Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Of course, San Francisco has the somewhat unique position among places that have banned guns of being on a pinnunsla, which means that either the runners will have to use boats, or they will have to try and get in the guns via the various roadways (hwy 101, 280, etc.). This will become problematic, as gunrunners usually have police records, and often sell from stolen vehicles. In a city like San Francisco, which has an obscene amount of police presence on the major highways, it will be extremly difficult for the average gun runner to move goods into the city.
|
Uh. I'm sorry but where do all these unqualified assumptions come from?
"California has an obscene amount of police presence on major highways?" Uhh. I take no comfort in that. Maybe it's
obscene relative to another state but certainly not enough to stop this crime. Have you ever broken the speed limit? How many times were you ever ticketed? I'll bet you haven't been pulled over for every time you've broken the speed limit, have you? If you have a car full of guns that's the most likely time you're going to get your license and registration checked.
Contrary to popular belief, true criminals are not as stupid as you'd like to believe. I should know since I work closely with level IV state inmates. Serious gunrunners (not small time, stoners with "born to lose" tattooed on their foreheads) don't drive around in stolen cars full of weapons.
Illegal arms dealers have mules transport their weapons ... often times the guns are disassembled and allocated to several different vehicles to transport. (that's how they do it in the UK - oh - or is the IRA not supposed to have weapons?) Many mules are recruited from people with clean or almost clean records - payed a couple hundred bucks to drive from one place to another without any moving violations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I've also heard rumors that rewards for information about illegal gun sales will be announced within the next few months, making squeeling a very profitable and fesable action.
|
"feasable"?
I gotta tell you something. Rewards, as a rule, don't work ... not with drugs, the war on terror etc. If someone's in a position to know - even an anonymous tip is a death sentence. If you think drug smugglers are dangerous you have no idea how much worse gunrunners are.
I know a few things about organized crime, particularly in the state of California, and some of the gangs have histories dating back to the 1950s and developed remarkably sophisticated structures (frequently modeled after military heiarchy) and many with written constitutions and code of ethics. "Gang" life as depicted on
TV is the lowest level ... they are just the foot soldiers and have no power, knowledge or importance.
One thing I can say
for a fact is that the highest level is rooted in big business ... mostly the entertainment industry. That part is, unfortunately,
not a myth because most of the links are known. I have met some of the leaders - they don't look or act anything like what you might expect.
Mark my words ... if (God forbid) guns saw an honest ban ... you'll see more criminal activity, more crime and more killing than ever. Just try to stop trafficking over the border or across state lines (e.g. Nevada).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The city of San Francisco is taking every step possible to avoid a repeat of what happened in Washington D.C. As I've stated before, San Francisco already has one advantage over D.C.: it is not right next door to a county that has extrtemly lax gun laws.
|
We're near Nevada. Trafficking isn't about a 30 minute drive - it's big business ... a day or two on the road is no different. Especially if you're from California.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The gun ban will, only if successful, begin and end with firearms. Even an expert marksman with a bow or crossbow cannot match someone with a gun.
|
I don't understand your point. Nobody is saying that a knife is equivalent to a gun. The fact that a gun doesn't require physical strength or martial arts training to be effective is what makes it an equalizer between a victim and a criminal.
Let me make this clear. Let's assume that all guns were successfully banned and, by some miracle, they were eradicated from the state completely.
1.) Is a violent criminal or sex offender going to say, "I can't get a gun now. I guess I can't commit crime now."?
2.) If someone was seriously threatening me or a family member with a knife or baseball bat (when I did Emergency Dept work back east these were popular weapons - on our progress notes we wrote "HIHBBB" for "hit in head by baseball bat" )... how should I defend myself or them? Am I expected to get in a knife fight with a violent home invader? Have you ever seen a knife fight? I have. I have seen and treated people who were cut up to pieces - the only winner of a knife fight is the one who is still alive even after being sliced all over their arms, neck, had their lungs punctured .... I'd rather have a gun.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I am not against extreemly harsh sentences (ironically, I would support cainings and such as punitive measures in dealing with perpetraitors of violent crimes), in fact I believe that our justice and correctional systems are lax at best and broken at worst.
|
what are you going to do about it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Unfortunately, with the privitization of much of the corrctional system, a change in the status quo would be all but impossible. I hope that someday corporations realize that profit today, can sometimes mean trouble tomorrow. Foresight is the greatest ability for any organizaion or individual.
|
Please elaborate on this idea because I don't know what you're trying to say specifically.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The primary defensive use of a gun is not to deflect an attack, but to counter it.
|
The purpose of a gun in "defense" is to stop an imminent threat ... note the operative words in that description. Regardless of whether you call it "defense" or "offense" is a pointless exercise in semantics. The use of the term "defense" refers to the relevent scenario ... it does NOT refer to the physical mechanisms of operation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
As I stated in the other thread, why buy a weapon instead of taking truely defensive measures? I have security doors on my house. I have triple pain glass which is more difficult to break. I lock the doors every night before I go to sleep. I even considered getting an alarm installed. Guns are hardly the only choice of someone wishing to defend his or her family.
|
No more straw man, please.
By your rationale, since I have car insurance and life insurance ... I wouldn't need a seatbelt, right?
The gun does not replace the necessity of basic preventative measures. Nor do preventative measures replace the function of a gun in self-defense. I'm not saying that you, in particular, need a gun. But it's not your business to tell me I don't need one.