The San Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco supervisors want to make the city the second in the nation to ban the ownership of handguns, but whether such a law would prove to be more than symbolic remains to be seen.
(snip)
The measure would ban handguns in San Francisco -- except for police officers, security guards, military personnel and others who require them for their job. Only 10 people in the city have permits to carry a concealed weapon, Barnes said.
(snip)
The ordinance, which would go into effect Jan. 1, 2006, if passed by a simple majority of voters, also would prohibit the sale, manufacture and distribution of all firearms in the city.
(snip)
The only other major city to have enacted a handgun ban is Washington, D. C., which did so in 1976. However, Congress has the right to supercede local laws in the District of Columbia, and in September the House of Representatives repealed most of the city's gun-control laws by passing the D. C. Personal Protection Act. The measure now is before the Senate.
The homicide rate in Washington, D.C., in 2002 was 9.4 incidents per 100,000 people. In San Francisco that year, the rate was 5.2.
(snip) see article in entirety at above link
Mata Musing
Ummmm... let's see. Wash DC, prior to the House passing the Personal Protection Act this year, had close to twice the amount of incidents per 100,000 *with* a gun ban than SF has now without. Maybe they should rethink that idea.
1 comment:
Dear Mata, I debated posting on this "gun ban" in San Francisco, and decided against it. That once beautiful city, San Francisco, is so collectively stupid. You think they'll now empower the bridge toll workers to frisk drivers into San Francisco? O that's right: Bridge tolls will now be $10 a pop and because we gotta frisk all the drivers cause we don't trust 'em.
I do see this move as more than just the obvious: gun ban. When Willie Brown became mayor -- there was quite the brawl over which special interest group would run San Francisco: The Blacks or the Gays; and Willie Brown was put in the hot seat. Willie Brown decided "race" should win and rule the city. Gays massively retaliated.
When the news hit: Gun ban proposed in San Francisco: I in my translation brain part read: Gay law in remembrance of Harvey Milk.
What does this tell me? Some major shake-ups going down in city fire and police departments will be forthcoming.
Further, what does this tell me? Liberals are declaring SF as their domain -- which means they are hightailing it out of parts of CA and relocating to SF, job/activism wise. What does this mean? They know they are losing control of the state of CA. Ergo, I read this ban as their "Kent State" first shot across the bow.
Post a Comment