Cougar Allen
Buccaneer (ret.)
- Joined
- Oct 9, 1998
- Messages
- 75,851
To clarify a couple of things: first, the murder rate varies from place to place around the world for a variety of reasons, and so does the choice of murder weapons -- but when Britain banned all private ownership of handguns the violent crime rate went way up (and if anyone cares the number of murders committed with handguns also went up). That's what always happens -- numerous jurisdictions all over the world have been making it easier or harder to obtain and carry weapons for a long time, and it's very well established that whenever they make it harder the crime rate goes up; whenever they make it easier the crime rate goes down.
Surely it isn't hard to see why that is. Criminals don't care if there's a little hassle involved in getting hold of an illegal weapon; they're willing to take the trouble, and they don't mind if it's illegal; they're criminals. Honest citizens, on the other hand, are easily influenced by changes in the law -- and it doesn't take much of a change to influence them. Just like voting -- if voting is made a little bit more or less trouble (registration, poll taxes however small, hours polling places are open, etc.) then more or fewer people vote.
Of course organizations like Handgun Control Inc. will tell you no one ever prevents a crime by defending him or herself with a handgun, they sneer at the very idea that might be possible -- and they don't have to answer the fact that the impossible happens every twenty seconds on the average as long as they can keep the mainstream media from ever mentioning that fact.
Now for something completely different....
The letter of the law the legislators write is only one third of the law -- the other two thirds come from the courts and the executive branch (police, prosecuters, bureacrats, etc). The concealed carry laws in most states don't say anything about knives, and in many states don't say anything about permits issued by other states -- but that's only one third of the law. Whether the statute says anything about it or not, no prosecuter wants to get up in front of a courtroom full of reporters and say, "We have no objection to the high-capacity 9mm pistol the defendant was carrying at the time of the arrest; he has a permit for that and it's perfectly legal for him to carry it -- we want to put him in prison because the knife he was also carrying was two inches too long." He doesn't want to say, "Although the defendant has a license to carry a gun issued by his own state, and he would be perfectly qualified for a license issued by this state if he lived here ..." either.
Some of us on the tactical forums talk about "the giggle test." As a metaphorical way of looking at it -- if you're concerned about whether you might be prosecuted for something you're contemplating doing, visualize a long line of people, starting with a cop and ending with five out of nine Justices of the Supreme Court, all saying, "This guy should go to prison because ..." without giggling -- if any one of those people can't keep a straight face and he cracks up, you go free....
Surely it isn't hard to see why that is. Criminals don't care if there's a little hassle involved in getting hold of an illegal weapon; they're willing to take the trouble, and they don't mind if it's illegal; they're criminals. Honest citizens, on the other hand, are easily influenced by changes in the law -- and it doesn't take much of a change to influence them. Just like voting -- if voting is made a little bit more or less trouble (registration, poll taxes however small, hours polling places are open, etc.) then more or fewer people vote.
Of course organizations like Handgun Control Inc. will tell you no one ever prevents a crime by defending him or herself with a handgun, they sneer at the very idea that might be possible -- and they don't have to answer the fact that the impossible happens every twenty seconds on the average as long as they can keep the mainstream media from ever mentioning that fact.
Now for something completely different....
The letter of the law the legislators write is only one third of the law -- the other two thirds come from the courts and the executive branch (police, prosecuters, bureacrats, etc). The concealed carry laws in most states don't say anything about knives, and in many states don't say anything about permits issued by other states -- but that's only one third of the law. Whether the statute says anything about it or not, no prosecuter wants to get up in front of a courtroom full of reporters and say, "We have no objection to the high-capacity 9mm pistol the defendant was carrying at the time of the arrest; he has a permit for that and it's perfectly legal for him to carry it -- we want to put him in prison because the knife he was also carrying was two inches too long." He doesn't want to say, "Although the defendant has a license to carry a gun issued by his own state, and he would be perfectly qualified for a license issued by this state if he lived here ..." either.
Some of us on the tactical forums talk about "the giggle test." As a metaphorical way of looking at it -- if you're concerned about whether you might be prosecuted for something you're contemplating doing, visualize a long line of people, starting with a cop and ending with five out of nine Justices of the Supreme Court, all saying, "This guy should go to prison because ..." without giggling -- if any one of those people can't keep a straight face and he cracks up, you go free....
.
)
