Reply
Sat 5 Nov, 2005 10:44 am
Quote:SAN FRANCISCO - voters on Tuesday will consider a sweeping proposal to curb the violence: the nation's strictest municipal gun control ordinances, a measure that would ban possession, sale and manufacture of handguns and ammunition within city limits.
-----
Whatever the measure's fate in San Francisco, it has sparked some conflict. The San Francisco police union has lambasted the local elected official who authored the ordinance, which it said would do little except take guns out of the hands of law-abiding residents. The police have also said the law, which would require residents to surrender weapons by March 1 of next year could present an enforcement headache.
"This is putting a Band-Aid on heart surgery," said Gary P. Delagnes, president of the San Francisco Police Officer's Association. He called it another "silly idea" from elected officials whose progressive ideas are not grounded in the realities of fighting crime.
The ordinance's author and chief sponsor, San Francisco City and County Supervisor Chris Daly, said he doesn't expect the law, if passed, to curtail crime by itself. But he said that it could reduce the number of guns in circulation, and thus limit the number obtained by would-be criminals.
"If a criminal wants to get a gun outside of the county, clearly he can," Mr. Daly said.
Seems pretty obvious to me that this "law" would only effect law-abiding citizens who would lose their rights to hand-gun ownership while the criminals would continue to have easy access. When stupid laws are passed society only creates more "criminals" ie law-abiding citizens guilty of possession of a handgun and does nothing to reduce criminal behavior. This is, at best, a "feel good because we are doing something law" that does not address, in any meaningful way, the problem of crime.
we went through a similar problem in canada with a national gun registry, the thought being that gun's could then be traced if used in a crime, umm, yeah, guns stolen from a law abiding person maybe, but are the criminals going to register their illeagaly obtained weapons, i think not
Stand still, so I can shoot you better.
The fair is usually in august, this is november.
Seriously, when somebody shoots at one, one ought to be able to shoot back.
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
I don't think that's the point that dyselxia is making, Walter. To simply outlaw all firearms for law-abiding citizens in a country where such firearms are readily available, legally, to anyone willing to drive for an hour so is madness. Dys, has anyone brought up the questionable constitutionality of this ordninance yet?
Yes Merry, It's expected that the bill, if passed, will not pass muster in the courts.
Ah, this is just the old America vs most of the rest of the civilised world gun debate.
Mostly, where there is good gun control, citizens murder each other at much less alarming rates.
It would take time in the US to get to "normal" western gun ownership rates...but, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
You guys love your guns, and you also love to kill each other. It's your call.
It looks damn shocking to the rest of us, though.
Except canadians.....who can apparently own lots of guns but refrain from killing each other anything like so often.
So it goes.
Mebbe they ain't really human?
I for one do not own a firearm, but it's a personal call, so long as people kill so willingly. If someone points a gun at someone else, they deserve to be brought down. On the other hand, if nobody ever shot anybody, why would people bother to outlaw guns?
The intent of my post starting this thread was not gun ownership. The intent was the stupidity of passing laws, unenforceable laws, that, in no way address a problem, but look as if some politician is "doing something." Kinda like Nancy Reagan solving the drug problem by "Just Say No"
That's how I read your post, dys. The question of American love of guns is an entirely different subject. This is about short-sighted, unenforceable legislation, which, in the final analysis, can only lead to more law-breaking. You don't stop killers by passing laws which nobody can possibly enforce.
dlowan wrote:Except canadians.....who can apparently own lots of guns but refrain from killing each other anything like so often.
Naw, we're just too busy growing pot for export to the U.S.
When we're not doing that, some of us keep occupied by doing home invasions and terrorizing old folks.
Brave bunch.
dlowan wrote:Ah, this is just the old America vs most of the rest of the civilised world gun debate.
Mostly, where there is good gun control, citizens murder each other at much less alarming rates.
It would take time in the US to get to "normal" western gun ownership rates...but, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
You guys love your guns, and you also love to kill each other. It's your call.
It looks damn shocking to the rest of us, though.
Except canadians.....who can apparently own lots of guns but refrain from killing each other anything like so often.
So it goes.
Mebbe they ain't really human?
But hasn't crime went up in your country since the taking of the guns?
This thread is not about gun control issues.
Dys, what's for supper tonight?
Sorry Dys....I just saw your post and thought same old same old.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace