Posted on 12/05/2005 7:38:31 AM PST by SmithL
For a long time, Margaret Hurst lived in fear.
Gangs control turf just a few blocks from her Mission District apartment in San Francisco, and she's sure a neighbor across the street deals drugs. Her building was broken into four times in one year. She saw teenagers on her street display a gun. And while she was stopped at a red light one day, a man tried to punch in her car window in a case of road rage.
So she bought a handgun. Now Hurst is no longer scared.
"I'll tell you one thing. If I'm going down, I'm taking them with me," said 49-year-old Hurst, who is about as un-Charlton Heston as any woman with a British accent, braided bun and long flowing skirt could be.
After a heated campaign brought the national debate over gun control to San Francisco, the city's famously liberal voters passed a law last month banning the sale, manufacture and distribution of firearms and ammunition within city limits. 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."
When 58 percent of the city's voters approved the handgun ban, San Francisco joined only two other cities in the nation with similar laws, Chicago and Washington, D.C.
The day after the election, the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates filed a lawsuit challenging the ban, saying it oversteps local government authority and intrudes into an area regulated by
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The NRA offers outstanding basic firearms instruction for the cost of a cheeseburger and a movie. I'm not advocating that every new shooter attend a course at Gunsite.
IF a new shooter has access to a friend or relative that is competent in firearms handling, super - many people have nowhere to turn except the guy who sold them the gun, or some dude at the range - there is no guarantee that either will provide adequate instruction.
Training lends confidence, and teaches the basics of what it means to shoot well - providing a foundation for future learning, in the classroom or at the range. It's certainly possible to self-teach, but for those who don't know where to start adequate training is essential.
Firearms training is not simply about "certification" to satisfy right to carry critics, it's about individuals seeking competent instruction in the use of a complex and unforgiving tool.
Your points are excellent, and I fully support firearms training in the variety of ways you mentioned, and have participated in several of them myself. A competent and trained pro-gun person like yourself would both train and instruct to produce a safe and competent trainee.
I am concerned about the disingenuous anti-gun activist. With him it's about control not safety, and he will attempt to get control of the training for the very purpose of preventing your type of individual from doing the training. The approved trainers will be so expensive and strict that only politicians and their large contributors will be able to pass the required training course. Do you really think that Diane Feinstein is more proficient with a handgun than you or me, or is she more proficient at getting the permit to own and carry in San Fransicko?
I was concerned that Hurst needed to know the pros and cons of the various ways you "store" a firearm that is designated for personal defense. Obviously you are aware of those various ways. More power to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.