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

[cfr]

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:

1. The N. Hollywood shootout.
2. Virginia Tech.
3. 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]

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:

1. The N. Hollywood shootout.
2. Virginia Tech.
3. 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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!

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]

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.

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]

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