Commuter shot in rush hour

[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.

[Cymric]

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'.

[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.

[Cymric]

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 .

[uncharted]

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.  

[Karlos]

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.

[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.

[Karlos]

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.

[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.

[metalman]

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

man shot, killed trying to get into apartment

Clerk shot at, returns fire in robbery attempt

Pistol packin' grandma stops robbery attempt at her liquor store (OK)

Liquor store owner foils robbery attempt

prof says tragic event turned around his outlook on guns

Soldier comes home early, kills burglar (GA)

Man with concealed-carry permit kills robbery suspect in Cleveland (OH)

Ex-Miss America shoots thief's tires
82-year-old wielded snub-nosed .38: 'He was probably wetting his pants'

Huntsville homeowner kills intruder

Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for city residents

[Karlos]

@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?

[uncharted]

@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.

[uncharted]

According to the BBC the police have made an arrest in connection with what is now the attempted murder.  Sounds like it was local.

[metalman]

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

Why I'm no longer anti-gun