Commuter shot in rush hour

[Nataline]

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.

[Nataline]

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:

[Nataline]

@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.