[gmassman]

While I agree with your sentiment, the problem with gun ownership in a place like SF is the risk of manslaughter charges. Shooting someone committing a property crime may be seen as justifiable from the eyes of the property owner, but not in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately you’re best off just letting yourself get robbed, or moving away if you don’t want to accept the risks of living with an ineffectual local government.

[wing-_-nuts]

Your probably right, it's probably better just to move. The only time I could ever see myself shooting someone is if my life is in danger, though where I'm from a shotgun loaded with rock salt used to be a common deterant against theft

[collegeburner]

perverse how the places where you probably need a gun most, it's hardest to get.

i pray i never need it but i'm glad to live in a place that's not without its problems, but where i can at least defend myself and my property.

also @JumpCriscross since his comment is dead: that's silly, you shouldn't make a threat you aren't willing to follow up on. more importantly "warning shots" are a really good way to cause collateral damage. might be you shoot through a wall. plus your eye is on the threat so it's irresponsible to shoot elsewhere bc you aren't actually evaluating what's there and what's behind it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> shooting someone committing a property crime may be seen as justifiable from the eyes of the property owner, but not in the eyes of the law

One can fire non-lethal rounds, and aim around a person (or into the ground), instead of at them. I'm not a believer in urban gun ownership. But there are ways to responsibly be one and benefit from it without putting others' lives or your own freedom at risk. (Counterfactual: pulling a gun on a criminal is a good way to have a criminal pull a gun on you.)