Handgun Ban In SF

[T Y L E R]

I think you should be able to rent a gun, and body armor .. with only a valid drivers license. Even if yer not from dem der parts .. (see previous thread)

[HZJ60 Guy]

I think that the communist democrats are slowly winning!

At least on the two coasts they are. The heart of America is still true to our consititution.

The peoples republic of Kalifornia is LOST!

[MaddBaggins]

The peoples republic of Kalifornia is LOST!

Now if it would only fall off, that property I have in Yuma would be worth big coin

[HZJ60 Guy]

Originally Posted by MaddBaggins

Now if it would only fall off, that property I have in Yuma would be worth big coin

It may very well do that...... I hope the Palo Verde nuclear plant will be ok if that happens....

[loeky]

the thing is that they sold this whole proposition to the people of our city under the guise that it would lower criminal activity. the problem is that people here are just suckers for that kind of talk and voted to make it a law.

i live here and i think it's f'in lunacy and is rediculous to have even made it on a ballot. in my opinion, it won't go into effect and was just spun up in order to raise awareness - much like Berkeley's "Nuclear Free Zone" and other cities/states laws regarding legalization of pot and pot growing. the only difference in this case is the fact that it's already written into the CONSTITUTION. i'm a really liberally minded person for the most part - but this far surpasses any reasonable explanation. mass hysteria if you will.

i'm actually debating going to buy a firearm this weekend as my own way of dissenting.

[Darwood]

It appears that this law only applies to the residents of SF for possession. So in effect I can legally come over from Oakland with my handgun and go and rob SF residents since I know they won't be able to defend themselves. In this case the only law I would be breaking is the robbing with a deadly weapon one.

[FJ40_owner]

Originally Posted by White Shark

The can have my gub when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. Gubs rule!

You miss the 'N' also?

[sisukid1975]

Originally Posted by FJ40_owner

You miss the 'N' also?

psst... Inside joke. I don't know if you've been around long enough to get it.

I suggest you journey to West Dakota to learn all you ever wanted to know about Gubs.

Fred

[FJ40_owner]

Originally Posted by sisukid1975

psst... Inside joke. I don't know if you've been around long enough to get it.

I suggest you journey to West Dakota to learn all you ever wanted to know about Gubs.

Fred

Actually I am the original mis-typer in a much earlier Gun threat that was made fun of.

[sisukid1975]

Originally Posted by FJ40_owner

Actually I am the original mis-typer in a much earlier Gun threat that was made fun of.

Really? August 2005? I though that thread was months or years ago or something....

Anyhow....


Fred

[T Y L E R]

I don't want to .. but I will seperate you from the entire group if I have to ..

[dieseldog]

Most of the Country was up-in-arms about the Supreme's decision regarding eminent domain last session. It was seen as allowing local governments to "reach" and "grab" beyond all reason for the benefit of private business development. This SF ordinance seems to me to be a sort of eminent domain grab as well. Sure, we all feel in the seat of our pants the prospective result for residents if they have to turn in guns; however, what about lawful businesses such as gun stores, gunsmiths, etc. who now are having their business stripped from them with no just cause. Policemen will have to leave town just to buy firearms, ammunition, etc. How utterly ignorant on so many levels. How utterly devastating to so many family-run businesses who have legally and safely plied their trade for decades and now have to close their shops. It's not possible for me to describe the utter dismay that H engenders in me. The fact is that H will not even result in a "zero-sum" game. It will destroy more than it will ever cure--all to salve some Haight-Ashbury hashheads. Fie on you, pox on your choice.

[koop]

Originally Posted by White Shark

The can have my gub when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Deal!

Stupid law, but anything that gets the gun nuts in a lather I'm all for.

Michael Moore

Michael Moore

Michael Moore

[honk]

Originally Posted by dieseldog

Most of the Country was up-in-arms about the Supreme's decision regarding eminent domain last session. It was seen as allowing local governments to "reach" and "grab" beyond all reason for the benefit of private business development. This SF ordinance seems to me to be a sort of eminent domain grab as well. Sure, we all feel in the seat of our pants the prospective result for residents if they have to turn in guns; however, what about lawful businesses such as gun stores, gunsmiths, etc. who now are having their business stripped from them with no just cause. Policemen will have to leave town just to buy firearms, ammunition, etc. How utterly ignorant on so many levels. How utterly devastating to so many family-run businesses who have legally and safely plied their trade for decades and now have to close their shops. It's not possible for me to describe the utter dismay that H engenders in me. The fact is that H will not even result in a "zero-sum" game. It will destroy more than it will ever cure--all to salve some Haight-Ashbury hashheads. Fie on you, pox on your choice.

LOL! I doubt that many "Haight-Ashbury hashheads" give a damn, really.

But your points are moot. The city had successfully driven away all of the visible gunstores long ago by far more nefarious means than a public referendum. The San Francisco Gun Exchange, for example, closed their doors in 2001 (think it was) after the city had kept the street right in front of the store dug into trenches for months on end and no end in sight. It was a supposedly citywide upgrade of the underground power and sewer lines that somehow never affected any other street but that one. Since the Gun Exchange had never had off street parking, prospective customers were forced to either pay the large parking fees in lots or park illegally to get to the store.

I was taken to that store by my father to be introduced around when I was eight years old. It was a family owned business which had been there like an institution since the 1920s. My father was in high school with one of the family and he dealt with them exclusivley until he died.

I drove over there one day and just made it before the place closed. The family was manning a table across the doors to see to customers who had items on order or had left items for service. I asked what was going on as I could see that the store was empty behind the table, and one of the people who I felt I'd known all of my life told me the story of how they'd finally given up. The city had pestered them with inspections and regulatory impositions for years, but keeping them from being able to serve their customers through this final cheap trick was more than they could bear, either morally or financially.

I guess they got a pretty good price for most of the fine things that used to decorate the place, and I know they'd owned the building and must have sold it.

I was never close to any of the younger members of that family but I had made a point to visit, and I'd done a lot of business with them over the years.

It was a very sad thing to see them closed but for me it was only one more reason to leave the bay area behind. Still, I'll be watching in the hope of seeing the NRA shove this one up the city of San Francisco's ass one more time!

[flintknapper]

Originally Posted by honk

LOL! I doubt that many "Haight-Ashbury hashheads" give a damn, really.

But your points are moot. The city had successfully driven away all of the visible gunstores long ago by far more nefarious means than a public referendum. The San Francisco Gun Exchange, for example, closed their doors in 2001 (think it was) after the city had kept the street right in front of the store dug into trenches for months on end and no end in sight. It was a supposedly citywide upgrade of the underground power and sewer lines that somehow never affected any other street but that one. Since the Gun Exchange had never had off street parking, prospective customers were forced to either pay the large parking fees in lots or park illegally to get to the store.

I was taken to that store by my father to be introduced around when I was eight years old. It was a family owned business which had been there like an institution since the 1920s. My father was in high school with one of the family and he dealt with them exclusivley until he died.

I drove over there one day and just made it before the place closed. The family was manning a table across the doors to see to customers who had items on order or had left items for service. I asked what was going on as I could see that the store was empty behind the table, and one of the people who I felt I'd known all of my life told me the story of how they'd finally given up. The city had pestered them with inspections and regulatory impositions for years, but keeping them from being able to serve their customers through this final cheap trick was more than they could bear, either morally or financially.

I guess they got a pretty good price for most of the fine things that used to decorate the place, and I know they'd owned the building and must have sold it.

I was never close to any of the younger members of that family but I had made a point to visit, and I'd done a lot of business with them over the years.

It was a very sad thing to see them closed but for me it was only one more reason to leave the bay area behind. Still, I'll be watching in the hope of seeing the NRA shove this one up the city of San Francisco's ass one more time!

What a sad commentary.

I'm sure the street was promptly repaired about the time a "porn shop" was opened in that same building.

It didn't happen to be "liberals" behind this was it?

[loquito]

Originally Posted by cruiserdan

Wrist Rocket?

Thats what I use.

[freightdog]

Originally Posted by Kazmanff

>
>Is he gay?
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Republican's Answer:
>
>BANG!
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>Southern Republican's Answer:
>
>BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.....(sounds of
>reloading).
>
>BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click
>
>Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or
>Hollow Points?"

Probably get flamed, but thought it was humorous.

I think it is funny! Was one hollow point filled with mercury and capped ...is what my daughter would say - after she heard click click from her Glock...

I don't travel to Kalifornia for just that reason -

Arizona - right to carry - rules - now where is my GUB

[flintknapper]

Originally Posted by freightdog

Arizona - right to carry - rules - now where is my GUB

I think Vermont has got it right too! No need for CCW, its law abiding citizens can carry anytime they want to (openly), without need for licensing, fees, etc...

Good to see that at least one level headed state still trusts its law abiding citizens enough to allow them to exercise their 2nd amendment "RIGHT" without interference.

Vermont also happens to have one of the lowest crime rates in the States, (owing to more factors than open carry rights of course).

Big "thumbs up" for Vermont.

They make pretty good maple syrup too.

Oh yeah, isn't Vermont kind of a "conservative" state? (electing presidents excepted).

[honk]

In California It used to be legal to carry a handgun openly, like holstered and visible, while illegal to carry it concealed.
Not sure when they changed the first part, or if they ever did. They probably did. They were well on their way to a law that required you to carry any firearm in a locked case in an area of a vehicle not accessable by the driver AND carry any ammunition for that firearm in a locked case in an inaccessible area of another vehicle driven by a different driver not related to the gun owner, with a prior permit approved for one trip at least thirty days in advance and only to an approved 'gun facility' or back from that place during daylight hours on weekends only if not national holidays.

Did you follow all that? Neither did I so I left the state.

[sisukid1975]

Originally Posted by honk

In California It used to be legal to carry a handgun openly, like holstered and visible, while illegal to carry it concealed.
Not sure when they changed the first part, or if they ever did. They probably did. They were well on their way to a law that required you to carry any firearm in a locked case in an area of a vehicle not accessable by the driver AND carry any ammunition for that firearm in a locked case in an inaccessible area of another vehicle driven by a different driver not related to the gun owner, with a prior permit approved for one trip at least thirty days in advance and only to an approved 'gun facility' or back from that place during daylight hours on weekends only if not national holidays.

Did you follow all that? Neither did I so I left the state.

I thought they changed the "open carry" law in the 60s when the Black Panthers used that law to carry weapons to "defend" black people from the police. Since they were in plain view, they could not be legally taken.

Unless my history is wrong, that's what I heard.

Fred

[IdahoDoug]

Fred,

To get an impartial and statistically valid picture of the impact the presence of lawfully owned guns has on crime, purchase a book I've previously recommended on threads you've been on. It is called "More Guns, Less Crime" and analyzes the US's crime statistics and gun ownership and carry rules county by county. It was written by an economist, and in the process of researching it, he inadvertently uncovers gross fraud by government keepers (read Liberal anti-gun types) who intentionally used improper sampling techniques and other creative math to swamp us with anti gun results. It's quite convincing, and while somewhat dry is interesting to someone looking for the cold facts on this volatile issue. Since its publication, there have been zero "studies released" by the Libs on this topic because now they have a high profile watchdog who'll expose them on the news the next night. Boo hoo - game over....

DougM

[sisukid1975]

Originally Posted by IdahoDoug

Fred,

To get an impartial and statistically valid picture of the impact the presence of lawfully owned guns has on crime, purchase a book I've previously recommended on threads you've been on. It is called "More Guns, Less Crime" and analyzes the US's crime statistics and gun ownership and carry rules county by county. It was written by an economist, and in the process of researching it, he inadvertently uncovers gross fraud by government keepers (read Liberal anti-gun types) who intentionally used improper sampling techniques and other creative math to swamp us with anti gun results. It's quite convincing, and while somewhat dry is interesting to someone looking for the cold facts on this volatile issue. Since its publication, there have been zero "studies released" by the Libs on this topic because now they have a high profile watchdog who'll expose them on the news the next night. Boo hoo - game over....

DougM

Yeah, I'm sure a good statistician can prove about anything.

But I'm simply not convinced one is affected by the other.

I simply am skeptical of *anyone* who claims they can prove that "more guns = less crime," just as I am of anyone who claims that "less guns = less crime."

Neither statement meshes with my observations in various places in the world.

Like I said, there are countries where guns are illegal with very low crime rates, and there are ones with very high crime rates. There are places where they're legal that have very low crime rates, and there are places that have high crime rates.

The problem isn't guns. Guns don't cause crime. (I think we agree on that, no?) But likewise, I don't think they prevent crime, either. If we assume that guns do not influence crime, then we see that something else must be at work.

If a=a and b=b in both Denmark and the United States, then why does a + b = 1 in the US and a+b=2 in Denmark? Cause there's more than just a "+" between them, there's something that's being left out either willfully or out of ignorance.

I submit that guns and crime are two seperate variables that are not related directly, but can possibly be connected via other variables in between. My guess is that crime is caused by criminals, and to understand why there are criminals in any society, you have to dig deeper in that country's social fabric and uncover exactly what causes crime. I'd say that "availability of guns" has little to do with the causations of criminal activity.

Why is Milwaukee a bad town to walk around in the night time, whereas Helsinki, a city of roughly the same size when you count suburbs, is considered extremely safe? Gun ownership is legal and common in both, so I don't think that's the answer. In contrast, why does Washington D.C., where guns are illegal, have a very high crime rate, yet Vienna, which has very low rates of gun ownership (though it is legal but very strictly controlled) has a very low crime rate?

The problem is, when searching for data, because it is such a hot-button issue, we're forced to wade through bad science/bad statistics put forth by both sides of the issue. Thus, it's very difficult to find studies conducted with high levels of discipline and objectivity on which to base any truly intelligent conclusions.


Fred

[honk]

"I submit that guns and crime are two seperate variables that are not related directly"

Of course. This has been the basis of the pro-gun argument since the Gun Control Act was passed in 1968. It's more commonly heard as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and that's the point that the anti-gun lobby would like us not to hear made.

There are other flaws in this society which are at the root of the high crime levels as compared with countries such as Denmark. It would be better to look at the poverty levels in both countries, at the perceived levels of oppression amongst the populace of each, at the availability of affordable education, or at any number of factors which may bring about a disparate sense of disatisfaction with life between the places with high crime and those with low crime levels. Maybe it can be boiled down to a look at how each country's government uses it's resources to see to the needs of it's citizens.

We often call ourselves the greatest nation on earth. How can that be if it's not safe to walk the streets of Milwaukee at night?

[sisukid1975]

Originally Posted by honk

Of course. This has been the basis of the pro-gun argument since the Gun Control Act was passed in 1968. It's more commonly heard as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and that's the point that the anti-gun lobby would like us not to hear made.

There are other flaws in this society which are at the root of the high crime levels as compared with countries such as Denmark. It would be better to look at the poverty levels in both countri