This was an interesting article about liberal gays opposed to the upcoming San Francisco handgun ban. As these gay female NRA members have correctly observed, gun laws like this have the most severe effect on those who are physically weakest and otherwise least able to defend themseves.
Some excerpts:
“Some citizens fear for safety if courts uphold S.F.’s voter-approved ban on handguns”…The measure, which takes effect Jan. 1, also makes it illegal for residents to possess handguns.
And as that date approaches, handgun owners like Hurst are becoming increasingly fearful of the consequences.
“We’re exactly the kind of people that should have weapons. We’re vulnerable,” Hurst said during a recent conversation in her cozy apartment, where she lives with her partner and their two cats. “The guns are not going away unless they absolutely have to.”
…Both belong to the NRA, not because they agree with what they call the “right-wing lunatics” running the organization, but mostly because they like the mailers and Second Amendment literature the group offers.
They pride themselves on being responsible gun owners — they take regular trips to the range to practice and always keep the bullets separate from the guns. It’s just, they say, that they have too many friends who have been raped and abused to allow themselves to fall victim to anyone.
…Those who favor banning handguns in the city say that too many innocent people are shot in gun accidents and that handguns are often used in suicides.
They say criminals often get guns by robbing law-abiding gun owners.
Hurst denounces all those arguments, saying that there are simply too many guns out there to ban them all and that having a weapon levels the playing field against an attacker, who is likely to be armed.
“Assuming I’d be able to make a 911 call in the first place, you’re looking at six or seven minutes realistically before police can get here,” Hurst said. “You can get killed many times over in that length of time.”
“Or raped and maimed and then killed,” B.C. added.
