There will no longer be any gun violence in San Francisco

[GummyBearz]

The last gun shop is closing its doors. We have finally done it, everyone is safe.

http://news.yahoo.com/san-franciscos-last-gun-store-closing-doors-good-150556274.html

[arcane1]

1. I wonder why he's closing the store because of a bill that's merely proposed?

Maybe that's just the reason he's offering, since we're losing long-standing businesses every week. The answer will likely lie in whatever happens to the property.

[yeoman6987]

10. I am sure he's moving right out of San Francisco

Probably to the suburbs.

[KamaAina]

22. Yup. It's in the Mission.

Gentrification Central.

[Xithras]

23. That's not really the reason he's closing.

He's ultimately closing for the same reason that the other gun stores closed. Gun ownership rates in California are already among the lowest in the nation (roughly 35%), and San Francisco has even lower numbers. Low gun ownership rates means low sales, and low sales will kill ANY business, no matter what you're selling. Additionally, San Francisco's tax rates mean that SF is one of the most expensive places in the country to buy firearms and supplies. With gun shops (and cheaper taxes+less paperwork) in neighboring cities only a few minutes away, the buyers who DO exist simply go elsewhere. There are gun stores in South San Francisco, Pacifica, San Bruno, and a ton of them across the Bay Bridge.

The proposed law was just the last nail in the coffin. The threat of it is enough to steer even more buyers out of the city, which is enough to finally kill the store.

[SoCalMusicLover]

2. Everyone Is Safer

You forgot the sarcasm smilie in your post.

No need to worry, as you are well aware, thankfully gun fanatics have plenty of other options available to them thanks to the fact they live in the United Gun States Of America.

Gun shops are like Blockbuster videos, they're so 10 years ago. If you still want to buy a gun and kill a bunch of community college students, there are plenty of options open to you, Thank God.

[SoCalMusicLover]

3. Thank God We Have This Gun Shop Owner Standing His Ground

How dare the city force him to videotape sales of guns. How dare they force him to keep records of ammunition sales. Completely unacceptable. He would rather close up shop than go through the hassle of buying a couple of video cameras. God Bless Him and his compassion for the feelings of fellow gun lovers.

[Throd]

7. People will just buy guns elsewhere but the politicians can pretend they did something.

[yeoman6987]

11. San Francisco will miss the revenue I am sure

They already have a tough time taking care of homeless. Let's just kicking businesses out of the city. I am sure that will help the bottom line.

[marmar]

30. I don't think San Francisco will be sweating the loss of gun shop revenue....

..... There's probably already a Starbucks or Peets ready to move right in.

[yeoman6987]

33. Lol. Probably true.

[Eleanors38]

4. Like Chicago, crime disappeared 40+ yrs ago after guns were outlawed.

[WillowTree]

13. Exactly. They're thinking of changing the name of the city to PeaceTown.

[Eleanors38]

14. Ah, but name changes do not discharge debt obligations.

[WillowTree]

16. Well, now that you mention it.................

[frazzled]

17. Easy access to guns in nearby towns and IN and WI

It takes about 15 minutes to get from the South Side of Chicago to Indiana. You can ride your bike there in 25 minutes or so. The same will probably hold true in the Bay Area.

[Eleanors38]

20. And Colorado is fairly near Texas...

[frazzled]

24. No, it's not

What is your point? Whatever it was, you missed it entirely. Not so cool as your smiley thinks.

[Eleanors38]

25. How close? Quarter oz. Of pot went from $125 to $80 since prohibition ended...

...and it's all Domestic product.

[maxsolomon]

5. You just outed yourself as an insensitive ass.

Fewer gun stores in a good thing, and SF should be glad to be rid of any complicity in the proliferation of firearms. Good riddance, would that the same thing happens in my city.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Without uniform national regulation towns and

cities have a hard time with effective action. Although there are exceptions. NYC with its Sullivan Law was moderately successful.

[branford]

19. Chicago has a terrible violence and crime problem,

so tens of millions of law-abiding Americans across the country in both urban and rural areas, who statistically are a danger to know one, should lose their rights and property.

How about cities like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Newark and others just begin to deal with the root causes of their problems?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Yeah. All we need is uniform laws with a dedicated enforcement agency. Problem solved.

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. If a law doesn't have 100% compliance, it is ineffective

The Gunner Bar for Effective Public Policy

[tularetom]

12. At what level of noncompliance does civilized society break down?

If 10% of the population simply said fuck it, I'm not going to obey any law that I don't agree with would that be more than the justice system could handle?

25%? 40%?

At some point, the rule of law as a practical matter would cease to exist and society would revert to barbarism and the law of the jungle. You are being somewhat sarcastic, I get that, but you raise a good point. No, we cannot expect 100% compliance with any law, but we should not be passing any law that grandfathers a large percentage of our citizens as criminals.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. Recently passed state "assault weapon" registration laws have roughly 10% compliance.

Magazine capacity limits are not only being ignored by the populace but law enforcement agencies are not enforcing the laws.

So now what?

[beevul]

9. Interesting comment in the article.

Supervisor Mark Farrell said he introduced the latest bill to help police combat violent crime in the city. "Anything that makes San Francisco safer, I support," he said.

I'll bet that's true, however, the point is, its doubtful that the proposals in question would make the city safer.

Criminals can read, I know it for a fact because I've conversed right here on DU with a self admitted former robber. Word would spread, and the criminals would just go outside the city to buy whatever they want, kind of like how they will now after the store closes.

People that are prevented from a behavior in one location, often tend to go elsewhere where that behavior is allowed, whether that behavior is buying ammunition, drinking and getting out of hand in a bar, or heck, even being blocked from a group here on DU for certain behavior, then moving to another part of DU to continue it.

[geomon666]

15. Now if only we could get every other gun store in the country to do the same.

Then we can feel safer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. "Then we can feel safer."

"feel" being the operative word.

[geomon666]

34. Well, yeah.

I mean, even with no guns in existence, you're never entirely safe from danger. But it does help.

[Skittles]

18. critical thinking skills in action

[KamaAina]

21. There is already less gun violence in SF than in nearby cities

like Oakland and Richmond.

[Eleanors38]

26. As if Oakland and Richmond are on the same economic footing.

Used to be liberals looked at economic factors; jobs, pay, advancement. Or social conditions like crappy family lives, stinking schools, poor or no social services and post-incarceration policies as the places to start dealing with social problems.

Now, all we get is this stinking prohibition.

[KamaAina]

28. Oakland is very much on the way up

The wave of gentrification in SF, which may well have claimed the gun store (it's in the suddenly popular Mission District), is pushing people across the bay. Oakland is one of the hottest rental markets in the country at present.

[Orrex]

27. Wait--was there zero gun violence when SF gun shops were plentiful?

What was your point, if you had one?