Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Do I expect a violent resistance? Not in San Fran. What I expect to see, IF the courts rule for the ban, is that very few will actually turn them in. Some people will up and sell getting the hell out of S.F. Most others will just find ways to hide them. As in the steps that I put down up above, unless there is an armed incursion by the authorities, very little violence will happen. Some will comply, some will leave, most will just hide them.
|
I generally agree with you in that. The thing is I really think this is what would happen elsewhere in the country too given the same scenario. But compliance is going to happen even if you don't turn in your gun. You might no longer carry it in your car because a traffic stop could result in a gun felony. Even in your home you may have your gun more hidden than normal, reducing your access to it in an emergency. You might feel compelled to move, but this also would be a form of compliance, removing your gun from the city.
I know it is easy to say, well that's SF, and we all know they are just a bunch of lefties, but there are some real conservative folks there too. Why wouldn't they act the same as a Texas conservative (I've been both places, and in fact Cali right-wingers can be a lot more reactionary than Texas righties at times). I mean to contemplate the passage of a national law, one would have to assume that it could only be done in a political climate similar to the one that led to SF's ban, but on a national scale. If the fact that they are surrounded by a liberal majority cows the actions of SF conservatives, wouldn't the same thing apply nationally, if that were the political climate (we are obviously talking hypothetical)?
Personally, I don't think that the ban will have a significant effect on violent crime in the city. The rate may go up or down, and the appropriate side will claim that as evidence they were right. I do believe a society free of guns is safer from violence within the community than one with lots of guns. I also believe that a society in which a significant number of responsible, proficient gun owners and carriers exist is safer from violence within the community as well. Both sides are right as far as crime goes. It is what we have in the middle, where we have a society in which guns are numerous, yet we do very little to ensure that the operators are responsible and proficient, that is the worst of both worlds.
I respect a city's right to govern itself and take the steps necessary to fulfil the citizens' desires for safety. If that means banning arms within the city limits, that is their perogative, whether I agree or not. If that means requiring gun ownership, as has been done in some towns, then again, whether I agree or not it is their perogative. If Pflugerville, Texas attempts to adopt either approach, I have my vote and will use it accordingly.
However, all of this only addresses the crime-related aspects of gun existance. There is another, very important side to this matter that I personally have underrated in the past, and that is the importance of retaining the citizen's capacity to retain their freedom from their own government, should it cease to be 'theirs' and become an agent against their rights as naturally and constitionally guaranteed.
While I think both sides are right on the crime issue, and that both approaches can work, I have personally concluded that the danger to people from crime and other threats within our communities are probably a price worth paying to ensure that we have the ability to keep our government working for us and not against us. It is also why I am adamant about needing to ensure as much as possible that those who do own guns are responsible and proficient owners. Unregulated gun propagation is very hazardous, and we see the results on our streets. If we want to have guns, and I think they are a way to retain the ability of revolt that I speak of, we have to be responsible with them.