Hmm, that sounds like a great basis for new gun control laws proposed for San Francisco. Because clearly the legal guns in San Francisco are causing big, big problems, such as not being used in that attempted hit on 101 south, west of the Bay Bridge, last week. Let’s get serious–San Francisco gun violence is not committed by common citizens with legal guns.
And great: let’s monitor closely the one (one!) gun store in San Francisco, since it’s not like a gang member looking for a fire arm could just buy one from outside of San Francisco or, god forbid, illegally!
I will certainly admit that getting rid of all legal guns held by law-abiding citizens would reduce accidental gun-related deaths. I don’t see a need for people to possess hand guns and the like, although I support shotgun and rifle ownership rights for hunting purposes. (Whether banning gun ownership is unconstitutional is a separate point.) But these pointless laws–pointless because what’s the real effect on gun violence?–are, to me, just empty gestures that imply that San Francisco has so few real problems that it can waste city council time and government resources on discussion, adoption and implementation of empty gestures.
Coming at you from GMI in Michigan, I can say that the legal presence of guns, 24 inches in circumference each to be exact, tamps down the threat of violence. I’ve spent years at the gym doing nothing but curls so that my biceps are as big around as your mom’s waist. Nobody fucks with me. And I mean NOBODY.