This news item reports that residents of San Francisco will soon vote on a law that will effectively ban all handguns inside the city limits.
“If passed next November, residents would have 90 days to give up firearms they keep in their homes or businesses.”
“Firearms would be allowed only for police officers, security guards, members of the military, and anyone else “actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment,” according to the measure.”
The article goes on to mention that Washington, DC is the only city currently that has such a ban, as well as pointing out that it hasn’t done anything to curb violence there.
I try very hard to be as pragmatic as possible. To achieve a desired result I’m willing to experiment. If some method doesn’t work then I’ll stop doing it and try something else. Should my actions actually end up making the situation worse then I’ll stop doing it right away and never try that again.
The problem is that people who advocate gun control simply aren’t pragmatic. Every single scrap of credible evidence proves that gun bans either don’t produce the desired results, or else they make the situation even worse.
So it should be obvious that gun bans should be abandoned, right? They cost taxpayer money, tie up law enforcement resources, and yet they don’t do what they’re supposed to. That’s the pragmatic view.
But that’s not the strategy that Liberals are willing to adopt. They instead insist that their favorite tactic of banning private firearm ownership only fails because it’s not adopted over the entire nation. The bans might not work, they say, but that’s only because criminals can get guns in Virginia or Maryland or Pennsylvania. The rationale is that if it’s illegal for anyone in the United States to own a handgun, then we’ll see a reduction in crime.
So now we come to the big question. Why do they do this? Why do they still say that draconian gun control laws are the way to abolish most violent crime when it’s so indescribably obvious that they’re wrong?
Heck, I dunno. Looks to me that they’re either idjits, fanatics or insane. I’m just glad that I don’t live in San Francisco.