Gun Crime UK

[Christel]

Pippin89,

The scenario you are describing, for some people the outcome is less important than doing the right thing.

I for one will defend my house, my dogs, my husband, in no order, at any cost.

Even if I die in doing so, at least I did the right thing.

Please remember that just because you will hand your wallet to the criminal does not mean that applies to all.

"The right thing" is subjective and differs for you and me. For me doing the right thing is coming out of the situation alive. If that means letting someone go with my wallet then so be it. Going home to my family is more important to me than letting someone escape with a few quid! For me THAT is doing the right thing.....

Yup, people differ in what they see as the right thing to do.

[Sim G]

Training obvious helps you massively. But however much training you have, if you have a gun pointed at you, the chances of pulling out your own gun, aiming and pulling the trigger, before the criminal has the chance to just pull the trigger..... seems quite remote. This is only one situation of course and in other situations training could help massively. But I stand by my opinion that if a mugger is pointing a gun at you, your best chance of survival, even if you are armed, is to give them your wallet/phone/watch or whatever else and then let them leave.

First point. No, you are mistaken. Action beats reaction. Bill Jordan, the older on this forum will remember him. US Border Patrol and a leading voice in service handguns and technique. His colleague was accused of murder because they didn't believe that he could draw and shoot a man who had a gun trained on him. In court, Jordan gave the prosecutor an empty revolver with the hammer cocked. The only instruction was to pull the trigger of the revolver whenever he saw Jordan attempt to draw his service revolver from it's holster. Time and time again, Jordan "beat" the prosecutor. Jordan testified that his colleague was faster than him.... "As opposed to being quite remote", the fact that "action beats reaction" is a concept taught continually in sports, defence and what have you.

Now your second point actually leaves me cold! Ever heard of Abdul Samad? A 27 year old charity worker, engaged to be married. Returning home from work and 60 yards from his front door. Two pieces of excrement on a moped and brandishing a knife, demand his phone, wallet, watch and bag. He gives the items to them.

They get off the scooter and stab him in the chest. He dies, on his own doorstep, in the arms of his parents...

I can quote a litany of other cases. Google Abdul and others, see what your "compliance" can result in. I suppose I am grateful that you live in a place where you haven't heard of this. Where you can have such a "moral high ground" and you may very well spend your whole life never hearing of, never mind dealing with a sudden and violent encounter with an unscrupulous criminal. But that's the whole point of this thread, the very one time it may happen, you might not get the opportunity to ever consider what preparation you should have made....

[Pippin89]

First point. No, you are mistaken.

Why doesn't that surprise me....
I can only say to you that one man does not represent the general population. And the general population is what we are talking about here. Not an expert in quick draw!!!

I can quote a litany of other cases. Google Abdul and others, see what your "compliance" can result in.

I am sure you could quote hundreds. Of course it happens, no one is saying that it doesn't. But I bet a pound to a penny that for every case where compliance got someone killed, there are 100 cases where they walked away.... And as I referenced the "best chance" of survival that would still be the case!

[froggy]

First point. No, you are mistaken. Action beats reaction. > Why doesn't that surprise me...

That you are surprised or not, it still doesn't make you right
Whether it is a gun pointed at you or a knife in your back (typical cash point robbery scenario), Sim is 100% right and with training, not only Action does beat Reaction but "move & shoot" also greatly increases your chances of safely incapacitating the aggressor.

[Pippin89]

First point. No, you are mistaken. Action beats reaction. > Why doesn't that surprise me...

That you are surprised or not, it still doesn't make you right
Whether it is a gun pointed at you or a knife in your back (typical cash point robbery scenario), Sim is 100% right and with training, not only Action does beat Reaction but "move & shoot" also greatly increases your chances of safely incapacitating the aggressor.

Key words "With Training".... You are still relying on your training being SIGNIFICANTLY better than your attackers (considering they have the advantage of already having their weapon drawn). That's a big gamble to take....

[Dark Skies]

Sometimes scumbags aren't even interested in robbing you so compliance isn't even something one can offer.
I remember an incident that occurred when I was about sixteen or thereabouts.
One evening around 11pm I was taking my dog for a walk along the footpath that ran behind the bottom of our garden and alongside the field, leading to a new estate that had been built.

I was minding my own business when I saw two young women and a man walking towards me. I'd guess they were all mid twenties.
I moved to one side of the path with the dog so we could pass each other easily. Which we did. Just fine.

About fifteen yards further on this guy, suddenly shouts "You ignorant b******!"
I turned (not quite sure it was being directed at me) to see this guy running back towards me.
I didn't know what his problem was or what I could have possibly have done to have upset him so I just stood there, confused.

I thought he was going to say something. Instead he punched me full on in the chest. For no reason at all, as hard as he could.
However, I was wearing a decent quality leather jacket. Furthermore at that time in my life I was pretty big and fit. I had ambitions to join the Royal Marines and was doing the whole jogging with a rucksack with sandbag in routine. Working out. I was a member of the local sea cadets and we regularly rowed these massive whaling boats up and down the Thames. I was pretty robust.

Anyhow, despite all his worst intentions, this arsehole punched softer than my sister. His face was a picture when he saw my zero reaction to his punch. I just said something like "You're drunk. Sod off home."
And he did. Or so I thought.

He walked back to the women and Angel (my dog) and I started to walk home.

I'd almost reached home, literally the next house along, when I heard "Remember me?"
It was this same dickhole on a racing bike and just as I'd turned he swung this bloody great metal torch into the side of my head.
And that's all I knew. My next door neighbour, a cop, had found me at the mouth of his drive, unconscious. An ambulance was called and I spent a day or so in hospital with concussion.

My best guess was that the first assault was, in some twisted logic, designed to impress his girl friends. How that's supposed to work I don't know. The second assault may have been frustration because earlier he'd had the drop on a teenager, swung with all his might, and made himself look like a complete tosser that punches like a girl. Oh, and was mocked for his trouble.

Now, the reason I mention this isn't as an illustration of the advantage of carrying arms for self-defence. It IS to highlight that there are people out there that just do not care what the consequences of their violence is. They don't even need a reason, not one apparent to normal folks at any rate. They just take it into their heads to hurt someone.

In my case there was no justification at all for the first assault. None whatsoever. Nor for the second. I was unarmed and had already turned the other cheek when it was apparent I could have given him a bloody good walloping.
It happened because my assailant wanted it to happen. He'd actually gone home, got his bike, armed himself, and then gone out looking for me.

There are people out there that really just do not care if they put you in hospital, put you on life support, turn you into a cabbage, or kill you.
Being meek and compliant just doesn't cut it with these people. It's all about them and what they want to do. And they'll just do it.
The second assault may have been

[Sim G]

Key words "With Training".... You are still relying on your training being SIGNIFICANTLY better than your attackers (considering they have the advantage of already having their weapon drawn). That's a big gamble to take....

As opposed to relying on the “charitable nature” of your attacker, then calling someone else to come look after you....! Seriously?!!! FFS.

I’ll leave this now as I’m about to start giving an opinion you won’t want to hear.

[froggy]

Because most of those carrying wouldn't have the faintest idea how to effectively use their 9mm Hi-Power/AR 15 or whatever

I beg to disagree. Europe is not certainly not the USA where in some states it is a "free for all" and therefore I feel Pete that your point is invalid .

It is up to the legislator to decide what are the minimum requirements to allow an adult responsible individual to carry a firearm. I can only speak about the Czech Rep where the process is long, costly, demanding and certainly discourages the "cow-boys" types you are referring to. There is a theoretical & practical exam before being granted a carry licence. The requirements are pretty rigorous . They cover both the ability to handle, use safely & efficiently a handgun but also cover the legislation and conditions of us and even first-aid, should you ever had unfortunately to open fire.

For the record I am not an advocate of carrying a gun and merely stress the Czech experience demonstrating both historical safety level & low criminality, both going against your argument.

[froggy]

however much training you have, if you have a gun pointed at you, the chances of pulling out your own gun, aiming and pulling the trigger, before the criminal has the chance to just pull the trigger seems quite remote .... the general population is what we are talking about here. Not an expert in quick draw!!!

Sorry, I am confused . Are you talking someone who owns a gun like you initially did or about the general population as you subsequently did ? You decide, you tell us .

IMO if you own a gun, it is your upmost responsibility to train in order to be safe.
Now, if you own a handgun for self-defense, in addition to be safe, you also have to use efficiently and therefore to train regularly & rigorously. No need to be "an expert" , just to do it well . In that case, "no if / no but" and with all due respect, Sim's statement is 100% correct and yours is not.

[JammyGuns]

I'm not sure about handguns for defence in the UK (though they should certainly be legal for sporting use) but I can see no earthly reason why non-lethal forms of defence (pepper spray) shouldn't be legal for those over 18 and without a serious criminal/mental health history - perhaps those wishing to be granted one could also undergo a training course first. Is there a possibility of such items falling into criminal hands at some point? Of course. But then that's the case already with things far worse; knives, acid, an old chair leg etc... whatever. It isn't a good enough reason imo to disarm law abiding citizens when common sense will tell you that the police can't possibly be everywhere at once. The real reason it'll never happen, or at least not within the foreseeable future, is the mentality of our leaders - not because they're worried it'll lead to the wrong hands and misuse. The idea of the plebs enacting a bit of self preservation is abhorrent to their nanny state mentality. That's what it's really about. You're to take your beating/assault with minimal resistance like a good little lemming, so that they can later descend like gods upon a bloody crime scene and (assuming enough media attention warrants it) declare how awful it was and that, rest assured those who did it (the same guys who have done it umpteenth times before) will be caught...