Gun Crime UK

[Dark Skies]

I live in a pretty small market town. Last year a friend was mugged for his phone and whatever money he had left from a night in the pub. To get his old 'smart' phone and chump change they gave him a bloody good kicking and a boot to the head when he was down.
That latter spiteful kick could have killed him.
They just don't care any more. You only have to look at the rise in knife crime to see that.
A regular person in the street is easy meat to a couple of thugs with no restraint. They wander among us without much fear of getting caught - and rightly so given the cuts in policing resources. Sentencing isn't much of a deterrent either - chopped in half to accommodate logistical problems with overcrowded prisons.

Using this experience as an example.... The result was being battered and bruised, and missing a phone and a few quid.

Now lets assume, in a world where guns where readily available, the same situation arises. Your friend pulls out their gun, the mugger pulls out their gun, both panic and get a couple of shots off before a fatal shot is fired. Now one (or more likely both) people involved in the situation are dead.

The situation escalated rather quickly from a few injuries to multiple deaths. On the very remote chance that the mugger, with our current laws, had managed to get hold of a gun then the chances are it would have been used to intimidate to carry out the mugging and your friend (although maybe traumatised) probably would have been saved a kicking!

It's easy to gloss over "a few injuries" when the person was lucky enough to live. He was kicked HARD, in the head, when he was down. Unnecessarily.
Now it could be that he was fortunate enough to be kicked in the thicker part of his skull and so sustained no lasting injuries. And that the angle of his head and the position of the kick were not sufficiently matched to break his neck. But neither of these were a considered concern to the thug that booted him. They just didn't care.

Apparently he 'knew' it was about to happen the moment he clapped eyes on them. Some people just exude sly and dodgy . That moment could have been sufficient to have drawn a weapon and prevented the mugging / defended himself.

Your scenario doesn't hold water much. I care if my friend survives your scenario - I don't care if he killed his would-be mugger/s or just one and shot the fleeing creep into the bargain. They are outlaws and made their own bed to lie in.

I'm a stout believer in capital punishment. I see no reason why it should not be retrospective either.
Forensics has improved by light years since the death penalty was abolished.
Almost to the same extent that criminal brutality and disregard for human life has escalated ever since the death penalty was abolished. Calculated murderers can now expect to resume a normal life as a free person and at a relatively young age - if they have the presence of mind to commit their crime whilst in their twenties. Violent offenders can expect to slash their sentences in half.
There is very little to deter them now.

[breacher]

Frankly your argument is paranoid, normal people going about their lives shouldn't need to spend their time preparing for a 'what-if' scenario.

You wont need a fire extinguisher then.
Nor a a seat belt. We live in a
Nor car insurance.
Nor life insurance.

Not a fair comparison, Fire Extinguishers and seat belts are established safety tools that are legally required they are not intended to be able to take a life. Car insurance has mutual societal and personal benefit. Life insurance is a choice but not necessary, having it or not does not cause harm.

The reality is this is an absurd debate there is ZERO chance of Parliament ever legislating to allow concealed carry, there are some very vague circumstances where a gun could be used for self defence but you are risking plenty trying to find the edge of where the law sits on that especially when it comes to the concept of 'intent'.

You are mixing up three different debates.

On the first - do we have any chance of seeing legislation allowing us to possess firearms for self-defence - I agree with you - no chance. But not because it will not help - its more about Govt controlling the population. The same govt tells us we don't need armed police yet the police dept guarding them is 100% armed 24/7.

Second debate - will gun ownership for self defence increase safety or decrease it ? Evidence has been provided of a european country where it seems to be working just fine.

Third debate - self-defence is NOT just about lethal guns. Our closest european neighbour France allows possession of non lethal bean bag guns. And pepper spray. And stun guns. Again, I am unaware of these items being abused any more than any other items in France.

Finally I see a real irony in allowing us to use reasonable force to save life and prevent crime BUT not allow us to possess ANY article to assist us. Yes - we can "instantly arm" ourselves when threatened but that's useless...... unless there just happens to be something laying around which you can reach and use as a weapon !

Preventing law abiding citizens from possessing lethal or non lethal self defence articles in the belief that it makes society safer makes as much sense as castration of all men to eradicate rape !

[Pippin89]

I live in a pretty small market town. Last year a friend was mugged for his phone and whatever money he had left from a night in the pub. To get his old 'smart' phone and chump change they gave him a bloody good kicking and a boot to the head when he was down.
That latter spiteful kick could have killed him.
They just don't care any more. You only have to look at the rise in knife crime to see that.
A regular person in the street is easy meat to a couple of thugs with no restraint. They wander among us without much fear of getting caught - and rightly so given the cuts in policing resources. Sentencing isn't much of a deterrent either - chopped in half to accommodate logistical problems with overcrowded prisons.

Using this experience as an example.... The result was being battered and bruised, and missing a phone and a few quid.

Now lets assume, in a world where guns where readily available, the same situation arises. Your friend pulls out their gun, the mugger pulls out their gun, both panic and get a couple of shots off before a fatal shot is fired. Now one (or more likely both) people involved in the situation are dead.

The situation escalated rather quickly from a few injuries to multiple deaths. On the very remote chance that the mugger, with our current laws, had managed to get hold of a gun then the chances are it would have been used to intimidate to carry out the mugging and your friend (although maybe traumatised) probably would have been saved a kicking!

It's easy to gloss over "a few injuries" when the person was lucky enough to live. He was kicked HARD, in the head, when he was down. Unnecessarily.
Now it could be that he was fortunate enough to be kicked in the thicker part of his skull and so sustained no lasting injuries. And that the angle of his head and the position of the kick were not sufficiently matched to break his neck. But neither of these were a considered concern to the thug that booted him. They just didn't care.

Apparently he 'knew' it was about to happen the moment he clapped eyes on them. Some people just exude sly and dodgy . That moment could have been sufficient to have drawn a weapon and prevented the mugging / defended himself.

Your scenario doesn't hold water much. I care if my friend survives your scenario - I don't care if he killed his would-be mugger/s or just one and shot the fleeing creep into the bargain. They are outlaws and made their own bed to lie in.

I'm a stout believer in capital punishment. I see no reason why it should not be retrospective either.
Forensics has improved by light years since the death penalty was abolished.
Almost to the same extent that criminal brutality and disregard for human life has escalated ever since the death penalty was abolished. Calculated murderers can now expect to resume a normal life as a free person and at a relatively young age - if they have the presence of mind to commit their crime whilst in their twenties. Violent offenders can expect to slash their sentences in half.
There is very little to deter them now.

You have missed the point. No body died in your friends incident. Granted given other circumstances he could have done but the chances are remote. Add guns to the equation and the chances get exponentially larger! In the simple equation of life vs death guns do not help...

[Sim G]

Not a fair comparison, Fire Extinguishers and seat belts are established safety tools that are legally required they are not intended to be able to take a life. Car insurance has mutual societal and personal benefit. Life insurance is a choice but not necessary, having it or not does not cause harm.

And as is a firearm, an established safety tool. There is just as much societal and personal benefit in being capable of defending ones self, ones family and property and those around.

The reality is this is an absurd debate there is ZERO chance of Parliament ever legislating to allow concealed carry, there are some very vague circumstances where a gun could be used for self defence but you are risking plenty trying to find the edge of where the law sits on that especially when it comes to the concept of 'intent'.

Utter guff...

[Sim G]

….But you would have to do so well within the knowledge that you are breaking the law and are likely to be, at the very least, relieved of your FAC and guns, and possibly have more serious legal repercussions.

Just, no....

[meles meles]

We're told that several of our esteemed Members of Parliament do have authority to carry a firearm for self defence. Their lives are worth more than ours you see.

[BamBam]

I used to carry a gun everyday and I'm only here to say that without them, I wouldn't be here.

[Dark Skies]

You have missed the point. No body died in your friends incident. Granted given other circumstances he could have done but the chances are remote. Add guns to the equation and the chances get exponentially larger! In the simple equation of life vs death guns do not help...

The chances are remote?
Well, OK then. Please explain why you believe it's right to allow some thug the opportunity to find out how remote the chances are of killing / causing life changing damage to their victim without said victim having the right to decline that opportunity with a viable means of defence.

I think I may have recounted elsewhere how my slip of a thing ex-wife shot an intruder in her home one evening (Ohio). He didn't die but he certainly stopped being a threat.

A friend of hers was not so lucky. A few years earlier one of her friends was abducted (along with her child) taken for a harrowing ride before being tortured and then killed. The child was dumped at a gas station. It was this incident that encouraged her and her friends to take up concealed carry permits. It laid the foundation for her later experience and her not getting / raped / assaulted / murdered whatever the creep had a mind to do.

I had a work colleague who was mugged at knifepoint in Oxford (some years ago now).
His wallet was taken which contained about £60 in notes and all his credit cards. There were some bits and bobs with his name and address in there too - usual wallet junk.
Bit of a shame as he had recently been made redundant so any loss was a big loss to a temp worker.
The credit cards were used almost immediately.
The trickle down consequences of having his identity appropriated and worrying about his house being broken into plagued him for some months. He felt that having meekly handed over his wallet marked him out for a sequel in his own home. Not an unreasonable feeling perhaps.

I suppose you'd consider that a win. At least nobody died this time.

However, I view it as a win for the criminal. He made a tidy haul for a few minutes enterprise. It proved he had a viable means of making money. And there were no consequences. I expect he did it again and again and again - along with whatever spin-off criminality he boosted his earnings with.
Who is to say whether he escalated to actual violence if someone later had the temerity to refuse his demands?

It left my friend with, I suppose, what might be called PTSD for quite some time. And a number of financial headaches. And a lot of bother cancelling cards and bills he accrued in his name.
Nobody was caught. Also a terrible sense of being something less than a man took hold of him. Being helpless and unable to prevent being at the mercy of some parasite. Churning over the 'what if I had ...?'
Knowing the bloke was still out there somewhere in the same city (Oxford) worried hm too. What if he met him again? It became quite debilitating.

[Chuck]

You lot who have no care for your own safety or that of your loved ones but would abdicate that responsibility to someone who on balance will NEVER be there when you need them should have a read at this article - if possible get the book:

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong -- since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so -- but you face some difficult moral quandaries.

How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

This we call HYPOCRISY!

I always find it hard to believe that some people prefer being victims and that somehow an attacker will have pity on them because they are defenceless - how THICK can you be.?

of course uou' could get a gun if you needed one - which by definition is TOO LATE!

Of course if you feel you cannot be trusted with (or should I say trust yourself) and trained enough AT YOUR OWN COST to carry a firearm in public for sef defence then you probably have made a good call.

The chances of bad things happening to you can be remote but leaving your life and safety to CHANCE - that's just insane. It is NOT YOU who decides when that "bad thing" will happen your way - it will never be your call!

[breacher]

Call the police. Then call for a pizza. I bet the pizza arrives first.