Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazryonh
The problem I see there is that the government tried to contain the potential damage panicked and/or ill-informed people could have caused with their firearms by firearms confiscation, but failed to back that up by sending enough police/military troops to secure the area (by no means their only failure in that disaster). Assuming your story is true, your father saw one of the benefits of that bungled policy; the would-be rapists were not armed with their own firearms.
|
Yeah, this was before any kind confiscation took place, so it had nothing to do with the thugs being armed only with machetes. Even then, the confiscation only targeted lawfully armed citizens, having little-to-no effect on the amount of firearms that the local criminal element possessed. It's just plain fact that most of the roving gangs were armed with things like machetes and blunt objects before and after any firearms were confiscated, and that all confiscation did was severely harm the ability of the populace to defend themselves against said roving gangs and others who decided to use the disaster as an opportunity to prey upon their neighbors.
The confiscation of civilian owned firearms WAS NOT intended to make anyone safer, it was just an excuse to get away with taking away normal folks' guns, of which very few (if any) were returned to their rightful owners afterwards, with those owners not receiving any kind of compensation whatsoever for the property UNLAWFULLY SEIZED from them by the state.