"Doug Smith W9WI" wrote in message
news:pan.2008.08.14.15.29.55.925913@invalid.nospam...
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:44:02 -0500, Paul Stevens wrote:
>> Banning guns seems to offer no real improvement. Knives,
>> explosives,
>> and arson materials are still available to those
>> determined to use them.
>
> In China (and indeed in most places) we don't really know
> whether gun
> bans offer any real improvement. They haven't tried
> relaxing them.
Gun bans and confiscations have been very effective in DC,
NYC, Chicago, LA, and SF, haven't they, Doug.
>
> It's certainly *harder* to commit most crimes without a
> gun. A knife
> requires getting physically closer to the intended
> victim - it will be
> nearly impossible to carjack me with a knife, I can close
> the window and
> drive off, and your weapon will be ineffective. The car
> window will be
> little defense against pretty much any gun.
I notice that you chose only one scenario, car jacking. How
about mugging, strong arm robbery, assault, rape, home
invasion. Frequently those are done with a firearm, knife,
blunt instrument, superior strength, or numeric superiority.
What would be the most efficient defense in those cases?
Firearms, particularily handguns, are used far more times
for defense against crime than in the commission of crime.
To quote the line in the song from "Porgy and Bess", it
ain't necessairly so. Just how quickly can you roll up that
window? Either crank or electric takes more time than it
does to pull a trigger, or make a sweep with a blade. The
goblin might not point the gun through an open window, he
just might snatch open a door and force you over or just
shoot, stab or slash you on the spot. Auto glass is NOT
bullet proof although smaller rounds (.22 cal. and .38 cal.
round nose) MIGHT not penetrate, depending on the angle of
fire and curvature of the glass.
Closing the window and driving away depends on how quick
your reflexes are.
>
> Explosives aren't an effective weapon for mugging as
> you're likely to blow
> yourself up along with the intended victim. Likewise
> arson: not likely to
> be of much help in committing most crimes without harming
> the crook as
> much as the victims.
Arson isn't a direct crime against a person. Many times it
is for personal gain (insurance), revenge, or the arsonist
is just plain psychotic. Pretty much the same for the use
of explosives and I've never heard of either used in a
mugging.
>
> Explosives & arson also require a certain amount of
> brainpower - something
> most crooks don't have. A gun simply requires inserting
> one or more
> rounds & pushing a lever.
So you believe that a gun emit an evil ray that causes
someone to commit a crime with it?
>
> Making it harder to commit a crime will, one would think,
> deter at least
> *some* crime. Isn't that pretty much the point of locks?
> A decent lock
> doesn't make it *impossible* to break into my house. It
> sure makes it a
> lot harder. Some crooks will go on down the block & look
> for something
> that isn't locked.
>
Some might,others just might kick in the door or break a
window.
--
"No law ever written has stopped any robber, rapist or
killer,
like cold blue steel in the hands of their last intended
victim."
-W. Emerson Wright.
------
Kent Finnell
From the Music City, USA
