Commuter shot in rush hour

[X-ray]

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]

@ 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.

[X-ray]

@ 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]

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]

@ 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]

@ 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.

[X-ray]

@ 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.

[X-ray]

@ 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.