I've got a shotgun, do you want me to help?

[gettin2dizzy]

Bejesus (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mA__Shw5x90&eurl=http://www.videosift.com/video/911-Caller-Shoots-Neighbors-Burgulars-Himself)
Guy phones police to say there's a robbery going on... you know the score (audio only)
I don't know if he did the right thing, but I know I'd have done the same.

[hovis]

Bejesus (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mA__Shw5x90&eurl=http://www.videosift.com/video/911-Caller-Shoots-Neighbors-Burgulars-Himself)
Guy phones police to say there's a robbery going on... you know the score (audio only)
I don't know if he did the right thing, but I know I'd have done the same.

i think what he did was stupid, he may now go to jail for a very long time, down to stopping a tv dvd player or whatever getting nicked, unless the robbers pulled a gun on him?

[gettin2dizzy]

In the US he's allowed to do that. It's perfectly legal to shoot a robber. Amazing!

[G]

In the US he's allowed to do that. It's perfectly legal to shoot a robber. Amazing!


And so it should be.

There is loads of things like this in america you hear it all the time.

Why shouldnt you be able to guard you hom, property and possesions.

America have the law on this bob on, if someone is on your property....'get the gun theres a *insert what ever here* in the yard.

[hovis]

In the US he's allowed to do that. It's perfectly legal to shoot a robber. Amazing!

i dont think it is?


i thought it was ok to defend yourself, in your home.

but it was not his home, and he was not defending himself (unless the robbers had a gun)

[Biker Biggles]

Can be a bit awkward if you are the postman,paperboy or delivery driver though.
The problem is they tend to have a culture of shoot first ask questions afterwards.Ask anyone who has had contact with Americans in military operations.
I dont have a problem with guns,but they should be kept on ranges and not allowed into the wider society at all,as far too many people are far too dim to use them properly.

[gettin2dizzy]

Well if he's in trouble in America I'll pay his rent to live next door to me!

[mr.anderson]

They say crime doesn't pay....

But that is just plain murder and he should go to jail for a very very long time and then be executed. End of.

[MeridiaNx]

he should go to jail for a very very long time and then be executed. End of.

You must be a liberal then? :shock:

[Draper]

thats pretty disgusting that you actualy hear the shots as he unloads a handful of shots into 2 blokes stealing a bag of stuff... america is gun crazy, you cant let everyday folk have them, because everyday folk are often complete numpties

i think he should definately be on a life sentance, i dont agree with capital punishment though, that is also horrid

[G]

Now i have actually listened to it I'm not sure.

Cant fault they guy for his feeling towards it.

Chances are its a **** area and they are being terrorised by these idiots fromthe ghetto robbing houses all the time and the police doing nothing.

[Draper]

the way i look at it is: 2 people being once previously caught of petty theft or whatever it said i cant remember

they're stealing a bag of loot - bad

someone then murders the both of them - more than bad

pulling a triggers easy, but i dont know how you could knowingly go and shoot bits of metal through someone so they bleed to death, unless he got real close and just blew their brains out. perhaps if you had no alternative, then yes if it means you or your family dont get killed, but on theft of a neighbours property. i'm sure they would much rather come home to see a few things missing (may have insurance anyway) than to see bodies and blood on their drive

[northwind]

In the US he's allowed to do that. It's perfectly legal to shoot a robber. Amazing!

Not quite, it's legal to use lethal force in self defence or to protect your own property but not this.


Chances are its a **** area and they are being terrorised by these idiots fromthe ghetto robbing houses all the time and the police doing nothing.

In the full message he says "Man, this is scary, I can't believe this is happening in this neighborhood"

Neither man was armed, and he fired within seconds of them seeing him, only the Met are allowed to do that :smt045 Basically, he went out to kill some robbers not to stop a crime, he made no attempt to do anything apart from kill them. I think he should be charged with murder, no doubt about it, though I think the circumstances should be considered when they sentence him.

[Demonz]

Its a tough job being a burglar in Texas. These guys would have known the risks of break and enter and still made the decision to go in.

I dont agree with killing these guys - just another cultural difference IMO.

[Nick762]

Got a feeling that the US take on being able to shoot to kill a thief stems from the old west where potentially a bandit making off with something as mundane your mule or water bottle could leave you stranded in the middle of the desert to die... I don't think the law was ever repealed in some states e.g. Texas. I believe there was a caveat that said while you could shoot him in the back whilst making off, it only applied while thief was actually in possession of said property so you shouldn't shoot him if he dropped your mule and ran for it... :smt071

[mac99]

From what I've been reading, Texas has the strongest shoot-a-burglar laws in the US. They're not hold overs from the old west though, they have been strengthened fairly recently.
Sections 9.42 and 9.43 of the Texas Penal Code (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm) reads to me like this was a borderline legal shooting. There is a right to use deadly force to protect a third person's property if you have some sort of duty of care. Though it also seems a very open ended law. You could shoot kids for scrumping apples.

[arenalife]

Yes, it's only legal to shoot to defend property in Texas, even if they're not in your house or threatening you. It has to be self defence everywhere else, which it is pretty much if they're in the house, same as in the UK by the way. Except we got no guns to apply it.

[yorkie_chris]

Seems to me all he did wrong was to shoot without giving them chance to surrender and wait for coppers, that makes it criminal IMO. Not murder though, just because they were burglars and the fact they were engaged in criminal activity means they could have been armed.

[northwind]

I like how we're talking as if this is an American thing, at least he shot these guys in the front, instead of shooting one in the back as he climbed out of a window to escape :smt045

[yorkie_chris]

Far more sporting to set the hounds on the odd pikey :p

[Luckypants]

Far as I'm concerned they are stealing scumbags. Good on him, more rubbish no longer walking around.

And northy if you are referring to a certain Norfolk farmer, good for him too! He had burglars on his property several times and the cops were less than useless, what do you eexpect him to do? Sit there and let them? So what if they were running away, you go out burgling you should go in fear of your life! They never came back did they?

[yorkie_chris]

It's this whole law thing getting in the way, how irritating.

Heard of a few similar stories from a saffer mate of mine, the cops are likely to turn up and go "good shot mate" :D

[northwind]

what do you eexpect him to do?

I'd expect him to not murder a 16 year old who was running away. People like to say "If you break the law, you give up your rights" - in that case, he can't complain about being burgled as he had an illegal weapon, a worse crime that burglary... Tony Martin wasn't a nice man pushed too far, he was a nutcase with a history of violence and firearms offences (he once shot at a man for stealing apples, another time he used a shotgun to threaten a man over a property dispute before smashing his windows with it, yet another he threatened a neighbour with a pistol including firing it and killing a homing pigeon) Not a very good poster boy.

It's much the same deal though- if there'd been even a whiff of self defence it'd be a totally different issue.

[gettin2dizzy]

He was a nutcase but the police should take some of the stick for Tony's actions. He really was a nutter who was pushed too far by having repeated burglaries and no police intervention. Yeah the kid was only 16 and didn't deserve to be shot but it wasn't just burglary he was commiting, he was deliberately turning a crazed man more insane. I'm certainly not sad about the loss of his life, but I wouldn't have wished it upon him.

[MiniMatt]

Oooh, I can't resist, sorry, I tried (for about 30 seconds).

Crazy Texans first.
He asks the police if he should assist. The police tell him not to. This'll be a big point for the prosecution - this was not a caught in the moment "hell what do I do?" thing, it was considered and strongly rejected by the police. The "eye for an eye" brigade are quite hot on saying "if he hadn't disobeyed instructions from the police he wouldn't be in this mess". He had a whole multitude of options open to him and the time and professional advice to consider them all, he could have fired a shot in the air, he could have yelled "stop or I'll shoot" (rather than "move - you're dead"), or he could have done what the police told him to do.
Whilst we're on "eye for an eye". It says "eye for an eye" - the clue is in the phrase, it doesn't say "brain chunks for a dvd player".

Crazy Norfolk farmers next.
A search will reveal my multitude of ramblings on this one, I've put the case far more eloquently in the past. But basically Tony Martin ain't no poster child for your cause. In using him as such, you weaken your position not strengthen it. The guy is, and evidence strongly suggests, always has been, completely utterly bonkers. He bought a giant teddy bear to court every day, the gun he used was illegally held, he goes to National Front meetings. The only blame I can apportion to the police in that case is that which allowed a man with a clear history of violent firearms offences to continue to illegally hold a firearm. Earlier intervention may well have ensured that the system recognised Tony Martin for a nutcase far earlier and had him safely locked away in a mental hospital.

As northy says, if there had been a whiff of self defence in either case it might be a different story.

[gettin2dizzy]

He said 'you move and your dead'. At least he gave him options ;)

I think it was clear in the audio that he knew that he couldn't challenge them without endangering his own life. If they'd shot the old man it would be a different matter entirely so he warned them of his presence, he waited, then something happened that caused him to shoot (how many robbers will be unarmed in the US??!)). If you're going to allow people to have guns (a pump action shotgun - woo;)) you can't expect them not to use them! That would be like letting people own cars and taxing them and fuel to the point it's too expensive to drive- barmy ;)

Should he have challenged them? Yes! To not be allowed to protect those close to you and your own property for fear of prosecution works entirely in the favour of the criminals.

[MiniMatt]

No, I think it was clear in the audio that his life was in no danger whilst he was on the phone to the police, and whilst the police were telling him to stay where he was. When the police tell you thirteen times to put the gun down, and you don't - well, it's going to end messy.

1:27 "You hear the shotgun clicking and I'm going"
1:28 (Police) "Don't go outside"
1:30 "Move, you're dead"
1:32 bang
1:34 bang
1:36 bang

I'm not entirely sure that timeline can be summed up by so he warned them of his presence, he waited, then something happened that caused him to shoot

[gettin2dizzy]

Wasn't it 'move and you're dead' ?

I meant that if he was to challenge them he was in danger. He could have sat watching worlds scariest police chases in safety but that's no fun when your got a 12 gauge by the phone ;)

[MiniMatt]

Wasn't it 'move and you're dead' ?

I meant that if he was to challenge them he was in danger. He could have sat watching worlds scariest police chases in safety but that's no fun when your got a 12 gauge by the phone ;)

Teehee - yeah, a certain fondness for Charles Bronson movies is one of the many good reasons why I should never be allowed a gun licence :D

Dunno on the wording, I'm just going on the transcript, but on listening again you may be right. There may even be a "yeehar!!!" in there too :D

Oh, and a couple of news sources are now reporting that he shot at least one of them, possibly both, in the back....
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5362232.html
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=5821943

[Ceri JC]

It's this whole law thing getting in the way, how irritating.

Heard of a few similar stories from a saffer mate of mine, the cops are likely to turn up and go "good shot mate" :D

Yep. One colleague was advised, by a police officer- shoot them and then straight away shoot the wall next to them. Claim the hole was the first shot (a warning shot) which they ignored and then you had no choice but to shoot them.

As to this case, boohoo, some scum died and an innocent man's property was protected by his (good) neighbour. No property is worth you dying over, but is it worth some thieving human waste dying over over? Oh yes... :smt045

People who haven't been burgled often fail to appreciate that it's not the material goods going missing that is the real crime. It's worrying that they'll be back, being unable to sleep for weeks afterwards, wondering if every little noise at night is them returning. It's feeling unsafe in your own home. If the burglars are killed the first time round, I would imagine all this would be alleviated.

[gettin2dizzy]

People who haven't been burgled often fail to appreciate that it's not the material goods going missing that is the real crime. It's worrying that they'll be back, being unable to sleep for weeks afterwards, wondering if every little noise at night is them returning. It's feeling unsafe in your own home. If the burglars are killed the first time round, I would imagine all this would be alleviated.
:smt045

Exactamundo

I wonder how different the case would have been if they were white guys. America seems to have gone backwards in racial equality :nomore:

[MiniMatt]

Yep. One colleague was advised, by a police officer- shoot them and then straight away shoot the wall next to them. Claim the hole was the first shot (a warning shot) which they ignored and then you had no choice but to shoot them.


Police officers perverting the course of justice are no better than thieving scum or homicidal gun wielding suburbanites.


As to this case, boohoo, some scum died and an innocent man's property was protected by his (good) neighbour. No property is worth you dying over, but is it worth some thieving human waste dying over over? Oh yes... :smt045


No property is worth anyone dying over. Sorry, fundamental disagreement there. The police operator even says "Nope, don't do that. Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over. Ok?" If not for the alleged thieving scum, but for yourself, it's easy to be blase about it now, but you'll have killed someone, in cold blood. I can't imagine that ever leaves you. You're going to be a screw up for the rest of your life. Because of a VCR.


People who haven't been burgled often fail to appreciate that it's not the material goods going missing that is the real crime. It's worrying that they'll be back, being unable to sleep for weeks afterwards, wondering if every little noise at night is them returning. It's feeling unsafe in your own home. If the burglars are killed the first time round, I would imagine all this would be alleviated.

You're going to feel safer if the burglars are killed? You sure about that? You real sure? The burglars might not, but what about their family, their parents, brothers, sisters, kids you've just orphaned, and friends? I'd imagine they'd be somewhat ****ed off, and as we're in the business of writing off entire social groupings, they're probably "scum" too. Well armed scum. And this time, they won't be looking to take your VCR. No, you took family from them, this time it really is eye for an eye.

Oh and on the race thing, yep it certainly shouldn't come into it, but G2D is right, this is America, this is Texas, the US hasn't gone backwards in racial equality so much as it's not really gone forwards. Ever noticed in the US how every single worker in McD is black or hispanic? Or how the adverts for washing up liquid feature black actors, and the ads for dishwasher tablets have white actors?

Much as we like to bash this country we live in here, the perception I've gotten on my world travels is that the most forward thinking racially diverse and tolerant country in the world is the UK. Not that there isn't still a helluva lot of work to do.

[Keith1983]

I think everyone her has missed the point. I think if I was the neighbour Id be gutted if I got home to find my house had been burgled, butr surely this cannot compare to the horror of finding the body's of those two ugly scrotes laying dead on your front lawn. Fancy having to clean them up!

[MiniMatt]

I think everyone her has missed the point. I think if I was the neighbour Id be gutted if I got home to find my house had been burgled, butr surely this cannot compare to the horror of finding the body's of those two ugly scrotes laying dead on your front lawn. Fancy having to clean them up!

Nah, does wonders for the lawn, you'll have the greenest grass in the neighbourhood. And if you've paved over, hell, just sell it on ebay - http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FISH-BLOOD-BONE-GARDEN-FEED-ORGANIC-FERTILIZER-1KG_W0QQitemZ230198556847QQihZ013QQcategoryZ20540Q QcmdZViewItem

[Biker Biggles]

Yes but what about the overshot pellets that ruined the decor?
Id be well hacked off if I came home to find my neighbour had blown a hole in my front door with his shotgun just cos some scrotes were nicking the vcr.Do you know how much a new door is?:rolleyes:

[MiniMatt]

Yes but what about the overshot pellets that ruined the decor?
Id be well hacked off if I came home to find my neighbour had blown a hole in my front door with his shotgun just cos some scrotes were nicking the vcr.Do you know how much a new door is?:rolleyes:

Hmm, ok, I'm struggling a bit with that one. How about those fake stick-on bullet holes, stuck over the actual bullet holes? Then you put your house up for sale, tell potential purchasers that the stick-ons were done by the grandkids playing cowboys and indians, sell up and move to a house with a nice new door. Probably best not to tell potential purchasers about the armed gang who'll be knocking on the bullet ridden door out for vengeance for their dead thief mate.

[Spiderman]

You're going to feel safer if the burglars are killed? You sure about that? You real sure? The burglars might not, but what about their family, their parents, brothers, sisters, kids you've just orphaned, and friends? I'd imagine they'd be somewhat ****ed off, and as we're in the business of writing off entire social groupings, they're probably "scum" too. Well armed scum. And this time, they won't be looking to take your VCR. No, you took family from them, this time it really is eye for an eye.


Thats exactly what would happen.

And i know most people do worry about a burglar coming back but most of that is pointless paranoia as few burglars return to a house unless they know there was much more to be had and a very weak/defencless person there to intimidate. Most times they have no idea who lives there and they wont take the risk of commming back.
But kill em and you may as well paint a target on your own back.

[G]

The perception I've gotten on my world travels is that the most forward thinking racially diverse and tolerant country in the world is the UK. Not that there isn't still a helluva lot of work to do.

And its certainly not always a good thing, not when your told 'sorry you havnt got the job, there was 130 white british applicants and 14 ethnic applicants and only 8 jobs, 6 of which had to go to ethnic or other minority group'

Backwards decrimination is ever increasing in this country.

Sorry back on topic.

[Ceri JC]

Much as we like to bash this country we live in here, the perception I've gotten on my world travels is that the most forward thinking racially diverse and tolerant country in the world is the UK. Not that there isn't still a helluva lot of work to do.

I don't disagree with this at all. Even the Dutch (who are proud of their so-called "integration") seem like bigots compared to the British generally. There are facets of religious tolerance that I'm not sure I agree with, but in terms of race, we're pretty good. I don't really see what race has to do with this though; my view would be the same if it was a pair of white guys being shot. It's not like the guy was shouting "yee-haw I got me some [insert derogatory ethnic descriptor] here!" *bang bang*

[northwind]

He was a nutcase but the police should take some of the stick for Tony's actions. He really was a nutter who was pushed too far by having repeated burglaries and no police intervention.

At least one of his reported thefts was false, he claimed he'd had a tractor nicked when he'd sold it for scrap years before. He wasn't done for wasting police time as it was put down to him being a confused old man. Another one had loads of contradictions, according to "anonymous sources" in the police anyway, but then maybe they're just trying to shift the blame, who knows.

OTOH, they'd failed to confiscate his shotgun when they took the other one away, so maybe it WAS their fault :p

[northwind]

Oh yes- in concealed-carry states, you're about 1/3 less likely to be robbed, but about twice as likely to be shot in a robbery, according to CNN figures. I cannot be bothered to collate it myself but I'll trust it as it's common sense, if you're going to mug someone and they might have a gun, you're going to be much more ready to shoot them

[yorkie_chris]

But with the freedom to be well practiced with a weapon and defend yourself.
Compared to over here, where you've the mark 1 human fist, against a knife, and if you defend yourself successfully you're likely to end up facing charges.

I'd much rather have concealed carry laws.

[northwind]

It sounds like a good idea, but imagine you're just walking along and someone stops you to rob you, will you be ready to whip out your gun and use it? Assuming it's easily accesible and not in a secured holster (which it would be), it's not a western, try and draw it and you will get shot. I think if I have to get mugged by someone who has a gun, I'd sooner not be tempted to try and resist, because I'd get shot.

[gettin2dizzy]

It sounds like a good idea, but imagine you're just walking along and someone stops you to rob you, will you be ready to whip out your gun and use it? Assuming it's easily accesible and not in a secured holster (which it would be), it's not a western, try and draw it and you will get shot. I think if I have to get mugged by someone who has a gun, I'd sooner not be tempted to try and resist, because I'd get shot.
You not seen taxi driver? ;)

(what a lame scene that one is)

[yorkie_chris]

It's the deterrant aspect of it.

Over here you get mugged by a crackhead with a knife, you can get a knife anywhere and if it did end up getting physical the odds are well against you.
Even the martial arts that teach knife defence are IMO a load of bull.

Carrying a weapon, you've a fair chance each way and even little old ladies would present a real threat to the life of a criminal. You don't have to be healthy to shoot a gun.

Also my other thought on the matter is that over here, law abiding citizens cannot own any sort of weapon with the purpose of self defence.
All the pistol ban actually accomplished was to take weapons away from people not inclined to break the law, all the gangsta's and other muppets are better armed than ever.

[G]

All the pistol ban actually accomplished was to take weapons away from people not inclined to break the law, all the gangsta's and other muppets are better armed than ever.


I have to disagree with this, it gave alot of people the oppurtunity to hand in guns without being bummed.

Now alot of guns cant fall into the wrong hands accidently in the first place, which can only be a good thing. Apparently normal people can also SNAP at any moment and decide to go on a suicidal killing spree in a school or shopping precinct.

I have family from dunblane and still family who live there now, try telling them the ban on guns achieved nothing.

[yorkie_chris]

The ban wasn't an amnesty, they've had plenty of those over time as well.

There was one in west yorkshire, and the chief copper was on the front of the paper looking well chuffed at this big display of oh so deadly weapons, right at the top of the pile ... a break barrel airgun :smt082

So what did the pistol ban do for dunblane? The massacre was before the ban, and IIRC that guy should never have had a license if the police had done their jobs right.

[gettin2dizzy]

I have to disagree with this, it gave alot of people the oppurtunity to hand in guns without being bummed.

Now alot of guns cant fall into the wrong hands accidently in the first place, which can only be a good thing. Apparently normal people can also SNAP at any moment and decide to go on a suicidal killing spree in a school or shopping precinct.

I have family from dunblane and still family who live there now, try telling them the ban on guns achieved nothing.
In what way? I'm a little confused by that statement.

Recently there's been a lot of press regarding attacks on tubes, trains and buses where passers by have just ignored what has happened; fatally in one case. People are too afraid to get involved for fear of the attacker being armed; this tips the balance of power massively towards them leaving the public vulnerable. If people carried handguns the public are far more likely to step in, where a gun is enough of a deterrant just a a threat.

This is a great article :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2409817.ece


Despite the recent spate of shootings on our streets, we pride ourselves on our strict gun laws. Every time an American gunman goes on a killing spree, we shake our heads in righteous disbelief at our poor benighted colonial cousins. Why is it, even after the Virginia Tech massacre, that Americans still resist calls for more gun controls?

The short answer is that “gun controls” do not work: they are indeed generally perverse in their effects. Virginia Tech, where 32 students were shot in April, had a strict gun ban policy and only last year successfully resisted a legal challenge that would have allowed the carrying of licensed defensive weapons on campus. It is with a measure of bitter irony that we recall Thomas Jefferson, founder of the University of Virginia, recording the words of Cesare Beccaria: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
One might contrast the Virginia Tech massacre with the assault on Virginia’s Appalachian Law School in 2002, where three lives were lost before a student fetched a pistol from his car and apprehended the gunman.

Virginia Tech reinforced the lesson that gun controls are obeyed only by the law-abiding. New York has “banned” pistols since 1911, and its fellow murder capitals, Washington DC and Chicago, have similar bans. One can draw a map of the US, showing the inverse relationship of the strictness of its gun laws, and levels of violence: all the way down to Vermont, with no gun laws at all, and the lowest level of armed violence (one thirteenth that of Britain).
Serious gun crime is concentrated in particular parts of England; internationally, the country has a low death rate from guns

America’s disenchantment with “gun control” is based on experience: whereas in the 1960s and 1970s armed crime rose in the face of more restrictive gun laws (in much of the US, it was illegal to possess a firearm away from the home or workplace), over the past 20 years all violent crime has dropped dramatically, in lockstep with the spread of laws allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by law-abiding citizens. Florida set this trend in 1987, and within five years the states that had followed its example showed an 8 per cent reduction in murders, 7 per cent reduction in aggravated assaults, and 5 per cent reduction in rapes. Today 40 states have such laws, and by 2004 the US Bureau of Justice reported that “firearms-related crime has plummeted”.

In Britain, however, the image of violent America remains unassailably entrenched. Never mind the findings of the International Crime Victims Survey (published by the Home Office in 2003), indicating that we now suffer three times the level of violent crime committed in the United States; never mind the doubling of handgun crime in Britain over the past decade, since we banned pistols outright and confiscated all the legal ones.

We are so self-congratulatory about our officially disarmed society, and so dismissive of colonial rednecks, that we have forgotten that within living memory British citizens could buy any gun – rifle, pistol, or machinegun – without any licence. When Dr Watson walked the streets of London with a revolver in his pocket, he was a perfectly ordinary Victorian or Edwardian. Charlotte Brontë recalled that her curate father fastened his watch and pocketed his pistol every morning when he got dressed; Beatrix Potter remarked on a Yorkshire country hotel where only one of the eight or nine guests was not carrying a revolver; in 1909, policemen in Tottenham borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by (and were joined by other armed citizens) when they set off in pursuit of two anarchists unwise enough to attempt an armed robbery. We now are shocked that so many ordinary people should have been carrying guns in the street; the Edwardians were shocked rather by the idea of an armed robbery.

If armed crime in London in the years before the First World War amounted to less than 2 per cent of that we suffer today, it was not simply because society then was more stable. Edwardian Britain was rocked by a series of massive strikes in which lives were lost and troops deployed, and suffragette incendiaries, anarchist bombers, Fenians, and the spectre of a revolutionary general strike made Britain then arguably a much more turbulent place than it is today. In that unstable society the impact of the widespread carrying of arms was not inflammatory, it was deterrent of violence.

As late as 1951, self-defence was the justification of three quarters of all applications for pistol licences. And in the years 1946-51 armed robbery, the most significant measure of gun crime, ran at less than two dozen incidents a year in London; today, in our disarmed society, we suffer as many every week.

Gun controls disarm only the law-abiding, and leave predators with a freer hand. Nearly two and a half million people now fall victim to crimes of violence in Britain every year, more than four every minute: crimes that may devastate lives. It is perhaps a privilege of those who have never had to confront violence to disparage the power to resist.

[yorkie_chris]

Now alot of guns cant fall into the wrong hands accidently in the first place, which can only be a good thing.


since the ban, gun crime has increased, mostly russian and soviet bloc weaponry smuggled in. There's lots of it, its cheap and nobody gets into bother if the serial numbers are ever checked.
(if a licensed gun was ever found, they'd know who had it on their ticket from the serial number, who would then probably be done for not handing it in after the ban)

The other attitude that I really dislike is that guns are some evil tool of the devil, why can't people grasp the simple concept that a gun is a tool, and you'd be just as dead battered over the head with a shovel.

To be helpless is not the same as being safe.

[Spiderman]

since the ban, gun crime has increased, mostly russian and soviet bloc weaponry smuggled in. There's lots of it, its cheap and nobody gets into bother if the serial numbers are ever checked.
(if a licensed gun was ever found, they'd know who had it on their ticket from the serial number, who would then probably be done for not handing it in after the ban)

The other attitude that I really dislike is that guns are some evil tool of the devil, why can't people grasp the simple concept that a gun is a tool, and you'd be just as dead battered over the head with a shovel.

To be helpless is not the same as being safe.

I see where you are coming from but the BIG difference is that you have to get close up and personal to someone before you can whack em with a shovel. And the chances of one whack being fatal are slim.

However, no matter how fast i run from a gun wielding no gooder i'm neevr gonna be able to defend myself against or dodge a bullet.

Swing the shovel and i may duck out the way, fire a gun and you're far more likely to hit me.

Also, i've always maintained the attitude that if you carry a weapon be prepared to loose it and have it used against you.

So imagine you scenario of having a concealed gun. You get grabbed from beind by 2 nasties who go thru your pockets. And hey presto they find your gun too. And they didnt even have one. The couldnt have shot you before...but now they can if they dont want you to grass em up.

And i'm sure if you ask anyone they THINK they would have what it takes to pull the trigger but studies have show that even trained cops or soldiers hesitate before they pull the trigger for real against a real person for the first time.

The yanks even train their soldiers to overcome this and evelop a killer instinct by making many of their targets "bleed" when shot so they become less sensitised to the whole "taking a life" thing and treat it more like a playstaion game.

So your avaerage bod on the street may well end up getting himself killed by pulling a gun and failing to use it fast enough.
I'd rather let em take my phone and wallet...they can be replaced. Its agro but i'm sure its less agro that recovering from a gunshot wound would be. And you'd still have no wallet or fone anyway, lol.

[northwind]

It's the deterrant aspect of it.


Like I said up the page, it decreases the risk of being robbed but it increases the risk of being shot while being robbed- theft against an unarmed person is fairly low-risk for all concerned, theft against an armed person is higher risk for both parties because naturally if you're going to rob people in a concealed-carry state, you take a gun and you're ready to use it, and naturally if you're getting robbed and you have a gun you really want to use it. But unfortuantely the edge is with the robber not the victim.

since the ban, gun crime has increased, mostly russian and soviet bloc weaponry smuggled in. There's lots of it, its cheap and nobody gets into bother if the serial numbers are ever checked.
(if a licensed gun was ever found, they'd know who had it on their ticket from the serial number, who would then probably be done for not handing it in after the ban)


You know something really surprising? This isn't actually true. Or at least, not how you'd think. Possesion has been consistently up since the ban, but then it would be, since lots of previously legal guns became illegal. Offences known to have been done with replicas or air rifles are up. (incidentally, any offence where the gun can't be proved to be a replica is recorded as a "real gun" offence, so a large proportion of the other statistics will also be nonfiring) The injury statistics include threats (since psychological injury is counted) and physical attacks (being whacked with a gun) so they're artificially high. But gun homicides are actually down since 98, 05-06 was the lowest year in a decade, 2001 the highest.

IMO various governments have discovered that it's better to say that crime is up and trade on fear and anger, than it is to actually point out that in the real world, some crimes are down. Probably because nobody would believe them.

[Biker Biggles]

I dont know the real figures for gun crime,but here in London common sense tells me there is a fair bit of it.I think it has gone down a bit in recent years following a particularly focused police effort to clamp down,but I think it is consistantly higher than I recall from ten or twenty years ago before the ban.
Much of it is also "reactivated" replica guns that have been modified to fire real bullets,a product of the ban when it became harder to get hold of the real thing.