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

[Deaf Smith]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080607.STAB07/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Ontario/

On the knife's edges.

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

""All those things we're doing to decrease firearm weapons is cutting down the availability of these guns," says Staff Inspector Brian Raybould, the head of the Toronto police homicide squad. "At the same time, criminals who choose to arm themselves have to find some way to do it. If firearms aren't available, what's the next best thing? Knives, sharp-edged weapons."

.....

Toronto police responded to 167 stabbings up to the end of April, 2008 - in 73 of those cases, the victims were taken to hospital in serious condition. That's up from 58 by April last year.

Still, overall homicide rates - by any method - for Toronto and its suburbs are roughly the same so far this year as they were last year.

.....

In Britain, where Robert Knox, 18, who played schoolmate Marcus Belby in the Harry Potter movies, was stabbed to death with a wood-handled kitchen knife outside a pub last month, it is illegal to carry any knife longer than 7.62 centimetres. It is also illegal to sell a knife of any kind to someone under 18.

Yet stabbings have become an epidemic in Britain. Mr. Knox and more than 30 others died at knifepoint in the first five months of this year. The deaths are just a few of the 100-plus stabbings seen in the country since January, and police say most are committed by young men in their teens or early 20s.

Some experts point to Britain's strict gun laws to explain the surge in violent knifings. It's called the substitution effect, says Jack Levin, co-director of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern University in Boston.

He has been watching the "fewer guns, more knives" phenomenon for years in the United States."

 

[kidswarrior]

Some experts point to Britain's strict gun laws to explain the surge in violent knifings. It's called the substitution effect, says Jack Levin, co-director of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern University in Boston.

He has been watching the "fewer guns, more knives" phenomenon for years in the United States."

Well, this is good news for us cane-as-weapon enthusiasts. Against a gun, a cane is, well...iffy. Against a blade--other than an ambush attack--I feel the odds are much better. And the defender probably doesn't have to be real subtle about how much damage is done, since the courts are likely to see the cane as much more benign than the attacker's knife. Imho, anyway.

 

[KenpoTex]

Well, this is good news for us cane-as-weapon enthusiasts. Against a gun, a cane is, well...iffy. Against a blade--other than an ambush attack--I feel the odds are much better. And the defender probably doesn't have to be real subtle about how much damage is done, since the courts are likely to see the cane as much more benign than the attacker's knife. Imho, anyway.

On the other hand, it the UK, it seems that you often get prosecuted regardless of whether you were right or wrong. just sayin...

 

[Brian S]

Sorry for the law abiding Canadians. The criminals don't get weapons legally.
I wonder when people will stop blaming inanimate objects for crimes?

 

[Ahriman]

"I wonder when people will stop blaming inanimate objects for crimes?"
Lets see... maybe... hmmm... never? I wonder what they'll do if someone commits a few crimes with, say, a hammer. Or a damned metal pipe.

 

[Tez3]

On the other hand, it the UK, it seems that you often get prosecuted regardless of whether you were right or wrong. just sayin...

Care to substantiate that rather hefty allegation?

 

[KenpoTex]

a couple results from a brief search...

A shopkeeper has been fined £250 and given a criminal record because he fought back when he was attacked by shoplifters.

...The court was told that Mr Smyth, a father of three, caught the youths stealing the spray cans in October last year. Two of them turned on him and he was kicked in his groin just weeks after a vasectomy operation. He retaliated and punched 18-year-old Craig Spiller to the ground

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2008072.ece

A farmer who opened fire on two burglars who broke into his remote farmhouse has been found guilty of murder.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/717511.stm

 

[Deaf Smith]

"I wonder when people will stop blaming inanimate objects for crimes?"
Lets see... maybe... hmmm... never? I wonder what they'll do if someone commits a few crimes with, say, a hammer. Or a damned metal pipe.

Cain killed Able with a rock. Now how are the liberals gonna register or ban rocks?

People have killed and robbed since the beginning of time. It's in the nature of man. Might as well ban mankind.

All the liberals are doing is trying to limit the damage. They have no answers. Never did. They just think if you ban enough objects, everone will settle down and be nice (yea, that happens in prison's right?) But instead, people prone to crime just gravitate to other weapons.

Murder is murder, wither committed with a gun, knife, club, cane, hands-n-feet, fire poker, vase, electric cord, car, beer bottle, etc.... There is no 'gun crime' or 'knife crime' or 'insert-weapon-of-choice' crime.

'Gun crime' is lie! Simply a liberal lie.

Deaf

 

[chinto]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080607.STAB07/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Ontario/

On the knife's edges.

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

""All those things we're doing to decrease firearm weapons is cutting down the availability of these guns," says Staff Inspector Brian Raybould, the head of the Toronto police homicide squad. "At the same time, criminals who choose to arm themselves have to find some way to do it. If firearms aren't available, what's the next best thing? Knives, sharp-edged weapons."

.....

Toronto police responded to 167 stabbings up to the end of April, 2008 - in 73 of those cases, the victims were taken to hospital in serious condition. That's up from 58 by April last year.

Still, overall homicide rates - by any method - for Toronto and its suburbs are roughly the same so far this year as they were last year.

.....

In Britain, where Robert Knox, 18, who played schoolmate Marcus Belby in the Harry Potter movies, was stabbed to death with a wood-handled kitchen knife outside a pub last month, it is illegal to carry any knife longer than 7.62 centimetres. It is also illegal to sell a knife of any kind to someone under 18.

Yet stabbings have become an epidemic in Britain. Mr. Knox and more than 30 others died at knifepoint in the first five months of this year. The deaths are just a few of the 100-plus stabbings seen in the country since January, and police say most are committed by young men in their teens or early 20s.

Some experts point to Britain's strict gun laws to explain the surge in violent knifings. It's called the substitution effect, says Jack Levin, co-director of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern University in Boston.

He has been watching the "fewer guns, more knives" phenomenon for years in the United States."

DOH!! You mean that weapons/arms control laws don't work and never have in history??!!? DOH!!

my god I wish the bureaucrats and lawmakers around the world would please open a good history book before making some of these stupid laws they have!

weapons control laws have never worked any where ever!! guns are remarkably easy to make.. they have been made in prisons!! same for knives and clubs. I am not surprised at all that the murder rate is the same as before a ban on any or all weapons! They seem to forget the old truism of : "The only deadly weapon known to all of man kind is between your ears, and its the most deadly weapon known to man if its loaded!!" weapons do not kill, the hard heart and lethal intent of an individual kill!

 

[cfr]

I agree that weapons bans will never eliminate murder altogether, but think it's a weak arguement to not have weapons laws. Based on this logic, it should not be illegal for private citizens to have grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic weapons, bombs, etc. People will always find a way to kill of course, but would we really want to make it easy for them by enabling them to by purchasing these items at Wal Mart?

Don't you think homicide rate would go up if all of these things were legal? Sure if someone wants to kill bad enough they'll find anything. But theres also a crowd that would be willing to kill, but only from a distance. They would have the stones pull the trigger of an AK47 doing a drive by, but not to walk up and stab someone. I think thats what these laws are geared towards.

BTW, happy to say I don't fall into the liberal crowd that's been referenced here, as I'm a republican.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, this is good news for us cane-as-weapon enthusiasts. Against a gun, a cane is, well...iffy. Against a blade--other than an ambush attack--I feel the odds are much better. And the defender probably doesn't have to be real subtle about how much damage is done, since the courts are likely to see the cane as much more benign than the attacker's knife. Imho, anyway.

Good luck defending yourself against 10 skinheads with a cane. Now a GLOCK....that's a winning defense.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I agree that weapons bans will never eliminate murder altogether, but think it's a weak arguement to not have weapons laws. Based on this logic, it should not be illegal for private citizens to have grenades, rocket launchers, fully automatic weapons, bombs, etc. People will always find a way to kill of course, but would we really want to make it easy for them by enabling them to by purchasing these items at Wal Mart?

Don't you think homicide rate would go up if all of these things were legal? Sure if someone wants to kill bad enough they'll find anything. But theres also a crowd that would be willing to kill, but only from a distance. They would have the stones pull the trigger of an AK47 doing a drive by, but not to walk up and stab someone. I think thats what these laws are geared towards.

BTW, happy to say I don't fall into the liberal crowd that's been referenced here, as I'm a republican.

Actually, the contrary is true......the legal gun ownership rate where I grew is probably 5 guns per every man, woman and child.....and the murder rate is about one murder every decade or two. Using the 'more legal guns equals more violence' logic is a bust! The reality seems to be more LEGAL guns LESS VIOLENCE! Why? It's very simple, most people are GOOD and DECENT people.....ergo, more GUNS means more GUNS in the hands of GOOD people! Banning guns restricts guns to the hands of BAD people, and creates disproportionate POWER in the hands of BAD PEOPLE!

That is why the BASTIONS of liberal 'success' in gun control around America, i.e. Washington DC, Detroit, Balitimore, New Orleans, etc, etc, etc, are FREE FIRE ZONES! While places where the American citizens is trusted with his birthright as an armed populace AREN'T! Some folks have it all backwards, we do not have a 'gun problem' in America, we have a CRIMINAL PROBLEM!

One might also remember the case of Rwanda before discussing bad people having enough stones to stab the unarmed! 1/2 to 1 million people killed in literally HOURS by roving gangs of thugs MOSTLY armed with MACHETTES! Over Half a million people MOSTLY HACKED TO DEATH! Unarmed people, unable to defend themselves!

No, bad people have the stones to attack unarmed people at will.....but they seldom have the stones to tackle an ARMED and PREPARED target.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sorry for the law abiding Canadians. The criminals don't get weapons legally.
I wonder when people will stop blaming inanimate objects for crimes?

Well, it's easier to blame inanimate objects on the part of some people.....because those particular folks are loath to hold any individual criminal accountable.....keep in mind in THEIR worldview, the criminal is ALSO a 'victim'.

 

[kidswarrior]

Good luck defending yourself against 10 skinheads with a cane. Now a GLOCK....that's a winning defense.

Not if the skinheads have guns, too. While I get your point, 10 to one odds are going to be tough no matter what, if the mob is determined. And a mob which is that determined isn't going to worry about whether their weapon of choice is legal or not. Now admittedly, I'm thinking more of the urban area of California where I live, and the gangs I've come up against or may face in the future.

My response was itself a response to the knife being the new weapon of choice for street thugs.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

As regards the original post:

Seriously, what did they EXPECT would happen.

 

[cfr]

Actually, the contrary is true......the legal gun ownership rate where I grew is probably 5 guns per every man, woman and child.....and the murder rate is about one murder every decade or two. Using the 'more legal guns equals more violence' logic is a bust! The reality seems to be more LEGAL guns LESS VIOLENCE! Why? It's very simple, most people are GOOD and DECENT people.....ergo, more GUNS means more GUNS in the hands of GOOD people! Banning guns restricts guns to the hands of BAD people, and creates disproportionate POWER in the hands of BAD PEOPLE!

That is why the BASTIONS of liberal 'success' in gun control around America, i.e. Washington DC, Detroit, Balitimore, New Orleans, etc, etc, etc, are FREE FIRE ZONES! While places where the American citizens is trusted with his birthright as an armed populace AREN'T! Some folks have it all backwards, we do not have a 'gun problem' in America, we have a CRIMINAL PROBLEM!

One might also remember the case of Rwanda before discussing bad people having enough stones to stab the unarmed! 1/2 to 1 million people killed in literally HOURS by roving gangs of thugs MOSTLY armed with MACHETTES! Over Half a million people MOSTLY HACKED TO DEATH! Unarmed people, unable to defend themselves!

No, bad people have the stones to attack unarmed people at will.....but they seldom have the stones to tackle an ARMED and PREPARED target.

5 leagal guns per person typically also means an area with a low poverty rate, which is where most violent crimes occur. Typically people in extreme poverty don't have the $$$ for 5 legal guns. I also am in no way saying we should have more gun control, as I agree that more armed good guys would = less bad things happening to them. In fact, I think incedents like Virginia Tech may have ended much sooner had someone there been carrying a gun.

However, this article references a crackdown on guns for criminals, not legal guns. Rwanda probably had the outcome it did because there wasn't enough military presence there that could defeat the machette weilding assailants.

 

[sgtmac_46]

5 leagal guns per person typically also means an area with a low poverty rate, which is where most violent crimes occur. Typically people in extreme poverty don't have the $$$ for 5 legal guns. I also am in no way saying we should have more gun control, as I agree that more armed good guys would = less bad things happening to them. In fact, I think incedents like Virginia Tech may have ended much sooner had someone there been carrying a gun.

Several incidences nearly identical to Virginia Tech WERE ended by armed citizens....in fact, two years before at another college in Virginia an armed student and two others stopped a similar incident with a gun. In another incident a principal, who by law and school rule was not able to keep a gun in his car in the parking lot, had parked his car off school property ran to the car and retrieved a 1911 handgun, whereupon he returned to the school and stopped the violence by putting the gun to the student-gunman's head and tell him to drop his weapon. In another incident an armed store owner heard gunfire, called the police, and then retrieved his shotgun and confronted and disarmed THAT school shooter!

As for poverty rates, rural poverty rates in rural America are actually the same, with sometimes HIGHER unemployment and LOWER per capita incomes than many urban areas, yet they STILL own several guns, and STILL have low violent crime rates. The dirty secret is that in America poverty is not a CAUSE of violence, it's a loose correlation, and legal firearms ownership rates have ZERO correlation! There is a far stronger correlation than either of those two to murder rates, but i'll save that for a far different discussion.

However, this article references a crackdown on guns for criminals, not legal guns. Rwanda probably had the outcome it did because there wasn't enough military presence there that could defeat the machette weilding assailants.

Hint: The perpetrators of the Rwandan massacre WERE THE MILITARY! In fact, during the 20th century ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more people have been killed unarmed at the hands of the state than by criminals and civilian gun violence.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Not if the skinheads have guns, too. While I get your point, 10 to one odds are going to be tough no matter what, if the mob is determined. And a mob which is that determined isn't going to worry about whether their weapon of choice is legal or not. Now admittedly, I'm thinking more of the urban area of California where I live, and the gangs I've come up against or may face in the future.

My response was itself a response to the knife being the new weapon of choice for street thugs.

Your odds are better fighting 10 armed men with one gun than fighting 10 men unarmed....that's a fact.

The gun is a lever, a tool.....it's a force multiply assuming you know how to use it. Historically, one well trained man with a gun has been able to fight off and hold at bay numbers FAR larger than himself. How many men did Audie Murphy kill by himself? Sergeant York? I doubt that they would have accomplished that unarmed even if their opponents were unarmed.

A gun is a LEVER! Also, the secret to dealing with ANY mob......is disruption of unit cohesion. Mob violence is rooted in the anonymity and safety of the group......once you takeaway that anonymity and safety, for example, but put bullets in individuals, most groups LOSE cohesion! The reality is that MOST gangs aren't made up of fearless LIONS! You have one or two lions, and a group of hanger on jackals and assorted wild dogs. Once the wild dogs and jackals feel their safety is compromised, they either scatter, at best, or at worst have a moment of disorientation that disrupts their OODA cycle!

The secret to overcoming larger numbers and superior forces is SPEED, SURPRISE and VIOLENCE OF ACTION!

My gun isn't a shield. I don't pull it out to ward off evil spirits or gang attacks. When confronted by gang violence, they'll know i'm armed when the first 2 or 3 are DEAD! Keep shooting while you have the initiative and keep hitting targets until they DROP or FLEE! 10 skin heads.....then 7......then 5.......reload and seek cover.....then 3.....repeat as needed!

 

[cfr]

Several incidences nearly identical to Virginia Tech WERE ended by armed citizens....in fact, two years before at another college in Virginia an armed student and two others stopped a similar incident with a gun. In another incident a principal, who by law and school rule was not able to keep a gun in his car in the parking lot, had parked his car off school property ran to the car and retrieved a 1911 handgun, whereupon he returned to the school and stopped the violence by putting the gun to the student-gunman's head and tell him to drop his weapon. In another incident an armed store owner heard gunfire, called the police, and then retrieved his shotgun and confronted and disarmed THAT school shooter!

Thats great! Looks like I was right with this sentence then, ehh?: "I also am in no way saying we should have more gun control, as I agree that more armed good guys would = less bad things happening to them."

As for poverty rates, rural poverty rates in rural America are actually the same, with sometimes HIGHER unemployment and LOWER per capita incomes than many urban areas, yet they STILL own several guns, and STILL have low violent crime rates. The dirty secret is that in America poverty is not a CAUSE of violence, it's a loose correlation, and legal firearms ownership rates have ZERO correlation! There is a far stronger correlation than either of those two to murder rates, but i'll save that for a far different discussion.

I was referring to urban areas. I'm not a cop, but I'd have to imagine they would rather face a group with knifes than I group with AK47's? I have no stats to back this up, just a hunch. I would also have to imagine that the families of innocent drive by victims would rather see people armed with knives than automatic weapons as well? Now this may change when drive by's start occuring with people throwing knives out of windows, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Hint: The perpetrators of the Rwandan massacre WERE THE MILITARY! In fact, during the 20th century ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more people have been killed unarmed at the hands of the state than by criminals and civilian gun violence.

Thanks for the hint, as I clearly mis-spoke here. I was referring to a lack of international military to stop the violence.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I was referring to urban areas. I'm not a cop, but I'd have to imagine they would rather face a group with knifes than I group with AK47's? I have no stats to back this up, just a hunch. I would also have to imagine that the families of innocent drive by victims would rather see people armed with knives than automatic weapons as well? Now this may change when drive by's start occuring with people throwing knives out of windows, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Since you have ZERO control over what THEY are armed with, the point is moot.

And since, as per my Rwanda point, it hardly matters that those folks weren't shot as opposed to being hacked to death.....in fact, the Rwandan death squads were actually charging people money for the bullets if they wanted to be shot to avoid being hacked to death.

Me, I don't rely on trying to control what the other guy does or does not have...I prefer to train and arm myself for as many eventualities as possible...that's a more practical solution.

Thanks for the hint, as I clearly mis-spoke here. I was referring to a lack of international military to stop the violence.

The lesson there is the same...if you really wish to rely on others to provide your safety and security, one of two things will result......

1) The 'other', in this case the UN, will fail you when you need them most.

2) The 'other' WILL be powerful enough and have the will to protect you...but will also have the will to enslave you, and you'll be a bondsman under their 'permanent' protection.

In short, it is the DUTY of a free people to DEFEND THEMSELVES! Those unwilling or unable to defend themselves by their own hand, will ALWAYS remains slaves to those stronger than themselves!