Open Carry Trash Pickup in San Francisco

I am pretty ticked off after watching that video. I live 30 minutes from San Francisco so it hits home with me. I wish I was in the park that day. I would of definitely got my two cents in on the news.

TT said:

Ah, there’s the source of our disagreement- I don’t believe anything like 20% of SF’ers are pro-gun.

Click to expand...

OK, your belief is wrong, but OK.

Here's the results of San Francisco's ballot for a handgun ban (later struck down in court):
57.7% voted Yes to the ban.
42.21% voted No to the ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Proposition_H_(2005)
(This handgun ban was struck down in Superior Court.)

I now say that more than 2 out of 5 people in San Francisco are pro-gun, as evidenced by the results of this ballot. Thus, the video is not a good sampling, as I stated above.

It would be cool if you could just admit you're wrong, and we could go from there. Didn't you hope you were wrong anyway? If not, then I feel sorry for you.

still waiting for citations of race-centric gun laws enacted or proposed by Ronald Reagan.

...taps foot..

Here's the results of San Francisco's ballot for a handgun ban (later struck down in court):
57.7% voted Yes to the ban.
42.21% voted No to the ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fra...n_H_(2005)
(This handgun ban was struck down in Superior Court.)

I now say that more than 2 out of 5 people in San Francisco are pro-gun, as evidenced by the results of this ballot. Thus, the video is not a good sampling, as I stated above.

Click to expand...

I don't think that means the 42% are pro-gun because they don't want the government to come in and completely ban even keeping an item in your home, and ban any sales of of firearms or ammo in the entire city.
I am against the government coming in and prohibiting things I don't even like.
For example I am for smokers being allowed to smoke outdoors in public without caring much for smoking myself. Even though people claim health risks, fire dangers, littering problem etc etc. (What is coming off any cigarette in a well ventilated area is a tiny fraction of the much larger volume of what comes out of every tail pipe on the road in the same time span, so health arguments are BS.) Freedom sometimes include putting up with things you may not like.

Another factor is at the time San Francisco was told it would likely lead to a serious court battle and cost the city a lot of money and get overturned anyways. So even many people not for gun freedoms were against costing the city large sums of money for nothing on something legal experts were saying would be almost certainly overturned under California law.


Certainly a percentage of that 42% are pro-gun.

Pro-gun people also realized something being completely banned means a big change for them, and a much higher percentage of them are going to vote than the antis.
Voter turnout - 53.61%.
I imagine upwards of 90% of all gun owners did turn out to vote, while many antis who were not on the verge of losing a freedom they cared about did not.
It also effected not just handgun owners, but people with rifles or shotguns who could no longer buy ammo locally. So even those who didn't care about one or the other still were losing something.


So a percentage of 42% which was only 42% of 53.61% of the voters

So only 22.6% of eligible voters in the city voted against it, and within that 22.6% was likely most pro gun people. While many antis not about to lose a right never showed up.


With all of this in play it still passed with a clear majority.
Even 1 in 5 people in SF being pro-gun is too high of an estimate.

THE VIDEO WAS NOT AN ACCURATE SAMPLING, AS EVIDENCED BY THE BALLOT FOR A BAN ON HANDGUNS IN SAN FRANCISCO.

Zoogster, that's an over-analysis there, and you too would be wrong within the context of this thread. The ballot I posted included 229,714 votes. That would be a sampling that's approximately 50,000 times more accurate than the sampling in the video because the pool size is about 50,000 times larger.

You should know that Proposition H on the ballot was part of a larger ballot for other things. A 53.61% turnout is about the norm for a ballot that was not for a major election.

Those people who voted "No" to the ban would be sufficiently pro-gun for the context of this thread. Did you see the video? If you did, then you should easily come to the conclusion that anybody who voted "NO" to the ban on handguns was definitely NOT in that video. Just give me one person from that 42%, and the video would be closer to resembling an accurate sample.

My point is that the video was NOT a good sampling. 100% anti-gun people in the video is NOT a good sampling. I've read some of your posts. You seem pretty intelligent. If you think the video is a good sampling, in light of the ballot, then I'm not so sure.

Zoogster said:

Pro-gun people also realized something being completely banned means a big change for them, and a much higher percentage of them are going to vote than the antis.
Voter turnout - 53.61%.
I imagine upwards of 90% of all gun owners did turn out to vote, while many antis who were not on the verge of losing a freedom they cared about did not.

Click to expand...

That's your own speculation. If you just want to speculate, then have fun with that, but I won't participate.

Oh one more point.
Within that "42%" against a total ban on something kept in a home, I am sure many would still be against actually carrying firearms around.

Assuming everyone not in favor of a complete ban also support Concealed Carry especially in that political environment is excessive.

That would be like saying every gun owner in the US that does not want their firearm banned supports concealed carry, including those not educated on the matter.
And the politics in San Francisco on the issue are worse than they were 10-20 years ago on the national level, when most gun owners did not support concealed carry, and only started to after some states became shall issue without problems.

So out of that number only an even smaller number would actually be in favor of carrying those guns around town.

Earth quake, San Fransico, what a loss! Arnie, gun haters , persons who don't appreciate female form.

Zoogster said:

Within that "42%" against a total ban on something kept in a home, I am sure many would still be against actually carrying firearms around.

Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding me. You must not have seen the video. NOBODY from the 42% was in that video. There is simply no way. Come on, man. You're losing your credibility. Watch the video PLEASE.

Zoogster said:

Assuming everyone not in favor of a complete ban also support Concealed Carry especially in that political environment is excessive.

That would be like saying every gun owner in the US that does not want their firearm banned supports concealed carry, including those not educated on the matter.
And the politics in San Francisco on the issue are worse than they were 10-20 years ago on the national level, when most gun owners did not support concealed carry, and only started to after some states became shall issue without problems.

So out of that number only an even smaller number would actually be in favor of carrying those guns around town.

Click to expand...

100% speculation, where's the evidence?

Answer yes or no, do you think the video was a good sampling of San Francisco on gun rights? In other words, do you think 100% of citizens in San Francisco are rabidly anti-gun?

Your answer should be "no" according to your posts above. I just want to see how you'll dodge the question.

Haha, it just struck me as funny that they are so opposed to guns being around kids. I had the day off and spent all day with my daughter (my 1911 on my hip the whole time) and *gasp* she didn't get shot! What world do these people live in?

You must not have seen the video. NOBODY from the 42% was in that video. There is simply no way.

Click to expand...

It is entirely possible that MR.

"There's kids, there's parents, is it appropriate to have a weapon in this environment? I don't think so."

Click to expand...

Enjoys taking his double shotgun out to shoot clays or hunt, and voted against a complete ban on selling ammo or firearms in the city. But still does not support other rights, like carrying a loaded handgun in public.

All you need to do is listen to some shooters on this forum from other countries to hear a lot of people against such freedoms who still like their guns.


So even you assuming that none of that 42% is in the video is "speculation".


I would say it would be a big stretch to even assume 10% of the people in SF would support concealed carry.

That would be a sampling that's approximately 50,000 times more accurate

Click to expand...

A vote on a lightning rod issue is not a "sampling". A sampling would be randomly polling people.
For example California had the bill on gay marriage that passed and banned it, for a second time. You can be sure that most in the gay community showed up to vote on such a lightning rod issue energized by their community, while many non-gay people were not as motivated to show up at the polls.
So the total number against gay marriage was probably even higher than the votes showed.



Let's take the saying "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."
If you had 20 lambs and 200 wolves voting you can bet just about every single lamb is going to be sure to vote against lamb. While far fewer of the wolves are going to turn out, as they may like the sound of lamb, but can and will also eat something irregardless if it is lamb, chicken, or deer. So their motivation to vote is lower.

The same exists for firearm rights when they are going to completely ban something. Most gun owners that want to legally own guns in the future vote against the ban. While those who may support the ban or don't care either way are not as motivated, even if they would vote for the ban if they were bothered to show up.

I live on a 110 acre farm with roads on the east and west boundaries, and I pick up trash on those roadsides frequently, because I like things neat and clean. i always OC when picking up trash, because I always OC (+CC) when on the farm anyway, for all the obvious reasons (pest control, rabid animals, etc.), and honestly, also because a respectable looking guy, "doing good", with a gun on the hip sends a positive message to those that may otherwise reflexively hold a negative view of gun owners.

It's also interesting to see the same predictable contingent of local kids that routinely drive too fast slow down, (seemingly out of some instant respect for law and order) when they see me out there picking up trash Open-Carrying. Yes, it sends a useful message in a variety of ways... funny, I've never had trespassers on four-wheelers on my property or been broken-into either...

Les

Its safer to bend over the farther east you come.

jakemccoy: It would be cool if you could just admit you're wrong…

Click to expand...

Wow, you’re really sensitive about SF, aren’t you? You know, you can still love SF even though guys like me hate it.

As for your argument that the Prop H numbers mean 20% of SFrs must be progun, Zoogster and hso have already posted good points on that. I’ll only add that (in my opinion of course) a good percentage of the 42% who voted against H were probably Feinstein/Rowan Democrats- people who own a handgun but don’t trust anyone else with one. I suspect if Prop H had allowed for grandfathering of handguns in SF at the time of the vote, it would have passed with even more of a majority, probably eclipsing your 20% claim.

Those people who voted "No" to the ban would be sufficiently pro-gun for the context of this thread.

Click to expand...

Actually, the context is the reaction of SFers to open carry- your argument that because 40% of SFers voted not to ban simple possession of a handgun in the home there must be at least 20% who are pro-gun (and would therefore support open carry and consequently should have shown up in the sample of people interviewed for the article) is quite a stretch.

If not, then I feel sorry for you.

Click to expand...

Actually you should feel sorry for me because I have a chemical imbalance in my brain that prevents me from being able to appreciate melodrama.

That video was just a bunch of antis making nervous comments about madmen in the parks with guns

Click to expand...

This leads me to believe there may be a financial bonanza in opening Depends concessions in the S.F. parks. It appears there will be a demand for dry clothing, what with all the panty wetting that will be going on.

DD

I really think this is a telling video, especially regarding the aggressive anti-carry attitudes that are out there. What is a very positive report card for CCW is that for decades + we have been out there, vigilant and for the most part secretive regarding out commitment. Rarley are we even noticed. MN has a particularly annoying provision in our carry law allowing premise owners to remove those carrying guns if they have posted their property. I have routinely ignored those signs and moved about doing my business without detection. All over the country, the "carry without permit" and "unlawful possession" charges are usually do to arrests and the subsequent discovery of the firearm on the person or pursuant to a search. I believe that is the exception and not the norm. I live in a small hamlet close to the Canadian border, in Minnesota. The controllers are decidedly liberal and anti-gun. Their constituants are overwhelmingly gentle, meek, highly educated teachers, professors, doctors retired artists etc. No room for error or detection exists in my world. Nationwide, 99% of the balanced, thoughful and tactical CCW persons are never detected. I think we are way ahead of the curve and should be proud we are doing so well.

Can we all please stop dumping on California. Yes San Francisco is super-liberal. We all know that. Yes, things go there that don't fly in Idaho or Texas (like transgendered bathrooms). All of that has little to do with people's RKBA. Things just need to be framed differently for the SF audience. Can people open carry at Pride Parades? If so, then do that. OC in parks with a gay pride sticker on. That'll throw the antis off.

Yam: All of that has little to do with people's RKBA.

Click to expand...

Unless there were some posts deleted, it seems to me people are discussing RKBA and not transgender bathrooms. Why don’t you stop trying to tell people what they can post?