View Full Version : Pity he couldn't protect himself and his wife...

22nd Sep 2008, 01:50
Father killed in double shooting | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/22/9)

But I thought UK was free from the scourge of guns and gun crime. Where were the police to protect them?

22nd Sep 2008, 04:31
UK gun crime stats - now lets see the figures for the US BenThere:}

The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 13% in 2006/07 compared to the previous year.
Firearms were involved in 566 serious or fatal injuries in 2006/07, compared to 645 the previous year - a drop of 12%.
The number of armed robberies involving guns dropped by 3%
There were 13% fewer serious and fatal injuries related to gun crimes in 2006/07.
The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07.
The number of reported crimes involving air guns dropped by 15% in 2006/07 over 2005/06.

22nd Sep 2008, 04:48
"Pity he couldn't protect himself and his wife..."

What the hell are you on??!!

Protect himself and his wife? That is a crime, to protect yourself and your loved ones, or anyone for that matter. You just have to stand back and watch while your love ones are violated etc. Well I mean the criminal's human rights have to be considered here, do they not??

Get shot? Well as long as you weren't breaking the law, then too bad. No have I got that wrong? If you are breaking the law you maybe OK.:ugh:

22nd Sep 2008, 08:42
Hey, it's Jet Blast - I'll bite.

BenThere please explain why a campaign to arm the populace is an appropriate response to a passion-induced, isolated attack with a .22.

Better deny the lovelorn access to 22s (or any other firearm) I would have thought.

Dan D'air
22nd Sep 2008, 09:02
Better deny the lovelorn access to 22s (or any other firearm) I would have thought

The Government's knee-jerk reaction to Dunblane did just that and look what happened. Firearms offences went through the roof.

22nd Sep 2008, 09:13

See my post above about the stats - in the UK there are less than 600 serious or fatal injuries where firearms were involved in 2006-07. A FALL of 12% over the previous year. UK population is what 60million.

Let's now see about the US of A with a population of what 300 million - the websites tell me that from about 2003 there is normally about 29,000 per year.

Now what does this tell you?


22nd Sep 2008, 09:14
Thread drift.

How do you do that quote with the blue background thing? I know it's been answered before, but I was round the back in the cycle sheds having a smoke at the time.

22nd Sep 2008, 09:35
Doubleu-anker, care to give the statute preventing anyone from using reasonable force to protect oneself, up to and including lethal force.

Barkley 1992Öthe handgun ban came into effect in 1997. We were told it was needed to end gun crime. Effective wasnít it. :rolleyes:

22nd Sep 2008, 09:50

"care to give the statute preventing anyone from using reasonable force to protect oneself, up to and including lethal force."

Take it you mean read it? I have actually. All good stuff of course but tell me this. How do you defend yourself when the crim' has a gun and you, as the soon to be victim, is not allowed a gun for even self defence?

Bring in the vigilantes. Only way, as the cops have "lost the streets". No the cops don't like it of course as they would be admitting defeat. But for the most part, defeated they are.

If you are the victim I don't care if you are "Bruce Lee" or "King Kong" because if you have a "12 gauge" pointed at your guts or face, it's game over for you.

22nd Sep 2008, 10:22
What are the figures like for New Zealand, where. according to the newspaper I saw there, 1 in 4 inhabitants has a gun?

22nd Sep 2008, 10:34
How many people (where it is legal) carry a gun 24/7 just in case they get attacked by a deranged gunman?

22nd Sep 2008, 11:44
Doubleu-anker, Guns for self defence in the hands of Mr. /Mrs. Average are IMHO only likely to compound the problem.

You see Iíve actually used firearms under duress and in anger. I was a professional with vast amounts of training and practice behind me. I fired more rounds in a day than most civvies fire in a lifetime. I still shoot today and in the last couple months I have fired over 3000 rounds of centre fire rifle ammunition and hundreds or rounds 12-gauge ammo. Some to practice and some to do the job. Some civvy shooters donít fire that amount of ammo a year let alone in a couple of months. But to stay current and maintain an effective standard you need to put rounds down range.

Pistol shooting is a whole lot harderÖbut with practice and the right instruction you can shoot very accurately and with un-believable speed. BUT you have to practice a lot. Most defence gun owners would not be prepared/could not afford to do this. Its funny but it took a US police officer to teach me how to use a handgun; the Army hadnít got a clue.

Being armed 24/7 is something that gets old very quickly. I would rather live in a society that lets the law abiding pursue their legitimate shooting sport without the tabloids whipping up mass hysteria over the criminal use of guns. Lets face the Yorkshire ripper used a screwdriver, I didnít see them being banned.

Michael SWS
22nd Sep 2008, 12:50
Thread drift.

How do you do that quote with the blue background thing? I know it's been answered before, but I was round the back in the cycle sheds having a smoke at the time.Like this, you mean?

Some forums offer the facility to quote automatically; unfortunately, this one doesn't.

So copy the text you want to quote and paste it inside Quote/unquote tags. (A Quote tag is just the word "QUOTE" inside square brackets and the unquote tag is the string /QUOTE inside square brackets.

If you want to add the name of the person who posted the quote then simply add an equals sign (=) and the poster's name after the word QUOTE inside the first set of square brackets.

Here's an example. (I've changed the upper case Os to zeros to avoid confusing the forum software).

The text you want to quote.

22nd Sep 2008, 13:13
by Pity he couldn't protect himself and his wife... do you mean it's a pity he couldn't chose to educate himself about the various firearms available, select one appropriate for his needs, then take a course on how to use it and the ramifications of owning it, then undergo a period of training so that he could actually use it effectively with a reasonable degree of precision followed by recurrent trips to the range to prove to himself that his accuracy was still appropriate, and added to all this some degree of thought put in to how the gun would be stored so that it would be both as safe as possible and available.

...or do you mean he should stop off at WalMart on the way back from McDonalds buy the biggest baddest weapon he can find, dry fire it a few times in the living room, practice a few quick draws in front of the mirror then leave it loaded on the bedside table so that his kid gets hold of it and blows away his friend?

...or am I merely rising to the bait?

22nd Sep 2008, 13:15
by Pity he couldn't protect himself and his wife... do you mean the time a man robbed a bank and as he was doing it his mask fell off. He quickly put it back on then turned to the first of the customers and asked "Did you see my face?" to which the customer replied "yes" so the robber shoots him through the head.

He then turned to the next cutomer in line and said "Did you see my face?" to which the customer replied "No, but my wife did."

22nd Sep 2008, 13:19
How do you do that quote with the blue background thing? Hit the Post Reply button.
Highlight the text you want to copy from the relevant post.
Paste it into your reply field.
Highlight again.
Click on Quote icon (last icon on the right directly over your post) and the quote codes will appear either side of your highlighted text.

... unfortunately, this one doesn't.Nothing unfortunate about it, Michael. People here were driven demented by (usually fairly new) posters using the quote facility to repeat even posts that were directly above their own. They would never bother to pick out only the bits they wanted to quote and we ended up with a situation where the whole damn post ... sometimes a very long one ... would appear several times on a page. It resulted in threads that drove people nuts as they tried to read them. I don't think anyone on this board would welcome the return of that particular facility, it's an absolute curse.

Back to the subject ... even if the father in question had been in possession of an entire arsenal of guns, there is no guarantee that the outcome would have been any different. Most gun owners do not wander about their own homes carrying a gun in their pocket and, in this case, the weapon would need to have been very close to hand to have been of any use.

Even assuming the father had been able to get to a gun, the end result may still have been no different. Using a gun of your own does not make you immune to the bullets from other guns ... and the other person may be a far more accurate shot than you.

22nd Sep 2008, 13:27
Nonono, BenThere's made a very serious point. Back home in the good ole USA, the Hustlers might have possessed a veritable armoury with which to defend themselves (even though they were Jehovah's Witnessess, God-fearing, Bible-inspired ornery folk, who might have thought that they were under the Lord's protection and if He didn't in this case, well, it's probably because the Lord had another more meaningful purpose in mind)...

Also, I've seen similar scenes in many (usually American-produced) TV shows. The crazed would-be assassin breaks into the house brandishing his weapon wildly surprising everyone. But using merely insignificant eye-movements to signal intent, Mr. Hustler communicates to Mrs. Hustler that he is going to distract the attention of Mr. Crazy. She should use the opportunity to either extract the .38" strapped to her ankle or run upstairs to the bedroom and fetch the M16. Mrs. Hustler quite forgot to wear the .38" this morning so rushes upstairs. Whilst Mr. Hustler and Mr. Crazy are wrestling on the living room floor below, Mrs. Hustler rushes upstairs and then tearfully endeavours to insert the magazine. Approximately 2 minutes later, she redescends to find Mr. Crazy on top of Mr. Hustler and micro-seconds away from emptying the contents of his .22" into Mr. Hustler's left earhole. Mrs. Hustler points the weapon haphazardly and empties the magazine into the wide-screen TV, the couch and even a few into Mr. Crazy's back. The scene ends when she pulls Mr. Crazy off her husband crying "Are you OK, honey?" Only to see that the bullets have traversed Mr. Crazy and hit Mr. Hustler (who also forgot to wear the kevlar-vest) in the chest, who manages in a bubbly blood-soaked way to express his last sentiments: "Look after the pudicats honey..."

22nd Sep 2008, 13:58
You forgot that the deranged gunman would first have to rack the slide as in FilmWorld, everyone brandishes guns with unchambered rounds.

22nd Sep 2008, 14:13

Good post indeed and point taken.

Speaking of points, my favourite weapon (self defence) is the blow pipe. With the "correct" dart tip, is far more painful than a bullet, until the inevitable paralysis sets in. Keep one at home, ready to go, at all times and don't even have to put much work in "on the range" to be good with it, either. Very simple and cheap ($2) to make. Learnt a lot from the South American Indians, did I.

22nd Sep 2008, 14:27
Doubleu-anker, I watched a documentary about those thingsÖfascinating what humans come up with when needs must.

Knowing my luck, Iíd either stab myself with the poison dart, or suck when I should be blowing. :eek: ;)

22nd Sep 2008, 14:28
Having to chamber a round is so boring.
Trying to find the bullets in a hurry, that's interesting.

Whoever invented speed strips should be taken outside, because they're not.

22nd Sep 2008, 23:27

22nd Sep 2008, 23:30
And here is the detail.

The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.
"Not only were Australia's post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn't happened again, but we also saw a life-saving bonus: the decline in overall gun deaths accelerated to twice the rate seen before the new gun laws," says study lead author, Professor Simon Chapman.
"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide," said Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney. "This was a milestone public health and safety issue, driven by an overwhelming swing in public opinion, and promptly delivered by governments."

West Coast
23rd Sep 2008, 05:04
If you were in the same position as the Hustlers, would you have liked an opportunity to defend yourself and more importantly your family with a firearm?

I don't really expect any of those on the anti gun crusade to answer honestly.

The US has a problem. I'm the first to admit it. The answer isn't as simple as banning firearms however. The roots are a lot deeper than having a weapon in the household, but rather look to socio-economic issues.

As stated here by others, many nations have large numbers of weapons minus the issues many anti gun types associate with an armed society.

Make sure as you rail against the US you're not looking past the real issue as you fixate on the weapons themselves.

henry crun
23rd Sep 2008, 05:45
Barkly1992: Philip Alpers is an anti-gun nut from way back, and he is obviously making a living out of it these days.

I have the very strong impression that it would not matter what verifiable evidence you placed in front of him, if it didn't agree with his views on banning guns, he would rubbish it.

23rd Sep 2008, 08:32
Barkly1992, thanks for the info. However Iím not sure of the relevance of Australian gun crime figures to the UK.

The 1997 handgun ban was in the UK. The shooting that started this thread was in Cornwall England, and the gun crime I was talking about is for the UK.

We have one of the most, if not the most, stringent gun controls in place in the World. If the police had enforced the rules and followed the guidelines in place at the time of Dunblane, Hamilton would have had access to nothing more lethal than a rubber duck.

Our current killing by knife spree we have here in the UK puts a lie to the fact that guns are the cause of murder and mayhem. Itís the intent of the perpetrators that is the problem, not what they useÖbe it axe, knife, screwdriver, hammer or gun.

Removing the legally held sporting guns from law abiding citizens does nothing to prevent criminals murdering one another or us.

23rd Sep 2008, 08:58
Max Cont

I first provided the UK figures - less than 600 a year; then the US 29,000 and then the Australian - and evidence that the crime rate had decreased in Australia since OUR 1997 gun buy back program.

Henry Crun

He is an advocate for gun control - not a nut. But I would be interested in YOUR evidence that you would put in front of him.

Maybe you could let us all in on the evidence that the US is a better and safer place because of the ability of its citizens to pick up a Friday Night Special on the way home from work.


23rd Sep 2008, 09:23
Barkly1992, yes you did...but what were the figures before the ban then after the ban? not from 2006/7. That is well after the ban and when handgun crime was supposed to be a thing of the past.

Also gun crime statistics include what?

henry crun
23rd Sep 2008, 10:16
Barkly1992: Don't put words in my mouth, I did not say " the US is a better and safer place because of the ability of its citizens to pick up a Friday Night Special on the way home from work".

I cannot put my own evidence in front of you to support my claim that Alpers is an extremely biased gun-nut.
Like most, I read other more qualified peoples research and when faced with conflicting arguments I make up my mind as to which side to believe.

Here are a couple of links to articles which may, or may not, convince you that there is an alternative argument to the one that Alpers so loudly proclaims.

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV: The Gun Debate (http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2007/08/the_gun_debate.html)
Sporting Shooters Association of New Zealand (http://www.ssanz.org.nz/News/Articles/20050722.html)

23rd Sep 2008, 13:18
Can we make a distinction between firearms deaths and crime please?

Firearms deaths include accidents and suicides, and possibly the kind of impulsive act which gave rise to this thread.

Criminal use of guns ( as in habitual participant in illegal activity) is probably unaffected by the mandated reduction in firearm ownership.

23rd Sep 2008, 13:44
Just a follow on from Wod's suggestion ... there needs to be a way to take into account any 'method substitution' when it comes to suicide (or attempted suicide) by firearms.

My opinion - if there is a decrease in the rate of suicide and attempted suicide by firearms that is matched in a decrease in the overall rate of suicide and attempted suicide, then it is successful. If the overall rate drops or goes up then it is not successful. The same could be applied to murder and attempted murder.

The overall result should be a decline in the number of suicides attempts and murder attempts overall. Otherwise it is a waste of time trying to solve the 'gun problem' and resources wasted there could go to a more useful area or crime reduction.


23rd Sep 2008, 13:46
Two members of the JW cult were on my doorstep early last Sunday morning telling me the world will end (again) next month....

So they only really lost a few weeks, tops.