SF supervisors propose gun ban

I don’t like guns as much as the next guy, but I don’t know if a sweeping gun ban in the City is that great of an idea (see what happened to D.C.). Besides, isn’t this illegal? I don’t know, I could be wrong.


4 Comments so far

  1. daniel (unregistered) on December 16th, 2004 @ 4:13 pm

    what happened in dc?

  2. Sean Bonner (unregistered) on December 21st, 2004 @ 11:39 am

    Crime shot through the roof because suddently crimials knew they were the only ones who had guns.

  3. crackerjack (unregistered) on December 22nd, 2004 @ 11:44 pm

    I always wondered why there is less crime in Western Europe where guns are forbidden than in the USA where guns are allowed?

    In the UK most policemen don’t carry guns.

    Maybe because guns were never allowed in the first place…

  4. realgun (unregistered) on September 8th, 2005 @ 7:54 pm

    Actually in Europe and Australia when there were more guns prior to the 1990s crime was lower. Violent crime – particularly in the UK has shot up since the sweeping ban of the 1990s – this trend continues. If San Francisco believes that solving the problem essentially means that the only private citizens who have guns are the criminals (you think criminals are going to hand in their guns), they are sorely mistaken.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.