons why people feel the need to end someone else's life are.

Nightshade wrote:Well, perhaps in this particular case it was simply the majority expressing their opinion. Usually, I see special interest groups fighting each other to get laws enacted. With guns, it's the bunny-hugging liberal fag0ts whining that if there were no guns there would be no murders.
I personally don't have any guns at the moment, because I don't have a gun vault to lock them up in, and I have a 5 year old daughter. I never cared while my Rottie was still alive, but now that he's gone, I do feel a bit less secure. Not enough to make me run out and buy a shotgun or a .45, but the feeling's there. Most people that have guns will never need them to defend themselves, but I think that if I'm a responsible adult, I should be able to own one without hassle.

I can't argue with any of that nor could I have stated any of that any better.

So now people living in SF have to turn in their two thousand dollar, over and under benelli's in order to satisfy the idiocy of the SF voters?

The article never mentioned anything specific about handguns and even if it did is the city government going to reimburse all the property tax paying residents for all the guns that the law abiding citizens are going to be forced to turn over to the police?

Cities that vote and pass this kind of law always end up being cities full of two kinds of people. People who support this legislation and the people who prey upon them.

http://www.sfpoa.org/Journal/articles/o ... m?id=24653

I am also a little biased on this (being a liberal fag0t and all, hah), so I would eventually like to see guns banned. Will it happen soon? No. The whole constitution-right-to-bear-arms issue, criminals, and similar issues will be around for awhile. (I won't even go into the 1st-Amendment issue)

"If we ban guns, then we'll have to ban knifes and pipes and .....". A common argument, and I haven't quite formulated an intellectual argument, beyond "guns are designed to kill, and only kill, while the others aren't".

I do have one question though.... why do people feel the need to "have a gun in the house" for protection? A little hypothetical, but when would a person actually have time to quickly run to the gun's hiding spot/lock-vault (hopefully it's locked up somewhere), load it if it's not loaded, and then pursue a potential burglar or rapist or assaulter?

Of course it happens, I'm just wondering how often it does successfully. I always hear of this scenario but I have always been a fan of home-security systems, a light always being left on in a house at all times, locked doors, maybe an animal in the house, etc etc as opposed to locking up a gun somewhere.


Guns, especially handguns, are just too easily accessible.

Comments/retorts?

I always thought the right to bear arms was mainly for the people to protect themselves from the government. Keeps them on their toes.

StarShrieker wrote: I do have one question though.... why do people feel the need to "have a gun in the house" for protection? A little hypothetical, but when would a person actually have time to quickly run to the gun's hiding spot/lock-vault (hopefully it's locked up somewhere), load it if it's not loaded, and then pursue a potential burglar or rapist or assaulter?

Exactly, how often do law abiding gunowners have shootouts with criminals, almost never? The argument of protection is bullshit.

But how often does it happen that a kid takes a sneak peak at daddies gun and accidentally paints the wall behind him in an abstract manner with his own brain? Or uses it to shoot up his school because the bullies were mean again? Probably more often than daddy uses his gun to fend off criminals i say.

DooMer wrote:I always thought the right to bear arms was mainly for the people to protect themselves from the government. Keeps them on their toes.

That's what the National guard was for, before some 1870 ruling (if I recall). Though I suppose individual gun ownership would've helped along those lines.

Healthy dose of government mistrust.

Ryoki wrote:

StarShrieker wrote: I do have one question though.... why do people feel the need to "have a gun in the house" for protection? A little hypothetical, but when would a person actually have time to quickly run to the gun's hiding spot/lock-vault (hopefully it's locked up somewhere), load it if it's not loaded, and then pursue a potential burglar or rapist or assaulter?

Exactly, how often do law abiding gunowners have shootouts with criminals, almost never? The argument of protection is bullshit.

But how often does it happen that a kid takes a sneak peak at daddies gun and accidentally paints the wall behind him in an abstract manner with his own brain? Or uses it to shoot up his school because the bullies were mean again? Probably more often than daddy uses his gun to fend off criminals i say.

The argument is NOT bullshit, as people defend their homes from criminals on a regular basis, the media just doesn't seem to publicize it. It's also not a constant occurrence, but it happens somewhere in the US pretty much every day. And if a kid uses a parent's firearm in the manner you describe(which I'll admit does happen), whose fault is it? The gun's? Hell fuck no. It's the retard parent's fault.
Just because a drunk misuses a car and kills someone while driving doesn't mean you ban cars.