Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: uncharted on May 25, 2007, 07:42:35 PM
-
I just saw this on bbc.co.uk http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/6690771.stm
It's a little close to home for me. I grew up in that area, and have used that train station dozens of times. I even bought the monitor for my A1200 from the computer shop that's in the station building. The pub opposite is a favourite for my freinds and my family.
It's a really quiet little place, the last place you'd expect this to happen.
-
My sister, her husband and their 6 month old son live in Rayleigh. Very, very scary.
--
moto
-
Hope he pulls through and the guys are caught.
I was expecting this to be a US incident, or in London.
-
Someone was shot just round the corner from my house about a week ago. He probably deserved it though. Shootings are becoming common around here, hopefully the arseholes manage to wipe themselves out.
-
There have been about three fatal shootings within five minutes walk from here since 2001 :-/
-
Indeed, fatal shootings have been on the increase in the UK for quite some time now, despite the handgun ban in the 90s. It seems the criminals weren't told about the ban ;)
Whilst I hesitate to advocate the use of a firearm to protect a third party's money, I would have preferred it if the young man didn't have to resort to 'manual handling' to help the female security guard. He got shot and the robbers escaped. I wonder if the outcome would have been the same had he been allowed to carry a firearm himself.
In 2004 I had to watch two gunmen ride away on a motorcycle after shooting two people outside my hospital here in London. All I could do was give them a dirty look. I am quite confident that things would have been different if I had been armed.
But anyway, I hope the young man recovers. He is not out of the woods yet. He is on a HDU and may still face complications related to the surgery and the hospital stay. Of course he may have sustained permanent debilitating injuries as a result of this injury. I hope he hasn't, but I have seen it all too often.
-
X-ray wrote:
Indeed, fatal shootings have been on the increase in the UK for quite some time now, despite the handgun ban in the 90s. It seems the criminals weren't told about the ban ;)
No-one honestly thought that banning guns was going to stop criminals using them, the point of the ban was to prevent another Dunblane from ever happening again.
Whilst I hesitate to advocate the use of a firearm to protect a third party's money, I would have preferred it if the young man didn't have to resort to 'manual handling' to help the female security guard.
It isn't clear that he was aware that there were firearms involved. Remember, this was at the height of rush hour and a very large chunk of the local population use the station to commute to London. There were a lot of people there who weren't even aware of anything happening until shots were fired. He could of been intervening in what he thought was an unarmed scuffle.
He got shot and the robbers escaped. I wonder if the outcome would have been the same had he been allowed to carry a firearm himself.
Sorry, but this argument is guff. Who says that even if he was allowed to carry a weapon he would? Who says that the situation wouldn't of escalated because of him carrying a gun?
In 2004 I had to watch two gunmen ride away on a motorcycle after shooting two people outside my hospital here in London. All I could do was give them a dirty look. I am quite confident that things would have been different if I had been armed.
We all do it, I did when I heard this news. We all think what if... Given the chance to do something how we would handle it. But all it might do is put ourselves and others in even more danger.
-
Whilst I hesitate to advocate the use of a firearm to protect a third party's money, I would have preferred it if the young man didn't have to resort to 'manual handling' to help the female security guard. He got shot and the robbers escaped. I wonder if the outcome would have been the same had he been allowed to carry a firearm himself.
The outcome could have been an exchange of several shots between "the hero" and the "reckless, very dangerous" robbers who "appeared not to have any regard for human life", in the worst case killing innocent bystanders.
In 2004 I had to watch two gunmen ride away on a motorcycle after shooting two people outside my hospital here in London. All I could do was give them a dirty look. I am quite confident that things would have been different if I had been armed.
Probably. Like "the hero" above, you also might have gotten yourself and/or bystanders killed. I don't think pointing a gun at those guys after what they had done would have been a good idea. By taking lives they had just driven themselves into a corner and would not have hesitated to try taking down a lone gunslinger attempting to block their escape.
Trying to prevent the whole thing by showing them that you were present and armed might have had the exact same outcome, if they were really determined to kill specifically these two people. If it was a random act, someone armed suddenly interrupting could have made them panic and, again, open fire at your general direction.
I won't even pretend to know what your incident was actually like, but my point is, having a gun does not mean one can take control of a potentially dangerous situation. For some reason a lot of people seem to think so.
-
Karlos wrote:
There have been about three fatal shootings within five minutes walk from here since 2001 :-/
Five minutes..? Beat this: about three months ago my next door neighbour was shot at close range, and then stumbled/fell bleeding two stairs to the ground floor hallway, where he died shortly after. I can still see the cleaning stains on the pavement where the police scrubbed away his blood. The entire apartment (3 stories high) is now devoid of people: everyone moved out. My girlfriend heard his muffled cries, but when she came to me, puzzled about what she heard (there were two walls and about 3 m of air in between), asking me to come and verify, they had already died away. We weren't sure what to make of it until 10 minutes later, our front door was barricaded by very serious policemen. Our downstairs neighbour wasn't allowed back into his own house and had to sleep in a hotel. We had to lean out of the window to ask the police to allow us out of our house to go shopping.
Now for the really weird part. My GF spoke to her friends about this totally unexpected homicide. One of them has a friend who works at the 112-call department (that's the European 911), and that friend was the best friend of the man who was shot, and had to accept the call of his untimely and very unnatural demise.
Small world.
As of this day, we still don't know what the reason for the shooting was, and despite the wide-eyed shock reaction of many of my friends and family members, we have treated it as a fluke of statistics, and have not made any plans to move out early because of it. It did make me wonder about the fragility of human life a little, but all in all, it just... happened, and that was basically it. My mother still vehemently disagrees with me.
(Apart from that, there have been 3 Amsterdam mob shootings about five minutes' walk away from where I live. It's rather strange to know that a cafe on some street corner was run by a 'pal' of a local bigwig, now in prison for extortion.)
Somehow, I'm always reminded of Bruce {bleep}burn's If I Had A Rocket Launcher...
-
@ uncharted
"...No-one honestly thought that banning guns was going to stop criminals using them, the point of the ban was to prevent another Dunblane from ever happening again..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well then why didn't they just simply ban ALL firearms ten years earlier after the Hungerford massacre? Whether it is a massacre or not, all these shootings are unlawful and are therefore criminal acts. If you want to play the numbers game, I can tell you that more individuals have been shot dead in the last two years by unlicensed handgun owners than in both the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres combined. There is still the capacity today for a massacre. There isn't a complete ban on firearms, but there are limits on what you can carry.
"...It isn't clear that he was aware that there were firearms involved. Remember, this was at the height of rush hour and a very large chunk of the local population use the station to commute to London. There were a lot of people there who weren't even aware of anything happening until shots were fired. He could of been intervening in what he thought was an unarmed scuffle..."
----------------------------------------------------------
On that point you are right. We will have to see if he knew they were armed or not. However if they weren't armed, and he had been armed, the situation would have turned out a lot better for him, don't you think?
"...Sorry, but this argument is guff. Who says that even if he was allowed to carry a weapon he would? Who says that the situation wouldn't of escalated because of him carrying a gun?..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Whether he would have carried a gun or not, would indeed have been his choice, not the choice of the government (as it stands now). As it stands, he couldn't carry and therefore didn't carry, and the situation did indeed escalate because the criminal had the only gun in that fight.
"...We all do it, I did when I heard this news. We all think what if... Given the chance to do something how we would handle it. But all it might do is put ourselves and others in even more danger..."
------------------------------------------------------------
That comes down to being responsible. I assume this man has the same responsible attitude that I have towards guns, unless proven otherwise. You may be interested to know that in all the incidents where I have pulled a firearm (not here in the UK, obviously), it has resulted in the sparing of one or more individuals serious harm or death. The score is currently 3-0 in my favour (if you'll forgive the way I describe it). You don't just pull a gun for any little reason, even in South Africa. There are penalties for illegal pointing, even if you don't shoot. You are legally responsible for every round you fire. There have been times where I wanted to help somebody but couldn't, because tactically it was dangerous. In one such incident I had to watch a man being stabbed in the street in front of me. He was surrounded by about 20 yutes and I had no clear targets.
As I said in another thread, the current laws disarm the law-abiding citizen so that only the criminal has a gun. This means that the criminal has automatic superiority of force over you and me. This is a fundamental problem that has to be addressed before you ask whether a person would want to carry and want to draw, in the first place.
-
@ Nataline
"...The outcome could have been an exchange of several shots between "the hero" and the "reckless, very dangerous" robbers who "appeared not to have any regard for human life", in the worst case killing innocent bystanders..."
------------------------------------------------------------
That has happened whether a bystander has been armed or not. After the (unarmed) policeman was killed in Leeds in 2003 and his partner wounded, the gunman ran down the street indiscriminately firing at people. Recently a man did the same thing at a tube station and two people were shot. In the case I mentioned at my hospital in 2004, one of the victims was an unintended target of the assailants. It didn't matter whether I was armed or not, two people were shot, but criminally and one unintentionally. If your argument carried any merit, the statistics from SA and USA would support it. How many times do you hear of innocent bystanders shot by police?
"...Probably. Like "the hero" above, you also might have gotten yourself and/or bystanders killed. I don't think pointing a gun at those guys after what they had done would have been a good idea. By taking lives they had just driven themselves into a corner and would not have hesitated to try taking down a lone gunslinger attempting to block their escape..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
That depends on the situation. I made the statement that things would have been better all round if I was armed, because I am aware of all the facts of the case. I wasn't blocking their path at all, and wouldn't try to do so even if I was armed. I had a vantage point on a balcony and I had the tactical advantage of cover and a stable firing platform. They did not. They were on a moving motorcycle and I would have had a clear shot. If they had fired on me, that would have been the risk I took. People had already been shot, there was nothing left to lose.
"...I won't even pretend to know what your incident was actually like, but my point is, having a gun does not mean one can take control of a potentially dangerous situation. For some reason a lot of people seem to think so..."
------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, you don't just pull a gun because you have it. You've got to think about what you are doing, both from a tactical point of view and a legal standpoint.
-
X-ray wrote:
As I said in another thread, the current laws disarm the law-abiding citizen so that only the criminal has a gun. This means that the criminal has automatic superiority of force over you and me. This is a fundamental problem that has to be addressed before you ask whether a person would want to carry and want to draw, in the first place.
I remember bringing home two pictures from the hotel I stayed at while I was in Cape Town (SA, of course) about 7 years ago. They were pictures of the entrance, and were, apart from the season (foliage) the same. They were shot within one year of eachother. The only difference: a little metal plate with the picture of a security company on it and the ominous words Armed Response underneath. I doubt things have improved much since I was there.
In any society, someone who does not abide by the law will always have an advantage over the rest. That is correct, and cannot be adequately addressed. We make do with police and law, but that's always after the fact. On the other hand, if we just give in to some right of defending ourselves or others with the use of firearms, trusting that people will act responsibly, I am at the mercy of idiots who begin 'playing' with such hardware because it's 'cool' or 'phat'. I'm also at the mercy of people I don't trust to pour piss out of a boot even if the instructions are on the sole to make judgement calls in difficult situations---roughly about 99% of the general population. Even simple arguments like making errors in traffic can spiral wildly out of control if some party is agitated and not in a state to think properly. (Here in the Netherlands a current hot issue is bodily harm of paramedical personnel. Apparently, at times the bystanders (usually family) are so high on adrenalin that they become very agressive if the paramedics don't do as they expect them to do. Now imagine someone like that carrying a gun.)
I'm not even sure I would be able to make the right judgement call, much less have the nerve to actually pull the trigger with the intent to incapacitate another human being. A rabid idiot of a human being intent on harming me quite badly, I fully realise, but even then.
I have the luxury of living in a country where firearm deaths for 'innocent' bystanders---i.e., not related to fights between criminals themselves---is relatively low. I'll take my chances of becoming an innocent bystander, allow the criminals access to guns, and live with the consequences. I'm more scared of the general population having access to firearms than I am of a criminal acquiring one and threatening me with it. In other words, a variation on 'nasty things happen to other people'.
By the way, X-ray, while I in some way applaud your courage for actually drawing and preparing to use a firearm, realise that your 'score' of 3 to 0 means bovine excrement: all it takes is for that 0 to become a 1 by meeting someone who is prepared to call your bluff. Of course, you may feel happier that you at least, if you'll pardon the pun, gave it a shot.
-
I haven't experienced the 'phat' or 'cool' angle of some idiot producing a firearm. I think that might be the province of the rap music video. The reality is that a licensed firearm carries with it several legal responsibilities and this is taken to heart by the majority of licensed gun owners. The same applies to vehicles and drivers.
I think we fundamentally disagree on the issue of bearing arms. I prefer to entrust my defense to myself, rather than leave it to the whims of Lady Luck.
"...By the way, X-ray, while I in some way applaud your courage for actually drawing and preparing to use a firearm, realise that your 'score' of 3 to 0 means bovine excrement: all it takes is for that 0 to become a 1 by meeting someone who is prepared to call your bluff. Of course, you may feel happier that you at least, if you'll pardon the pun, gave it a shot...."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Well, the three individuals I saved (one of which is myself ;-) ) attach a slightly more favourable interpretation to that score than 'bovine excrement.' Of course, the criminals involved are probably attaching the quality of equestrian excrement to the fact that I was armed on those occasions.
Certainly, without that firearm I might not be here to post at all. 3-0 is certainly better than 0-1.
-
X-ray wrote:
@ Nataline
"...The outcome could have been an exchange of several shots between "the hero" and the "reckless, very dangerous" robbers who "appeared not to have any regard for human life", in the worst case killing innocent bystanders..."
------------------------------------------------------------
That has happened whether a bystander has been armed or not. After the (unarmed) policeman was killed in Leeds in 2003 and his partner wounded, the gunman ran down the street indiscriminately firing at people. Recently a man did the same thing at a tube station and two people were shot. In the case I mentioned at my hospital in 2004, one of the victims was an unintended target of the assailants. It didn't matter whether I was armed or not, two people were shot, but criminally and one unintentionally. If your argument carried any merit, the statistics from SA and USA would support it. How many times do you hear of innocent bystanders shot by police?
Eh?
"If your argument etc"
My ...what? You wondered if the outcome would have changed had the victim been armed, I gave a worst case scenario. I'm honestly confused, what was my argument again? :-? And... "statistics"..? (Uh, maybe the fact that it's already 4.30 a.m. here has something to do with my not comprehending your paragraph.. :crazy:)
"[...] might have gotten [...] killed."
-----------------------------------------------------------
That depends on the situation. I made the statement that things would have been better all round if I was armed, because I am aware of all the facts of the case. [...] and I would have had a clear shot. [...] If they had fired on me, that would have been the risk I took. People had already been shot, there was nothing left to lose.
What? I can't be reading this one right either.. Are you trying to say you would have shot at the already fleeing gunmen? What on earth for?
Or do you mean you would have fired upon them before they managed to shoot at anyone? A "pre-emptive strike" would make you the criminal, so probably not..
Between their killings, then? Or when they had killed twice but it wasn't yet apparent that they were going to stop there? Does the law there give you the right to make such a decision, i.e. "I think they will shoot again, so I must shoot them"? It bloody well doesn't here, that's for the police to decide and act upon.
Oh, and "If they had fired on me, that would have been the risk I took. People had already been shot, there was nothing left to lose." sounds just terrible to me. Had you fired at them, you would have taken the risk of them firing, period. I mean, in any given situation you cannot be aware of all the circumstances, including the exact whereabouts and intentions of those pesky 'innocent bystanders' that seem to pop up everywhere. Well, at least in my arguments they do, and this one is an argument - one against provoking further gunfire in any situation.
EDIT: Please note that all of the above should be "heard" in a conversational tone, not in an agitated one - that "bloody well" included. I might disagree with you, but I still don't feel like I'm arguing with a gun crazed maniac. For some reason my own words seemed a bit sharper than intended now that I've read them after actually submitting the post. :roll:
-
@X-ray
A brief comment on this one:
X-ray wrote @ Cymric:
I think we fundamentally disagree on the issue of bearing arms. I prefer to entrust my defense to myself, rather than leave it to the whims of Lady Luck.
I likewise fundamentally disagree with you on this issue, mainly because I just can't think of the type of armament in question as "defensive". I do understand the concept of trying to use such a weapon defensively, I just think it's offensive capability is much too high if the weapon is indeed meant to be used in defense only.
-
X-ray wrote:
I haven't experienced the 'phat' or 'cool' angle of some idiot producing a firearm. I think that might be the province of the rap music video. The reality is that a licensed firearm carries with it several legal responsibilities and this is taken to heart by the majority of licensed gun owners. The same applies to vehicles and drivers.
Yet there are always people who drive while drunk, exhibit annoying behaviour like clinging to your rear bumper, speed excessively, 'follow' you when they think you've done something to annoy them, and so forth. That's not acting responsibly.
I think we fundamentally disagree on the issue of bearing arms. I prefer to entrust my defense to myself, rather than leave it to the whims of Lady Luck.
Indeed. That's why in civilised states we have democracy so we can vote on the issue. Were I born and bred in South Africa, my views on the matter would almost certainly be quite different. I didn't point out for nothing that I have the luxury of living in a quiet little corner of the world.
Well, the three individuals I saved (one of which is myself ;-) ) attach a slightly more favourable interpretation to that score than 'bovine excrement.' Of course, the criminals involved are probably attaching the quality of equestrian excrement to the fact that I was armed on those occasions. Certainly, without that firearm I might not be here to post at all. 3-0 is certainly better than 0-1.
My apologies, I could have phrased that better. My defense: it was 2 AM. What I meant was that each time you decide to pull your weapon, the score is reset to 0-0. Situations are not comparable, the people are not comparable. The fact that you survived three tight spot is not a guarantee that you will survive the 4th, 5th, nth. 3 times 1-0 is certainly better than 1 time 0-1, I cannot argue with that. Just don't get overconfident because of that somewhat alluring and not-quite-statistically-correct 3, is all I'm sayin'.
-
@ Cymric
"...Yet there are always people who drive while drunk, exhibit annoying behaviour like clinging to your rear bumper, speed excessively, 'follow' you when they think you've done something to annoy them, and so forth. That's not acting responsibly..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
That's my point exactly, do you therefore boycott all forms of motorised transport because a small percentage of motorists are irresponsible? I say small, but as you know fatalities and accidents involving the reckless or irresponsible use of vehicles far outnumber those caused by firearms, even in a country where guns can carried for defense. Perhaps we should push for the confiscation of vehicles and only ride bicycles?
"...Indeed. That's why in civilised states we have democracy so we can vote on the issue. Were I born and bred in South Africa, my views on the matter would almost certainly be quite different. I didn't point out for nothing that I have the luxury of living in a quiet little corner of the world..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
I understand your difference in opinion, yes.
"...My apologies, I could have phrased that better. My defense: it was 2 AM. What I meant was that each time you decide to pull your weapon, the score is reset to 0-0. Situations are not comparable, the people are not comparable. The fact that you survived three tight spot is not a guarantee that you will survive the 4th, 5th, nth. 3 times 1-0 is certainly better than 1 time 0-1, I cannot argue with that. Just don't get overconfident because of that somewhat alluring and not-quite-statistically-correct 3, is all I'm sayin'..."
------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that too. This isn't a video game. My view is that I rendered some pretty essential assistance in those cases, and the people involved were grateful for that assistance. It is no light moment to draw a firearm. I am very reluctant to do it. But I am firmly of the belief that it is better to have a firearm and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
-
X-ray wrote:
Perhaps we should push for the confiscation of vehicles and only ride bicycles?
Not a bad idea, actually. For starters, it would work miracles on the general health of the population; it would vastly improve the air quality in cities; it would reduce serious traffic accidents to minimum (although we'd see a lot more severe head injury and nasty abrasions affectionately referred to as tarmac rash); we can finally spend all that money on proper public transport and proper bicycle lanes with tarmac instead of stone tiles which always turn the road into an obstacle course for an MTB after a few years; we'd get windtunnels with favourable wind direction to help get us from city to city; a lot less CO2 in the atmosphere, and because of the reduced dependency on oil, more stable geopolitics; ... .
I suspect a major global conspiracy as to the cause why we haven't gotten rid of this stinking smelly cow yet :-P .
-
Well then why didn't they just simply ban ALL firearms ten years earlier after the Hungerford massacre?
Because it took something as completely sick as the slaughter of 16 innocent children and their teacher before the Government would act. Dunblane was considered more appalling by the establishment than Hungerford. That is why. Also something like Dunblane was required to give the government the reason it needed to get such a law past gun nuts and rabid right.
If you want to play the numbers game, I can tell you that more individuals have been shot dead in the last two years by unlicensed handgun owners than in both the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres combined.
I'm not playing the numbers game. I don't want anyone killed by guns. Dunblane was a turning point not because of the numbers but because of what happened. The changes to the gun laws helped reduce the risk of it ever happening again.
However if they weren't armed, and he had been armed, the situation would have turned out a lot better for him, don't you think?
Rather flawed logic there. If they were unarmed then he wouldn't of been shot regardless of whether he was carrying a gun or not. If it was legal to own carry guns, then it would just make it far more likely that they would have been armed, perhaps even armed with more powerful weapons. It's all speculation. But the chances of him actually carrying a weapon are still very very very very small.
Whether he would have carried a gun or not, would indeed have been his choice, not the choice of the government (as it stands now).
What difference would it make? Aside from theoretical discussion, about gun laws - none.
I can tell you now, I know that area, I know the kinds of people who live there. The guy would not have been carrying a gun, laws or no laws. What you don't seem to realise is that the change in law meant dick for the majority of the population, most did not own a gun or intend to own a gun. This is the UK not the SA war-zone.
As it stands, he couldn't carry and therefore didn't carry,
Your whole argument is based on the idea that if the law allowed, he would have been not only armed but proficient in handling that firearm and most incredibly because of those two point the situation would only have possibly had a positive outcome.
and the situation did indeed escalate because the criminal had the only gun in that fight.
Do you understand what escalate means? If the guys had no problem firing at an unarmed man, what do you think they would have done when confronted with someone threatening them with a weapon. What was only 2 shots could have turned into a gun battle.
As I said in another thread, the current laws disarm the law-abiding citizen so that only the criminal has a gun. This means that the criminal has automatic superiority of force over you and me. This is a fundamental problem that has to be addressed before you ask whether a person would want to carry and want to draw, in the first place.
Such a black and white view of the world never gets you anywhere. Criminals will always have an upper hand if only because of their disregard of the law. A guy with a gun who has no regard for human life or the consequences vs. a guy with a gun worrying about the ramifications of his/her actions. Who has the upper hand? A criminal with a knife or a cricket bat has an automatic superiority of force over me.
What about a guy for all outward appearances is a good law-abiding citizen, then one days snaps on the train and kills people on the train home from work with the gun he has been responsibly carrying for years?
Perhaps we should push for the confiscation of vehicles and only ride bicycles?
That old chestnut? Anything can be used as a weapon, knives, screwdrivers, cars. But here's the thing - they're not designed for that, they have other purposes. Guns are weapons, designed to cause as much harm/damage as possible. You can't use a gun to prepare vegetables for dinner, to put up shelves or go to the supermarket. There is no need for people to have guns.
No offence, but a lot of this sounds like Johnny Big-Balls type talk.
-
You can't use a gun to prepare vegetables for dinner, to put up shelves or go to the supermarket.
Probably handy for those occasions when you are in a rush and really want to jump the queue at the checkout though. I dare say the teller would give you a 100% discount too...
-edit-
Seriously though, I agree. I really do not see relaxing the gun laws actually helping in any way whatsoever. Criminals automatically have the upper hand in that they would simply get (illegally) whatever force multiplier they need to gain the upper hand over whatever resistance they feel they are likely to face.
Law abiding Mr Smith and his handgun and conscience is not going to win any confrontation with Mr Criminal, lack of conscience, illegally armed with a machine pistol of some description.
Hypothetically speaking, in such a situation our erstwhile X-Ray would likely be in the morgue whilst the pathologist counts the number of entrance and exit wounds on his body. Along with whoever was stood near him when the situation escalated to the point where the burst of rapid fire erupted in his general direction.
-
@ uncharted
"...Rather flawed logic there. If they were unarmed then he wouldn't of been shot regardless of whether he was carrying a gun or not..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
It's wouldn't HAVE, not wouldn't OF ;)
Well, there were two assailants so whether he wouldn't have sustained equally serious injuries if there were no guns in the incident, is a matter of speculation. People don't die only from gunshot wounds. They die from stab wounds and blunt injuries too. A guy was beaten to death on my street corner, and another was stabbed several times in the shop up the road. Even if he hasn't got a gun he can kill you.
"...If it was legal to own carry guns, then it would just make it far more likely that they would have been armed..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Well, it ISN'T legal to carry guns, and they WERE armed, and he DID get shot, so I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Could it be that the criminals just wanted superiority of force, no matter what the innocent guy had? It seems like it to me.
"...perhaps even armed with more powerful weapons..."
-------------------------------------------------------
See my response to Karlos below.
"...What difference would it make? Aside from theoretical discussion, about gun laws - none.
I can tell you now, I know that area, I know the kinds of people who live there. The guy would not have been carrying a gun, laws or no laws. What you don't seem to realise is that the change in law meant dick for the majority of the population, most did not own a gun or intend to own a gun. This is the UK not the SA war-zone..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but you don't speak for the whole of the UK, and unless you know that guy, you don't speak for him either. He clearly wanted to help the guard, that's what we do know. He ended up being overpowered by a criminal with a gun. As for the war-zone dig: in the accident and emergency department we have a slightly more realistic view of what goes on than you do. I don't blame you for being ignorant, but I must point out that on this subject matter, you are. There is a lot of crime here in the UK and a lot of victims of crime. Maybe you should come down to the trauma unit one day and catch some enlightenment.
"...Your whole argument is based on the idea that if the law allowed, he would have been not only armed but proficient in handling that firearm and most incredibly because of those two point the situation would only have possibly had a positive outcome..."
--------------------------------------------------------
We don't know whether he would have carried, if he was allowed. I suspect he has some kind of interest in civic responsibility, as he intervened in the first place. The other thing that you aren't aware of is what it takes to get a firearm certificate (even if it is for target shooting). You have to demonstrate, over 13 consecutive weeks, that you are capable of safely handling that firearm and that you can put shots on target. It is not only about safety, but sponsorship by the club secretary upon application for that license. Most of the club members are actively involved in competitions and have a great support team for the proper maintenance and ammunition selection for any particular firearm. Certainly all the members at my club were proficient with a wide variety of handguns before the ban came into place. The same applies to South Africans and Americans.
"...Do you understand what escalate means? If the guys had no problem firing at an unarmed man, what do you think they would have done when confronted with someone threatening them with a weapon..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
They would have fired on him, just the same. What is your point? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why they fired on him, when they outnumbered him two to one, and he had no gun? They didn't fire on the girl, but fired on him. That's escalation. How dastardly of them to escalate the situation like that when the guy had no gun. It's just not cricket, is it? They shot him anyway, a fact that you seem to have difficulty taking on board. I would like to see you negotiate with the guy:
'See here, my good man, I am frightfully concerned about your treatment of this young lady here. I would like to offer my strongest objection and demand that you desist immediately. Please note that I am not carrying a firearm (as you can see) so would you be an awfully good sport and engage in some jolly good fisticuffs so that we may settle this like gentlemen?'
"...What was only 2 shots could have turned into a gun battle..."
----------------------------------------------------------
You need to abandon your Hollywood/Playstation speculation and try to rationalise this according to real world events. Innocent bystanders are being shot ALREADY, even when the guy the criminals are shooting at, hasn't got a gun. I've seen it many many times, both here and in SA. It doesn't make a difference. If he wants to have you, he'll shoot you.
"...Such a black and white view of the world never gets you anywhere. Criminals will always have an upper hand if only because of their disregard of the law. A guy with a gun who has no regard for human life or the consequences vs. a guy with a gun worrying about the ramifications of his/her actions. Who has the upper hand? A criminal with a knife or a cricket bat has an automatic superiority of force over me..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rubbish. They don't always have the upper hand simply because they are criminals. I haven't heard such misinformed tripe in all my life. If that was the case the police would never be able to apprehend them. Armed law-abiding citizens would be slaughtered by the thousands and no criminals would be killed at all. It seems to me like you need to read police reports and forensic texts before taking up the mantle of gun crime pundit in this thread. At least I have a clue, having earned it by doing years of research into the subject.
"...What about a guy for all outward appearances is a good law-abiding citizen, then one days snaps on the train and kills people on the train home from work with the gun he has been responsibly carrying for years?..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
What, like Michael Douglas, in 'Falling Down?'
How often does that happen, and if that is such a danger why do we have access to rifles and shotguns? Somebody better tell my firearms officer that I could snap. :roll:
"...That old chestnut? Anything can be used as a weapon, knives, screwdrivers, cars. But here's the thing - they're not designed for that, they have other purposes. Guns are weapons, designed to cause as much harm/damage as possible. You can't use a gun to prepare vegetables for dinner, to put up shelves or go to the supermarket. There is no need for people to have guns..."
----------------------------------------------------------
The criminals see the need. And whenever they have the need, there is a need for some of us (not you, obviously) to protect ourselves and those we love. You might not realise how many people are being killed by these criminals and you seem to not be concerned with finding a remedy for this. I only hope you don't have a change of heart after some thug stabs you with a screwdriver (that he bought for the purposes of putting up shelves).
"...No offence, but a lot of this sounds like Johnny Big-Balls type talk..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Big Balls, eh? That's quite funny. I suppose it would be more funny if I didn't have first hand experience of friends and relatives who have been murdered, and if I hadn't been involved in several incidents where my life and those of others was directly on the line, not to mention the patients we have tried to save but who died from their injuries (yes, here in the UK).
No offence, but it sounds to me that the biggest threat you have ever faced has been when you've eaten a yoghurt and realised afterwards that it was past its sell-by date.
Nobody is asking YOU to take any steps in the defense of yourself or another. You clearly aren't up to it and I fully support the notion that YOU shouldn't have a gun.
Don't assume everybody else is the same.
-
@ Karlos
"...Seriously though, I agree. I really do not see relaxing the gun laws actually helping in any way whatsoever. Criminals automatically have the upper hand in that they would simply get (illegally) whatever force multiplier they need to gain the upper hand over whatever resistance they feel they are likely to face..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Once again, if that was the case, the police would never be able to take these scum bags down. There simply is not an infinite multiplier of force that is portable. Handguns are the most popular firearms used by criminals. It stands to reason, because they are portable and can be concealed.
"...Law abiding Mr Smith and his handgun and conscience is not going to win any confrontation with Mr Criminal, lack of conscience, illegally armed with a machine pistol of some description..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is a myth perpetuated by Hollywood.
Machine pistols are hardly ever used in crime, even in the USA where you can legally own them if you have the right paperwork. A machine pistol on full auto is not easy to control and in semi auto it is no better than a pistol, which is easier to carry and more accurate in most cases.
"...Hypothetically speaking, in such a situation our erstwhile X-Ray would likely be in the morgue whilst the pathologist counts the number of entrance and exit wounds on his body. Along with whoever was stood near him when the situation escalated to the point where the burst of rapid fire erupted in his general direction..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Whether he had a machine pistol or not, the morgue can never be excluded as an outcome. However don't assume I have an itchy trigger. There are time when you can pull and times when you can't. But don't assume that not pulling will appeal to the criminal's sense of honour and result in less deaths at the scene.
-
Once again, if that was the case, the police would never be able to take these scum bags down
Fully trained armed police unit != Joe Bloggs responsible gun owner.
We are talking about the instance of an individual member of the public taking on said criminal(s), not the police. There is a significant difference here. Even if the police have inferior weapons, they likely have superior tactics and force of numbers. Even one-on-one, training alone helps level the playing field. Surely you don't see an ordinary, legal gun owning member of the public as belonging to the same category?
The machine pistol was just a daft example to get the point across about upping the ante. In reality, I expect larger calibre handguns and perhaps shotguns would be more likely. What is surely more likely is that determined criminals would be more inclined to shoot first if they think there is a risk they might get shot back.
But don't assume that not pulling will appeal to the criminal's sense of honour and result in less deaths at the scene.
I don't expect gun toting criminals to have any sense of honour in the first instance. However, self-preservation is something they probably do have, so the first sign of someone reaching for a gun in self-defence might be all the excuse they need to open fire. After all, they are probably going to have drawn their weapons first. That simple fact alone gives them a tactical advantage over their victim.
-
@ Karlos
"...Fully trained armed police unit != Joe Bloggs responsible gun owner..."
----------------------------------------------------------
By the same token, a trained gun owner != Joe criminal
You will be surprised how well Joe Bloggs actually performs when he has had some training. Furthermore you'll be surprised how LITTLE range time the UK armed police get. The police are not necessarily going to be better marksmen than Joe Bloggs, but I will concede that if Joe Bloggs doesn't practice, his skills suffer.
"...We are talking about the instance of an individual member of the public taking on said criminal(s), not the police. There is a significant difference here. Even if the police have inferior weapons, they likely have superior tactics and force of numbers..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edit: I wrote a whole long story about single armed officers in the USA and SA, and about civilians and IDPA matches, but I realised it is futile. We don't have a common frame of reference here. It would be like me trying to convince you why a certain programming language is better for a certain project.
There just isn't that link, that experience. And what I am fast learning here is that discussions like this are not likely to be productive. I have arrived at the conclusions I have, based on quite a bit of graft and heartache. I can't even begin to tell you the scope of it. I am also involved in job-related projects of a certain 'flavour' that are ongoing.
The other problem with me is that I frequent six or seven forensic and firearm boards, and I am kind of tuned to those. Those are what I understand better than anything. There are people there who have similar experience, who have also lost a great deal, and are up to speed on the technical and tactical side of this kind of discussion.
And really, this isn't the place for me to bring this stuff. I should have realised earlier.
-
Karlos wrote:
I really do not see relaxing the gun laws actually helping in any way whatsoever. Criminals automatically have the upper hand in that they would simply get (illegally) whatever force multiplier they need to gain the upper hand over whatever resistance they feel they are likely to face.
Law abiding Mr Smith and his handgun and conscience is not going to win any confrontation with Mr Criminal, lack of conscience, illegally armed with a machine pistol of some description.
Hypothetically speaking, in such a situation our erstwhile X-Ray would likely be in the morgue whilst the pathologist counts the number of entrance and exit wounds on his body. Along with whoever was stood near him when the situation escalated to the point where the burst of rapid fire erupted in his general direction.
Law abiding Mr Smith and even Granny Smith do win confrontations with Mr Criminal quite regularly.
Armed citizens stop Memphis street shooter (http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43109)
man shot, killed trying to get into apartment (http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=6448696&nav=0hBE)
Clerk shot at, returns fire in robbery attempt (http://newsok.com/article/3058889)
Pistol packin' grandma stops robbery attempt at her liquor store (OK) (http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6472700)
Liquor store owner foils robbery attempt (http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_123012324)
prof says tragic event turned around his outlook on guns (http://www.athensnews.com/issue/article.php3?story_id=28162)
Soldier comes home early, kills burglar (GA) (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1827990/posts)
Man with concealed-carry permit kills robbery suspect in Cleveland (OH) (http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/04/24/concealed.html)
Ex-Miss America shoots thief's tires
82-year-old wielded snub-nosed .38: 'He was probably wetting his pants' (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55309)
Huntsville homeowner kills intruder (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2007/04/huntsville_homeowner_kills_int.html)
Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for city residents (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288)
-
@metalman
Should I look for examples having the opposite outcome? How many do you think I'll find, even if I just stick to the timeframe between your oldest and most recent?
-
@X-ray
Rather than get into a long and nasty (and possibly personal) tit-for-tat argument, I'd rather agree to disagree and leave it at that. Life is too short.
-
According to the BBC the police have made an arrest in connection with what is now the attempted murder. Sounds like it was local.
-
Karlos wrote:
@metalman
Should I look for examples having the opposite outcome? How many do you think I'll find, even if I just stick to the timeframe between your oldest and most recent?
An analysis of the 2001 year of reporting for "The New York Times," showed it ran 50,745 words on contemporaneous gun crimes, but just one, 163-word story on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery. For USA Today, the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero on defensive uses.
According to detailed U.S. Department of Justice and other academic surveys by different researchers published in the Journal of Criminal Justice, there are about two million defensive gun uses in the USA each year, and guns are used defensively four times more frequently than they are to commit crimes.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt)
Why I'm no longer anti-gun (http://seanbonner.vox.com/library/post/grigsby-why-im-no-longer-antigun.html)