I Read once that the foundations of a Civilization could be reduced to the protection of pregnant women, of the education of the young to their civil duty and the protection of the aged and disabled.... what kind of a thing (I do not honour them with the title of persons) is it that preys on the old and the infirm.... hell has not a circle low enough for them
and that all the disarming of the law abiding public has caused is a situation where only the slime are armed and they know that they have nothing to fear when they use a gun... how much has gun crime climbed in the UK since Dunblane? how much has it increased in say Belgium over the same time frame...
Rant mode off
~R
From the Evening Standard
*******************
Gunmen rob disabled man
Two teenagers robbed a disabled man at gunpoint and stole his car, police said today.
The 35-year-old man was parking his car in Clapton at about 9.30pm on Monday when two youths opened the door and held a gun to his head. He was pulled out of his car and left on the ground.
The two attackers removed his wheelchair from the silver Vauxhall Zafira before speeding off.
The man tried to climb into his wheelchair twice but fell to the ground.
**************************
|
As they say: Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns...
Carjacking is fast becoming our national sport - and again, it is the old, the frail and the vulnerable (women with kids in the car) who are the victims.
The perpetrators are sometimes "intercepted and died in a shoot-out with the police" - a more third-world version of "slipped and fell in the shower, guv".
|
|
|
Ian
On the other hand, legalize guns and every outlaw will have a gun. And guns make very poor defensive weapons against guns.
Chris
|
Get a bigger gun! :)
Seriously, and without trying to sound like a cowboy, a trained, licensed shooter is in a better position to protect life/limb/property than an unarmed person. Most criminals with guns are so zapped on fear/adrenaline, and lacking proper training, that they are likely to "off" the victim anyway.
If somebody (armed or not) tries to break into my house in the middle of the night, I'm not going to try to hit him with a poker... He will get the standard warning, and if he doesn't comply, then I'm entitled to use a firearm accordingly, (within the law).
To bring this back to Motoring, to have a firearm stuck up your nose while at the lights is a standard trick here.
Also, on long journeys, the roadblock technique of hijacking takes place. I carry, and will use, if my life, or that of my family is threatened.
|
|
Gun crime is a every day occurance in Bradford almost unheard od in Dresden ,Why the police have bigger and more guns and they will use them
|
|
|
|
Better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it!
|
|
|
We have the sad arrangement that if you catch someone breaking into your house, give them a (ignored) warning and then shoot them, you are likely to end up in prison for it.
In fact, we live in such a "liberal" society that should a burglar with a string of previous convictions injure himself whilst trying to break into your house, he/she/they could sue you for it. Charming isn't it...
|
Dan,
You don't even have to shoot them. Just damage them a bit and you are in deeeeeeeeeeeeeeep doo doo.
|
|
Not if they never find the body
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
By definition if you outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be criminals. Believe me, I know some very bad lads and they tell me if they want an illegal gun, they can get one very easily. They are even rented in Liverpool and other cities. If you show it but don't fire it........ £100. If you fire it, £500. Hand it back and there is no trace to the hirer
The Cullen enquiry said after Dunblane that there were then between 1 and 3 million illegal weapons in the UK, all in the hands of criminals.
BTW I own three guns. Why 3? One was my father's, left to me; the other two are mine bought for clay shooting and pest control on our vast estate of 7 whole acres.
I carry them in my ageingVolvo when needed. ( Motoring link)
|
|
|
Chris, How do you mean: Guns make poor defensive weapons against guns?
Don't understand that.
It has been show by studies in the USA that guns are used to prevent crimes without being fired 80% more than they are used to commit a crime.
|
|
|
|
This from Sean Gabb who drives a green Range Rover :-)
Sean Gabb, Letter to the Editor:
I was astonished to read John Simpson's article 'An antidote to the Kalashnikov's power is overdue' (March 30).
Mr Simpson's main point is the usual one - that the world is a better place when the only people allowed to have guns are also wearing government uniforms. Whenever common people get hold of weapons, anarchy results. This is an inaccuracy so often and comprehensively refuted that it is almost worth being called a lie.
In this country before 1920 there were no controls on the civilian possession of firearms. There was very little armed crime. In modern Switzerland every able-bodied male must keep an 'assault rifle' in his home, and train in its use. The market in handguns is almost unregulated. Switzerland has very little armed crime.
Armed men in uniform have killed about a hundred million people this century, many of them women and children. Mr Simpson makes a reference to Auschwitz that in the context is astonishingly tasteless. The Holocaust happened in societies where the people had been comprehensively disarmed by their rulers.
The same point can be made about the Armenians, the Kulaks, the 50 million Chinese murdered by the communists - and the Albanians Mr Simpson affects such pity for. Every despotic government disarms its victims. It oppresses them itself, or it leaves them so incapable of resistance that other criminals can wander among them like a fox through chickens. Sean Gabb London SE7
|
|
|
I am also very pro-gun and Ian's comments re carjacking are right on. A thriving industry where I live, often with police at the root of it. However, how does this set of values and opinions hold up when one guy won't give way at a junction, or beats another to a parking space, and the driver thus deprived pulls a gun and uses it on the depriver? Common again where I live. In one instance a congressman no less was the shooter (he got off by the way....)
Again (and I am stil pro-gun) what do you say when an innocent driver spots a poice roadbloack at 3 a.m. Rightly fearing to stop, he turns tail. Police open fire killing him and his daughter (he is a chef going home from the night shift at a 5 star hotel), and the investigation is closed when the reason given is assumed guilt because the guy turned around.
So guns are great and serve all the purposes posted, but that assumes they are in the hands of responsible users. Put them in the hands of idiots, and the results are predictable. Give someone a gun and the presumption is somehow, somewhen they will use it.
|
|
|
Alwyn,
I think Chris' point was that people have guns in order to have an advantage over their opponent (or the person they're jacking/mugging/fighting/whatever), I doubt said muggers/thieves will rarely hold someone at gunpoint with the intent to kill them, and use it as an added threat. It is only when control of the situation is lost do they start firing away.
If everyone had a gun, the advantage would be lost leaving a more difficult job for the muggers, and an inderect reduction in gun related incidents as mugging/theiving/etc related incidents reduced.
I do think if everybody having a gun would be a very bad idea though since there are few people that realise how dangerous they are, and have the self control to use them only where absolutly necessary. In an ideal world nobody would have guns except the armed forces, but sadly this will never happen.
I do agree we need better policing of the UK. Big-time.
M
|
markymarkn wrote:
I doubt said
> muggers/thieves will rarely hold someone at gunpoint with the
> intent to kill them, and use it as an added threat. It is
> only when control of the situation is lost do they start
> firing away.
Unfortunately not, I'm afraid. :(
the amount of shootings where the victim was standing "hands up" is increasing. Firearms are very seductive toys, and a crim on adrenaline has the ULTIMATE male-extension in his hands.
>...since there are few people that ... have the self control to use >them only where absolutly necessary.
That is what training is for. The same way that drivers have to take a test, after being taught properly, so is it with firearms.
And the same rules apply, but even harsher:
NO booze and guns. NO showing off. NO pointing at anybody ever. The trained, licensed firearm owner knows 50 times more about the workings of his weapon than the average motorist does about the workings of his car!
|
Ian,
So true. A chap once asked me if I had ever thought of shooting someone in temper. I can honestly say that the thought had never occurred.
It has never been an option simply because it is illegal and I have no desire to hurt anyone, other than in self defence. I recall a street fight years ago when we were accosted by three locals, who were drunk.
I tapped one and he immediately went down and cried "I've had enough"
Clever clogs here then said sorry and helped him to his feet whereupon his mate grabbed my arms and I ended up with a big bloody nose!
My pal in the meantime had driven off in his red Mini for a liaison with a local lady. Lesson learned!
|
|
|
|
When a district in the US ordered that every home should have a gun, crime fell by 95%.
As you say, it's only when the perps fear something coming the other way that crime falls.
I recall a film with Burt Reynolds and Kirk Douglas as two old-style crooks. Jumped on in the street by a gang of thugs, they protested, " But you guys have knives"
"Yeah", came the response " That's how we win"
QED
|
|
|
|
Guns or no guns, the real thing going on here is theft of vehicles. Isn't it now well established that, as security systems have become better, the thief takes a vehicle whilst its owner is present - i.e. he has the keys. Car-jacking, I think they call it.
Thieves seem to be more blatant. Perhaps it's that the risk of getting caught is so low - compare the crime solving figures quoted by Andy Bairsto - and the penalties when they are cuaght are derisory.
It's not just confined to cars. Reading accounts of burglary in the press (national and local) suggests that the villains are having a field day. A high proportion of burglaries and theft are committed to finance drug habits.
Perhaps if we could solve the drugs problem then the levels of theft would fall.
Ian
|
|
The US system is the best and fairest. If you discover an intruder on your property you are entitled to use lethal force while he is within your boundaries. Housebreaking is a rare crime in the US as a result of this. Life will become safer in this country when we adopt the mind set that the lives of those who live by causing misery for others are of low value and we are better off without them. Tony Martin should have got a medal, not a jail sentence.
|
You don't have to be an intruder, you can be there by invitation, so long as the householder SAYS that you were an intruder.
You can tell that gun ownership works by the very low levels of armed crime in the USA. Similarly, they have a low murder rate because most states retain the death penalty.
Armed policemen (in any country) never shoot innocent people, either.
|
Derek wrote:
> Armed policemen (in any country) never shoot innocent people,
> either.
Apropos this - how many armed criminals are shot by armed police? And how many armed police are shot by armed criminals?
Training for situations, as opposed to waving a firearm about looking "hard", is the way to go...
watch any tv show (yes, yes, I know they are only acting) and see how (a) criminals handle weapons, and (b) police do it.
Guess which method is more effective?
|
|
|
I don't know were to start with this lot so I will just throw this in.
--guns can be rented for £500.
I'm not worried about the thief who is able to come up with £500 to rent a gun. If he's got this sort of money to burn then he's got more important things to do than to bother me. Gun controls don't stop black market weopons but they do put them out of reach of the oportunist criminal.
--We didn't used to have a problem before gun controls.
Once upon a time you were working in a country with a lower population density. In a situation like this people don't commit the same kind of crimes because they are more easily detected and noticed. The police don't catch everyone who commits a crime because they are looking at large areas containing even larger numbers of people. Remember you have more privacy in a tower block than in a small villiage.
--I have never felt the need to use a gun against someone
You probably haven't, neither would I and neither would most of the people on this forum. But I know I wasn't mature enough to have access to a gun when I was eighteen. If my father had had a gun then I would of had access to it from a even younger age.
|
|
I was mugged at knife-point many years ago, Andrew. If I had been in possession of a gun at the time I WOULD have used it, and would have had no guilt about it afterwards. As far as I was concerned at the time I was placed in a position where I could have been killed if I had not complied with my assailants demands.
|
But had you used it you would have been prosecuted for your pleasure (I don't agree with this but there you go).
If guns were more freely available then the chances are that your mugger would have had a gun too. Arming ourselves with bigger and better will not help in the long run, better to think of a different way of dealing with the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Car theft and thefts from vehicles are often to fund a drug habit.
IMO a drug habit is a medical problem and should be treated like any other disease.
Keeping prices high by prohibition merely means that the wherewithal to purchase supplies cannot be obtained by legal means.
The medical profession seems uninterested (sorry to any motoring doctors on here) and the government is unwilling to lose face by admitting that it has wasted billions of pounds on policing and border controls to no avail.
I am sure that if drugs were freely available on prescription then the criminal activity associated with them would disappear overnight and the law-abiding public would be freed from the fear of theft or muggings. Maybe some police resources could be found to tackle "proper2" motoring offences and safety issues.
All that the present policy is doing is making victims of everybody.
|
|
|
I find it quite bizarre that the United States has been cited as a good argument for legalized guns. In the US most criminals carry guns or have ready access to them, and many use them. Shootings are so common in the US, most of them don't make the news. Guns are available here (UK), of course. But your average crim doesn't carry one because the risk is too high. Hence the 500 quid rental: if guns are so easy to get hold of, why don't they just buy one for themselves?
I'm also not sure how you could defend yourself with a gun if someone is holding a gun, or even a knife, in your face while you're sitting in your car. You'd be dead as soon as you moved. All the macho bluster we've heard on this thread is wishful thinking.
Chris
|
Chris, you say that the average crim doesn't carry a gun because the risk is too high. You are out of date with that one, recent newspaper reports quote the police as saying that the gun problem in inner cities is now out of control, and remember the teenage girl who was shot in the head AFTER she handed her mobile phone over to a mugger.
Criminals carry guns because they know that most police don't, and anything they do will carry no more than a prison sentence. They know they have the power of life and death over their victims with little risk to their own safety in return.
|
Tom
I spend a lot of time in and around Liverpool, the current holder of the title "Britain's gun capital", including drinking in some pretty dodgy pubs. In three years I have never heard gunfire and never seen a gun. I spent a week in Boston (USA) a few years ago, and heard gunfire close by twice. Most crimes in the UK are petty thefts, twocs, and burglaries. Guns are hardly ever involved. There have been several shootings in Liverpool in the last year. But they all centred on a "war" between rival gangs. So let's not get this out of proportion. Unfortunately, if a burglar or carjacker expects you to have a gun, it's more likely he will want one too, and be prepared to use it. I know I would.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Chris, agreed.
In a carjacking situation, the idea is to get out slowly, let the guy climb in, and let him drive off.
However, a better idea is to NOT get yourself into a potential hold-up situation. This is simple - if a light is red, slow up a fair way before, and cruise into it at a slower speed, so you don't ever come to a standstill.
Remember, the first in the queue is likely to get jacked, so if there are suspicious-looking types about, be prepared to jump the lights.
Exactly the same as street muggings, etc - awareness of people around you - the potential threats - is your best weapon.
But as Randolph and others have pointed out, crims normally target anybody who is weaker and more vulnerable.
|
You're right, and as with anything else, it's a 'horses for courses' situation. Here in the UK, the circumstances outlined in this thread are NOT the norm, even in our inner cities, but these cases do make the headlines. Tough if you are the victim, of course, but justice shouldn't be based on anger and revenge.
If society itself doesn't strive for something beyond a 'tit for tat' environment, even when there ARE occasional extreme threats, we might as well go back to our caves.
|
|
|
|
|
Ian
To what extent did the foot-operated (?) "flamethrowers", which sent a blast of flame horizontally from under the front doors, catch on in terms of deterring car-jacking in South Africa?
Quite widely publicised here in the press and on TV a few years ago I recall, using an old BMW 3 Series as the demonstration (!) model, and all allegedly quite legal.
A good incentive not to run low on fuel too, I imagine, and might work quite well with traffic light screencleaners too!
Keep the South African perspective coming - it sounds like we in UK need your advice for the future!
Ronnie
|
Ronnie, I think it was more a publicity stunt - wasn't REALLY legal... However, the sale of the 540i protection model (armor glass, etc) is doing quite well...
advise? read the above - don't get into a hi-jack situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Get yourself some evasive driving training as well -- ramming, u-turns. Then buy an F150 V-8 with a humungous bullbar!
|
Yes, and perhaps you could consider what your choice of weapon does to pedestrians and cyclists in the event of a collision....I don't expect a considered, civilised reply but I am sure your mentality is suited to a third world combat situation (do you read "Mercenary Monthly"?)
Bye
|
OOOOH! Touchy!
The main concern, when choosing a vehicle of this type, is to protect the occupants from danger. I'm sure Growler takes care in urban areas, where there are kids/cyclists.
Horses (HP) for courses.
|
What, in an F150? Increased braking distances, cr*p handling (even a DW special can avoid trouble more effectively than a F150). The only thing monster trucks and 4*4s are good at is mowing down pedestrians and cyclists.
All wheel drive and horsepower, great on a Suburu but wasted on a lardy boy yank tank.
What do you know about safe driving? You live in SA,
Bye
|
|
who said anything about safe? survival don't mean safe!
|
1st law for not crashing: Avoid impact with handling and braking that's controllable "on the edge", lard bucket 4*4s are as manoeuvrable as a cathedral.
2nd law for not crashing.......there isn't one, see above.
Bye
|
|
|
|
