# cops crack down on guns, thugs turn to their weapon of second choice



## Deaf Smith (Jun 9, 2008)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080607.STAB07/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Ontario/

On the knife's edges. 

Toronto cops crack down on guns, thugs turn to their weapon of second choice.

""All those things we're doing to decrease firearm weapons is cutting down the availability of these guns," says Staff Inspector Brian Raybould, the head of the Toronto police homicide squad. "At the same time, criminals who choose to arm themselves have to find some way to do it. If firearms aren't available, what's the next best thing? Knives, sharp-edged weapons."

.....

Toronto police responded to 167 stabbings up to the end of April, 2008 - in 73 of those cases, the victims were taken to hospital in serious condition. That's up from 58 by April last year.

Still, overall homicide rates - by any method - for Toronto and its suburbs are roughly the same so far this year as they were last year.

.....

In Britain, where Robert Knox, 18, who played schoolmate Marcus Belby in the Harry Potter movies, was stabbed to death with a wood-handled kitchen knife outside a pub last month, it is illegal to carry any knife longer than 7.62 centimetres. It is also illegal to sell a knife of any kind to someone under 18.

Yet stabbings have become an epidemic in Britain. Mr. Knox and more than 30 others died at knifepoint in the first five months of this year. The deaths are just a few of the 100-plus stabbings seen in the country since January, and police say most are committed by young men in their teens or early 20s.

Some experts point to Britain's strict gun laws to explain the surge in violent knifings. It's called the substitution effect, says Jack Levin, co-director of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern University in Boston.

He has been watching the "fewer guns, more knives" phenomenon for years in the United States."


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 9, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> Some experts point to Britain's strict gun laws to explain the surge in violent knifings. It's called the substitution effect, says Jack Levin, co-director of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern University in Boston.
> 
> He has been watching the "fewer guns, more knives" phenomenon for years in the United States."


Well, this is good news for us cane-as-weapon enthusiasts. Against a gun, a cane is, well...iffy. Against a blade--other than an ambush attack--I feel the odds are much better. And the defender probably doesn't have to be real subtle about how much damage is done, since the courts are likely to see the cane as much more benign than the attacker's knife. Imho, anyway.


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 10, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Well, this is good news for us cane-as-weapon enthusiasts. Against a gun, a cane is, well...iffy. Against a blade--other than an ambush attack--I feel the odds are much better. *And the defender probably doesn't have to be real subtle about how much damage is done, since the courts are likely to see the cane as much more benign than the attacker's knife*. Imho, anyway.


On the other hand, it the UK, it seems that you often get prosecuted regardless of whether you were right or wrong.  just sayin...


----------



## Brian S (Jun 10, 2008)

Sorry for the law abiding Canadians. The criminals don't get weapons legally.
 I wonder when people will stop blaming inanimate objects for crimes?


----------



## Ahriman (Jun 10, 2008)

"I wonder when people will stop blaming inanimate objects for crimes?"
Lets see... maybe... hmmm... never? I wonder what they'll do if someone commits a few crimes with, say, a hammer. Or a damned metal pipe.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 10, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> On the other hand, it the UK, it seems that you often get prosecuted regardless of whether you were right or wrong. just sayin...


 

Care to substantiate that rather hefty allegation?


----------



## KenpoTex (Jun 10, 2008)

a couple results from a brief search...


> A shopkeeper has been fined £250 and given a criminal record because he fought back when he was attacked by shoplifters.
> 
> ...The court was told that Mr Smyth, a father of three, caught the youths stealing the spray cans in October last year. Two of them turned on him and he was kicked in his groin just weeks after a vasectomy operation. He retaliated and punched 18-year-old Craig Spiller to the ground


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2008072.ece




> A farmer who opened fire on two burglars who broke into his remote farmhouse has been found guilty of murder.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/717511.stm


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 10, 2008)

Ahriman said:


> "I wonder when people will stop blaming inanimate objects for crimes?"
> Lets see... maybe... hmmm... never? I wonder what they'll do if someone commits a few crimes with, say, a hammer. Or a damned metal pipe.


 
Cain killed Able with a rock. Now how are the liberals gonna register or ban rocks?

People have killed and robbed since the beginning of time. It's in the nature of man. Might as well ban mankind.

All the liberals are doing is trying to limit the damage. They have no answers. Never did. They just think if you ban enough objects, everone will settle down and be nice (yea, that happens in prison's right?) But instead, people prone to crime just gravitate to other weapons.

Murder is murder, wither committed with a gun, knife, club, cane, hands-n-feet, fire poker, vase, electric cord, car, beer bottle, etc.... There is no 'gun crime' or 'knife crime' or 'insert-weapon-of-choice' crime.

'Gun crime' is lie! Simply a liberal lie.

Deaf


----------



## chinto (Jun 12, 2008)

Deaf Smith said:


> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080607.STAB07/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Ontario/
> 
> On the knife's edges.
> 
> ...



DOH!! You mean that weapons/arms control laws don't work and never have in  history??!!? DOH!!

my god I wish the bureaucrats and lawmakers around the world would please open a good history book before making some of these stupid laws they have!

weapons control laws have never worked any where ever!!  guns are remarkably easy to make.. they have been made in prisons!! same for knives and clubs.  I am not surprised at all that the murder rate is the same as before a ban on any or all weapons!   They seem to forget the old truism of : "The only deadly weapon known to all of man kind is between your ears, and its the most deadly weapon known to man if its loaded!!"   weapons do not kill, the hard heart and lethal intent of an individual kill!


----------



## cfr (Jun 13, 2008)

I agree that weapons bans will never eliminate murder altogether, but think it's a weak arguement to not have weapons laws. Based on this logic, it should not be illegal for private citizens to have grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic weapons, bombs, etc. People will always find a way to kill of course, but would we really want to make it easy for them by enabling them to by purchasing these items at Wal Mart? 

Don't you think homicide rate would go up if all of these things were legal? Sure if someone wants to kill bad enough they'll find anything. But theres also a crowd that would be willing to kill, but only from a distance. They would have the stones pull the trigger of an AK47 doing a drive by, but not to walk up and stab someone. I think thats what these laws are geared towards. 

BTW, happy to say I don't fall into the liberal crowd that's been referenced here, as I'm a republican.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Well, this is good news for us cane-as-weapon enthusiasts. Against a gun, a cane is, well...iffy. Against a blade--other than an ambush attack--I feel the odds are much better. And the defender probably doesn't have to be real subtle about how much damage is done, since the courts are likely to see the cane as much more benign than the attacker's knife. Imho, anyway.


  Good luck defending yourself against 10 skinheads with a cane.   Now a GLOCK....that's a winning defense.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2008)

cfr said:


> I agree that weapons bans will never eliminate murder altogether, but think it's a weak arguement to not have weapons laws. Based on this logic, it should not be illegal for private citizens to have grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic weapons, bombs, etc. People will always find a way to kill of course, but would we really want to make it easy for them by enabling them to by purchasing these items at Wal Mart?
> 
> Don't you think homicide rate would go up if all of these things were legal? Sure if someone wants to kill bad enough they'll find anything. But theres also a crowd that would be willing to kill, but only from a distance. They would have the stones pull the trigger of an AK47 doing a drive by, but not to walk up and stab someone. I think thats what these laws are geared towards.
> 
> BTW, happy to say I don't fall into the liberal crowd that's been referenced here, as I'm a republican.


 Actually, the contrary is true......the legal gun ownership rate where I grew is probably 5 guns per every man, woman and child.....and the murder rate is about one murder every decade or two.  Using the 'more legal guns equals more violence' logic is a bust!  The reality seems to be more LEGAL guns LESS VIOLENCE!  Why?  It's very simple, most people are GOOD and DECENT people.....ergo, more GUNS means more GUNS in the hands of GOOD people!  Banning guns restricts guns to the hands of BAD people, and creates disproportionate POWER in the hands of BAD PEOPLE!

That is why the BASTIONS of liberal 'success' in gun control around America, i.e. Washington DC, Detroit, Balitimore, New Orleans, etc, etc, etc, are FREE FIRE ZONES!  While places where the American citizens is trusted with his birthright as an armed populace AREN'T!  Some folks have it all backwards, we do not have a 'gun problem' in America, we have a CRIMINAL PROBLEM!

One might also remember the case of Rwanda before discussing bad people having enough stones to stab the unarmed!  1/2 to 1 million people killed in literally HOURS by roving gangs of thugs MOSTLY armed with MACHETTES!  Over Half a million people MOSTLY HACKED TO DEATH!  Unarmed people, unable to defend themselves!

No, bad people have the stones to attack unarmed people at will.....but they seldom have the stones to tackle an ARMED and PREPARED target.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2008)

Brian S said:


> Sorry for the law abiding Canadians. The criminals don't get weapons legally.
> I wonder when people will stop blaming inanimate objects for crimes?


 Well, it's easier to blame inanimate objects on the part of some people.....because those particular folks are loath to hold any individual criminal accountable.....keep in mind in THEIR worldview, the criminal is ALSO a 'victim'.


----------



## kidswarrior (Jun 14, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Good luck defending yourself against 10 skinheads with a cane.   Now a GLOCK....that's a winning defense.


Not if the skinheads have guns, too. While I get your point, 10 to one odds are going to be tough no matter what, if the mob is determined. And a mob which is that determined isn't going to worry about whether their weapon of choice is legal or not. Now admittedly, I'm thinking more of the urban area of California where I live, and the gangs I've come up against or may face in the future.

My response was itself a response to the _knife _being the new weapon of choice for street thugs.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 14, 2008)

As regards the original post:

Seriously, what did they EXPECT would happen.


----------



## cfr (Jun 14, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Actually, the contrary is true......the legal gun ownership rate where I grew is probably 5 guns per every man, woman and child.....and the murder rate is about one murder every decade or two. Using the 'more legal guns equals more violence' logic is a bust! The reality seems to be more LEGAL guns LESS VIOLENCE! Why? It's very simple, most people are GOOD and DECENT people.....ergo, more GUNS means more GUNS in the hands of GOOD people! Banning guns restricts guns to the hands of BAD people, and creates disproportionate POWER in the hands of BAD PEOPLE!
> 
> That is why the BASTIONS of liberal 'success' in gun control around America, i.e. Washington DC, Detroit, Balitimore, New Orleans, etc, etc, etc, are FREE FIRE ZONES! While places where the American citizens is trusted with his birthright as an armed populace AREN'T! Some folks have it all backwards, we do not have a 'gun problem' in America, we have a CRIMINAL PROBLEM!
> 
> ...


 

5 leagal guns per person typically also means an area with a low poverty rate, which is where most violent crimes occur. Typically people in extreme poverty don't have the $$$ for 5 legal guns. I also am in no way saying we should have more gun control, as I agree that more armed good guys would = less bad things happening to them. In fact, I think incedents like Virginia Tech may have ended much sooner had someone there been carrying a gun. 

However, this article references a crackdown on guns for criminals, not legal guns. Rwanda probably had the outcome it did because there wasn't enough military presence there that could defeat the machette weilding assailants.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2008)

cfr said:


> 5 leagal guns per person typically also means an area with a low poverty rate, which is where most violent crimes occur. Typically people in extreme poverty don't have the $$$ for 5 legal guns. I also am in no way saying we should have more gun control, as I agree that more armed good guys would = less bad things happening to them. In fact, I think incedents like Virginia Tech may have ended much sooner had someone there been carrying a gun.


 Several incidences nearly identical to Virginia Tech WERE ended by armed citizens....in fact, two years before at another college in Virginia an armed student and two others stopped a similar incident with a gun.  In another incident a principal, who by law and school rule was not able to keep a gun in his car in the parking lot, had parked his car off school property ran to the car and retrieved a 1911 handgun, whereupon he returned to the school and stopped the violence by putting the gun to the student-gunman's head and tell him to drop his weapon.  In another incident an armed store owner heard gunfire, called the police, and then retrieved his shotgun and confronted and disarmed THAT school shooter!

As for poverty rates, rural poverty rates in rural America are actually the same, with sometimes HIGHER unemployment and LOWER per capita incomes than many urban areas, yet they STILL own several guns, and STILL have low violent crime rates.  The dirty secret is that in America poverty is not a CAUSE of violence, it's a loose correlation, and legal firearms ownership rates have ZERO correlation!  There is a far stronger correlation than either of those two to murder rates, but i'll save that for a far different discussion.



			
				cfr said:
			
		

> However, this article references a crackdown on guns for criminals, not legal guns. Rwanda probably had the outcome it did because there wasn't enough military presence there that could defeat the machette weilding assailants.


 Hint: The perpetrators of the Rwandan massacre WERE THE MILITARY!   In fact, during the 20th century ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more people have been killed unarmed at the hands of the state than by criminals and civilian gun violence.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2008)

kidswarrior said:


> Not if the skinheads have guns, too. While I get your point, 10 to one odds are going to be tough no matter what, if the mob is determined. And a mob which is that determined isn't going to worry about whether their weapon of choice is legal or not. Now admittedly, I'm thinking more of the urban area of California where I live, and the gangs I've come up against or may face in the future.
> 
> My response was itself a response to the _knife _being the new weapon of choice for street thugs.


 Your odds are better fighting 10 armed men with one gun than fighting 10 men unarmed....that's a fact.  

The gun is a lever, a tool.....it's a force multiply assuming you know how to use it.  Historically, one well trained man with a gun has been able to fight off and hold at bay numbers FAR larger than himself.  How many men did Audie Murphy kill by himself?  Sergeant York?  I doubt that they would have accomplished that unarmed even if their opponents were unarmed.

A gun is a LEVER!  Also, the secret to dealing with ANY mob......is disruption of unit cohesion.  Mob violence is rooted in the anonymity and safety of the group......once you takeaway that anonymity and safety, for example, but put bullets in individuals, most groups LOSE cohesion!  The reality is that MOST gangs aren't made up of fearless LIONS!  You have one or two lions, and a group of hanger on jackals and assorted wild dogs.  Once the wild dogs and jackals feel their safety is compromised, they either scatter, at best, or at worst have a moment of disorientation that disrupts their OODA cycle!

The secret to overcoming larger numbers and superior forces is SPEED, SURPRISE and VIOLENCE OF ACTION!

My gun isn't a shield.  I don't pull it out to ward off evil spirits or gang attacks.  When confronted by gang violence, they'll know i'm armed when the first 2 or 3 are DEAD!  Keep shooting while you have the initiative and keep hitting targets until they DROP or FLEE!  10 skin heads.....then 7......then 5.......reload and seek cover.....then 3.....repeat as needed!


----------



## cfr (Jun 15, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Several incidences nearly identical to Virginia Tech WERE ended by armed citizens....in fact, two years before at another college in Virginia an armed student and two others stopped a similar incident with a gun. In another incident a principal, who by law and school rule was not able to keep a gun in his car in the parking lot, had parked his car off school property ran to the car and retrieved a 1911 handgun, whereupon he returned to the school and stopped the violence by putting the gun to the student-gunman's head and tell him to drop his weapon. In another incident an armed store owner heard gunfire, called the police, and then retrieved his shotgun and confronted and disarmed THAT school shooter!


 
Thats great! Looks like I was right with this sentence then, ehh?: "I also am in no way saying we should have more gun control, as I agree that more armed good guys would = less bad things happening to them."




sgtmac_46 said:


> As for poverty rates, rural poverty rates in rural America are actually the same, with sometimes HIGHER unemployment and LOWER per capita incomes than many urban areas, yet they STILL own several guns, and STILL have low violent crime rates. The dirty secret is that in America poverty is not a CAUSE of violence, it's a loose correlation, and legal firearms ownership rates have ZERO correlation! There is a far stronger correlation than either of those two to murder rates, but i'll save that for a far different discussion.


 
I was referring to urban areas. I'm not a cop, but I'd have to imagine they would rather face a group with knifes than I group with AK47's? I have no stats to back this up, just a hunch. I would also have to imagine that the families of innocent drive by victims would rather see people armed with knives than automatic weapons as well? Now this may change when drive by's start occuring with people throwing knives out of windows, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. 



sgtmac_46 said:


> Hint: The perpetrators of the Rwandan massacre WERE THE MILITARY!  In fact, during the 20th century ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more people have been killed unarmed at the hands of the state than by criminals and civilian gun violence.


 

Thanks for the hint, as I clearly mis-spoke here. I was referring to a lack of international military to stop the violence.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2008)

cfr said:


> I was referring to urban areas. I'm not a cop, but I'd have to imagine they would rather face a group with knifes than I group with AK47's? I have no stats to back this up, just a hunch. I would also have to imagine that the families of innocent drive by victims would rather see people armed with knives than automatic weapons as well? Now this may change when drive by's start occuring with people throwing knives out of windows, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


 Since you have ZERO control over what THEY are armed with, the point is moot. 

And since, as per my Rwanda point, it hardly matters that those folks weren't shot as opposed to being hacked to death.....in fact, the Rwandan death squads were actually charging people money for the bullets if they wanted to be shot to avoid being hacked to death.

Me, I don't rely on trying to control what the other guy does or does not have...I prefer to train and arm myself for as many eventualities as possible...that's a more practical solution.




			
				cfr said:
			
		

> Thanks for the hint, as I clearly mis-spoke here. I was referring to a lack of international military to stop the violence.


 The lesson there is the same...if you really wish to rely on others to provide your safety and security, one of two things will result......

1) The 'other', in this case the UN, will fail you when you need them most.

2) The 'other' WILL be powerful enough and have the will to protect you...but will also have the will to enslave you, and you'll be a bondsman under their 'permanent' protection.

In short, it is the DUTY of a free people to DEFEND THEMSELVES!  Those unwilling or unable to defend themselves by their own hand, will ALWAYS remains slaves to those stronger than themselves!


----------



## cfr (Jun 16, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Since you have ZERO control over what THEY are armed with, the point is moot.


 
How convenient for you. All of the threads on this website that I've ever replied too could be labled moot if you pulled out the "cfr has no control" card every time I responded. Lets really take a look at it though:

Incedents like:


The N. Hollywood shootout.
Virginia Tech.
Drive by's.
I would of course conceed that good law biding citizens should have the right to defend themselves. But all of the above examples may not have been nearly as bad as they were had the bad guys only been armed with knives. 

I have guns. I have no intention of always relying on others to defend me. 

I just don't get the "crime will always be the same if people have knives or guns" mentality when I think of a few simple examples like I did above.

BTW, there haven't been slaves around here for years.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 19, 2008)

cfr said:


> How convenient for you. All of the threads on this website that I've ever replied too could be labled moot if you pulled out the "cfr has no control" card every time I responded. Lets really take a look at it though:
> 
> Incedents like:
> 
> ...


 But you CANNOT CONTROL what the bad guys have, CFR....THAT is why your point is moot.  You're saying 'IF they only had knives'......how about 'IF they hadn't went off their rocker'.......IF is word that always sounds like it means more than it does.

The ASSumption is that you can control what the bad guys have by passing a law.....but even YOU know how absolutely LUDICRIOUS it is that passing a law suddenly prevents an action.  And THAT is where your argument falls apart and becomes moot.....because in NONE of the examples above can you point to any way of preventing such an incident before hand. 

And before you claim making guns 'harder to get' will prevent those types of incidents, keep in mind that FAR WORSE incidence happen around the world in places where private ownership of firearms are virtually banned.  Keep in mind that the Chechens involved in the BRESLEN attack didn't buy their guns at the local Russian Gun store. 

Bad people do bad things....but the idea that you can shut down bad people by fixating on inanimate objects is a recipe for DISASTER!


----------



## Ahriman (Jun 19, 2008)

About laws not affecting criminals: we have very strict gun control, basically you can't get a gun _(ANY gun)_ unless you're an accredited hunter or a member of the police/army or a politican. Now I don't do business with criminals but I like to know the chances of encountering gunners so I maintain a chain of connections where there's at least 3 elements between me and the supplier _(I know one who knows one who knows one who knows one who can supply arms)_. Given the actual black market prices, I could get about 20 AK-47s or 10 portable missile launchers for a bit less than $5000 with sufficient ammo _(100 for each AK and/or 3 for each launcher which would sum up to 2000 7.62 rounds or 30 surface-to-surface missiles)_ which is IMO more than enough for starting a damned militia. Oh, all this would arrive in a month... lucky for us that most of these goes to other countries and that the suppliers are clever enough to not sell to anyone.
Simpler stuff like fragmentation grenades, pistols, SMGs can be found at any market if you know what kind of people to look for. Hell, I was once out searching for a few good tools_ (hammers and angle grinders)_ and I was offered a Skorpion. The guy had 3 in the car trunk...
...
Our laws are extremely effective and the main idea was correct, don't you think so? :sarcasm:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 19, 2008)

Ahriman said:


> About laws not affecting criminals: we have very strict gun control, basically you can't get a gun _(ANY gun)_ unless you're an accredited hunter or a member of the police/army or a politican. Now I don't do business with criminals but I like to know the chances of encountering gunners so I maintain a chain of connections where there's at least 3 elements between me and the supplier _(I know one who knows one who knows one who knows one who can supply arms)_. Given the actual black market prices, I could get about 20 AK-47s or 10 portable missile launchers for a bit less than $5000 with sufficient ammo _(100 for each AK and/or 3 for each launcher which would sum up to 2000 7.62 rounds or 30 surface-to-surface missiles)_ which is IMO more than enough for starting a damned militia. Oh, all this would arrive in a month... lucky for us that most of these goes to other countries and that the suppliers are clever enough to not sell to anyone.
> Simpler stuff like fragmentation grenades, pistols, SMGs can be found at any market if you know what kind of people to look for. Hell, I was once out searching for a few good tools_ (hammers and angle grinders)_ and I was offered a Skorpion. The guy had 3 in the car trunk...
> ...
> Our laws are extremely effective and the main idea was correct, don't you think so? :sarcasm:


 Exactly!

You know as well as I do that the laws on firearms are there to control the common man, not the criminals.


----------



## Ahriman (Jun 19, 2008)

> the laws on firearms are there to control the common man


...and our lawmakers do this in a much more open fashion. Most of you out there, feel yourself lucky even if you have a stupid gun law - we are denied to have acces to guns because we revolted against the Soviets in '56 and our dear rulers wanted to avoid a second revolution_ (no, it's not my opinion, I can dig up the archive governmental source stating this explicitly if anyone is interested)_. Now we are no longer a part of the Soviet block, but not changing the laws_ (and making them even more strict)_ can be interpreted in only one way - our parties agree in one and only one thing, that an armed population poses a threat to them. Honestly, why should a government fear the nation they rule in a *democracy*?
...
So here the good guys turn to their weapons of second choice, not the criminals. We can be armed *and* ready while not breaking the laws, but it is hard at times.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 19, 2008)

Ahriman said:


> ...and our lawmakers do this in a much more open fashion. Most of you out there, feel yourself lucky even if you have a stupid gun law - we are denied to have acces to guns because we revolted against the Soviets in '56 and our dear rulers wanted to avoid a second revolution_ (no, it's not my opinion, I can dig up the archive governmental source stating this explicitly if anyone is interested)_. Now we are no longer a part of the Soviet block, but not changing the laws_ (and making them even more strict)_ can be interpreted in only one way - our parties agree in one and only one thing, that an armed population poses a threat to them. Honestly, why should a government fear the nation they rule in a *democracy*?
> ...
> So here the good guys turn to their weapons of second choice, not the criminals. We can be armed *and* ready while not breaking the laws, but it is hard at times.


 Thank you for printing the TRUTH and PURPOSE behind gun control laws!

May those who have never had to live under such rulers take your lesson to heart!


----------



## 7starmarc (Jun 19, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Thank you for printing the TRUTH and PURPOSE behind gun control laws!
> 
> May those who have never had to live under such rulers take your lesson to heart!


 
sgt, while I agree with 99% of what you have said about gun control, I want to interject that what Ahriman stated is _one_ truth about gun control.

Here in California, I honestly believe that a lot of gun control is a completely misguided and naive attempt to "save" people based on fear of something gun control supporters don't understand, and probably never will. The problem runs deeper than gun control laws, many of these people have a general, true, and honest belief that the government/public services can and will protect everyone under its influence. This is the same kind of thinking that leads people to believe that our government can acutally operate as a welfare state. They also believe that being a nation of laws means that all laws make the difference they intend to. 

Furthermore, they have an extremely limited understanding of the thing they are trying to "control" with their legislation. This shows up in the laws -- they make absolutely no sense. This gun is restricted, but this other one isn't. What's the difference? Sometimes you can't tell. This other gun is an assault weapon if properly modified -- how long does it take to unmodify? About 10 seconds with the proper tool (which you can get at any decent hardware store).

The same can be said for knife laws, however. They make no sense whatsoever, and hardly limit someone from having an weapon that can do serious damage to another human being. But they do make it an awful pain for lawful users to stay legal.


----------



## cfr (Jun 19, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> But you CANNOT CONTROL what the bad guys have, CFR....THAT is why your point is moot. You're saying 'IF they only had knives'......how about 'IF they hadn't went off their rocker'.......IF is word that always sounds like it means more than it does.
> 
> The ASSumption is that you can control what the bad guys have by passing a law.....but even YOU know how absolutely LUDICRIOUS it is that passing a law suddenly prevents an action. And THAT is where your argument falls apart and becomes moot.....because in NONE of the examples above can you point to any way of preventing such an incident before hand.
> 
> ...


 
You are ASSuming that by saying the same things over and over again I will agree, and you are incorrect. All of the points I have brought up are still being neatly evaded (again, how convenient) based on your "IF" scenarios, but whateva.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 19, 2008)

7starmarc said:


> sgt, while I agree with 99% of what you have said about gun control, I want to interject that what Ahriman stated is _one_ truth about gun control.
> 
> Here in California, I honestly believe that a lot of gun control is a completely misguided and naive attempt to "save" people based on fear of something gun control supporters don't understand, and probably never will. The problem runs deeper than gun control laws, many of these people have a general, true, and honest belief that the government/public services can and will protect everyone under its influence. This is the same kind of thinking that leads people to believe that our government can acutally operate as a welfare state. They also believe that being a nation of laws means that all laws make the difference they intend to.
> 
> ...


  I disagree that it is 'merely' to save people based on the vision of government held by those who have appointed themselves 'saviors' of the people.  Their vision is that government should be craddle to grave mother to people, whether they LIKE IT or NOT!  But, then, Lenin and Stalin viewed themselves as doing the same thing.

Actually, I think Barry Goldwater said it best.



> "Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed."- Barry Goldwater


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 19, 2008)

cfr said:


> You are ASSuming that by saying the same things over and over again I will agree, and you are incorrect. All of the points I have brought up are still being neatly evaded (again, how convenient) based on your "IF" scenarios, but whateva.


 My point isn't to convince you, as a mind changed against it's will is of the same opinion still.....I just believe that a silly argument on this topic shouldn't go unchallenged by reality. 

And i've evaded NOTHING!  I've taken every argument you've made HEADON!  The 'if' secnarios belong to YOU!  'If we could prevent someone from getting a gun, blah, blah, blah'.  IF the world were rainbows and marshmellows, blah, blah, blah. 

If I come off as a bit too confrontational on the subject.......well......Since i'm on a Barry Goldwater quoting trend, here's my excuse.



> "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater


----------

