> Paul Stevens wrote:
>> "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.
>>
>> Washington D.C. might provide some interesting results, if they ever
>> comply with the USSC ruling.
>>
>>> 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.
>
> While I agree in spirit, I'd replace Doug's 'most crimes' with 'many
> crimes'.
>>
>> The car window is little or no defense against a hammer. From some
>> reports, criminals seem to be giving up on the 'show weapon, make
>> demand, hold hand out for the goods' approach, and shifting toward
>> 'attack, grab the goods from the disoriented and bleeding victim'
>> approach.
>>
>> What do you plan to do if the driver's side window of your car suddenly
>> shatters inward, and a hammer comes toward your face?
>>
> Granted, that's gonna be a bitch. But it also renders the car less usable
> and more visibly damaged...leaves more physical evidence than a show of
> force (firearm) and an order to either get out, or 'let me in and drive'.
>
> Which reinforces the premise 'harder to commit'....
>
If the intent is to take the car.
Carjacking isn't the only motive for such an attack. The criminal could
be after a purse/wallet, or just some nutcase who thought you were out
to get him.
>> Hammers don't require much brainpower.
>>
> I've known people who didn't know which was the business end.
>
Still, it's one of the simplest (and one of the oldest) weapons to use.
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yet there was a news report (a year or two ago?) about a South African
>> company that was installing flamethrowers as a defense against
>> carjacking.
>> Are flamethrowers considered good defensive weapons, but poor offensive
>> ones?
>>
> I'd think if one's life were in danger anyway (victim), then they might
> be. The perpetrator has the option of choosing a weaker opponent...or not
> damaging the goods with flame.
Again, making an assumption as to motive. The 'goods' might be nothing
more than the victim's life.
>>> 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.
>>
>> And chemical weapons don't require any more 'brainpower' than a
>> janitor (Hint: the warning labels on the cleansers are a good clue).
>>
> Deployment is the issue; applying the force thus created in a manner which
> furthers your objective without harm, either to the goods you hope to thus
> acquire, or oneself. That takes brainpower. Guns are simple in that
> respect. You just point them...even from a distance they can be
> effective.
:) Try taking a handgun carry permit class that has some students who
have never touched a gun. I wouldn't have thought that it was possible
to miss a target that was 6 feet away (slow fire, no pressure to get the
shot off, no reason for adrenaline), but it apparently is. It's also
possible
to load (but not chamber) a Beretta 92 with the rounds inserted into the
magazine backwards (that one surprised the instructor).
>> Arson isn't that complicated (unless you're worried about leaving clues
>> for the fire investigators).
>>
> A mugging or a carjacking by arson is a difficult concept to wrap my mind
> around. Simple arson for the hell of it...or as part of an insurance
> scheme is relatively easy. It's not interchangeable with any type of
> firearms offense that I can think of.
Random act of violence, something along the lines of the incident that
started this thread...
Simple armed robberies are apparently common enough that they don't
get more than a few minutes of news coverage. What seems to get
everybody worked up (and tends to bring the "there needs to be a law"
group out of the woodwork) are the violent crimes that are committed
for no logical reason.
>> Explosives? The two teenage psychos that went on a rampage at
>> Columbine were capable of building grenades that got at least one
>> comment on clever design from the bomb squad (everybody seems
>> to focus on the guns they used, and forget about the homemade
>> grenades and the large bomb left in the cafeteria). Before the police
>> department got worried about lawsuits, there was a statement
>> that the officer assigned to the school initially engaged the two
>> teenagers, but was forced to leave the building and wait for backup
>> after they started tossing grenades at him.
>>
>> Around 1981, a Hillwood student got caught putting pipebombs in
>> the mailboxes of teachers he didn't like (imagine what he could have
>> done, if he had had access to an internet search engine).
>>
> You are citing crimes of vandalism, revenge or simple hate. If the object
> is simply to do mindless damage or to terrorize, then yes, many means are
> available.
Again, the incident cited at the beginning of this thread had nothing to
do with robbery. Senseless violence does occur. It wasn't too long
ago that a homeless woman was thrown into the Cumberland. My
memory of the story is a bit fuzzy, but I seem to recall that it turned
out that the attacker(s) essentially did it to have something to do.
>>> Making it harder to commit a crime will, one would think, deter at least
>>> *some* crime.
>>
>> With the more lazy criminals, yes. But I don't worry as much about
>> the lazy criminals, since they are looking for the easiest target. The
>> criminals that are willing to put some effort into their work, are
>> something to worry about.
>>
> You're supporting the premise. Some crimes--and some criminals--would be
> deterred absent the availability of a firearm.
Some crimes, some criminals... But what would be the effect of *all* the
criminals knowing that *all* of their potential victims (with the exception
of the military and police) do not have guns? It's an equation with more
than a few variables.
>>> 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.
>>
>> And a decade or two ago, there was a series of burglaries in the Kentucky
>> lake area near Waverly. Wasn't too hard to get a "profile" on the crooks
>> doing it, since the kids didn't bother to do anything about the tracks
>> their
>> dirtbike was leaving. Locks didn't do any good. They just looked for
>> 'nobody home', and broke in with whatever method was easiest. They
>> stole gas cans for boats (needed gas for their dirtbike), toys, food,
>> guns
>> (they didn't find the shotgun my father had under the bed, but they did
>> find the ammo), and whatever else caught their eyes. No high level of
>> 'brainpower', just 'I want that, so I'll take it'.
>
> In the anecdote, the criminals had guns--guns they stole from people who
> probably had them for 'protection'. Didn't help.... Perhaps they
> wouldn't have been so brazen if without them.
>
No, the people had them for hunting. I don't recall hearing of a single
incident of a handgun being stolen by those two kids. It's a very rural
area, and just about every house had some type of fishing boat. Every
house on that road was within 200 yards of Kentucky lake, and the
other side of the road *was* prime acreage for both deer and squirrels.
As for brazen, the two kids (neither one was old enough to get a learner's
permit) would ride up and down the road to learn the habits/schedules
of people on that road. Once they knew what houses were empty during
the day, they would park their dirtbike near the door but out of sight of
the road, drive a screwdriver into the doorframe and pop the lock open,
then ransack the house. What they wanted, they took. What they didn't
want, they would either throw on the floor or smash. The vandalism
seemed to depend on the mood at the moment - my parent's place was
relatively undamaged, but a house 1/4 mile up the road had canned food
opened and thrown on the walls and the kitchen sink plugged and the
faucet left running. My parents had a standard lock on their door, while
the vandalized house had a deadbolt that caused them to smash a window
and climb in, so that may have been a factor in their choice to vandalize
or not.
The stolen rifles and shotguns were apparently either kept for their own
plinking/hunting use, or they intended to sell/trade them.
