Skip to comments.Armed gang attacks family in car-(GB firearms on the loose)
Posted on 08/19/2007 4:18:19 AM PDT by Flavius
Armed police were called after a family visiting relatives were robbed by 10 masked men, two with guns.
The driver was parked near his parents' home in Eldon Road, Luton, on Thursday evening when a gang surrounded his car.
He fled on foot towards a nearby bridge but two of the offenders caught him and took his car keys, police said.
His brother and a friend also ran away but were not followed. Two girls aged 13 and six left in the car were made to hand over clothing and mobiles phones.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
‘What the heck is the matter with you?’
Slightly high blood pressure, right leg slightly shorter than left due to old gunshot injury and beginning to bald.
‘What I got in reply from you was a snarky retort about crime being a bigger problem in America.’
Not sure what ‘snarky’ is but my post merely agreed with your implication that perspective is everything when comparing our two countries. Perhaps my prose style borders on the subtle.
‘You just couldnt resist taking a shot at America.’
An occupational hazard on a board where most freepers (your good self excepted) delight in anti-British sentiment. :)
‘Thanks for those links! :)’
‘In NYS, where I live, we have something called a duty-to-retreat law on the books.’
Interestingly, the self-defence laws of our two countries are very similar on paper. We do not have a duty to retreat but we must not use unreasonable or disproportinate force. So whilst I may shoot an intuder if in imminent danger, I may not shoot one who is retreating. A good example is the well known incident of the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin being imprisoned for shooting a burglar. When you look closer at the incident, the burglar was an unarmed 16 year old minor who was shot twice in the back whilst running away.
If you kill a person in self-defence in the UK the law requires you to be mandatorily arrested and released on police bail whilst the incident is investigated. A court must agree it was self-defence, not just the attending police officers.
They can't arm themselves, they can't fight criminals and therefore they run away and leave little girls to fend for themselves.
beautiful...they are only allowed to fight at soccer matches and pubs over fat chicks.
Like I said, “We don’t speak the same language.” :O)
‘Let’s compare violent and nonviolent crime rates. You will find that Great Britain has changed a bit from the one we were told about in our youth. It is, in fact, up there with many of the most dangerous places to live.’
The Uk is number 6 in total crimes per capita compared with number 8 for the US.
In terms of crimes you don’t survive, ie murders per capita, the US is number 24 and the UK number 46.
In terms of rapes, considered by most to be second only to murder, the US is number 9 and the UK is number 13.
Thus we can conclude that Britons overall are slightly more likely to be victims of any crime than Americans, but Americans are far more likely to victims of serious violent crime than Britons.
‘When the law disallows both the means and moral authority to defend one’s self and property, crime and violence fill the void between common sense and the hoped for utopia.’
The above figures dispute your assertion. I own two shotguns and a .303 SMLE rifle with which to defend my property. I have never needed to do so.
Personally, I would take the British bar. They look like real people having a good time. The Swedish bar looks like a bunch of “Paris wanna be’s,” and just as boring.
‘if they would have fought back they would have gone to prison.... this is England, the land of fairies and sheep.....er...men.’
If they had have fought back they would probably be dead as they were unarmed. We rarely imprison the dead these days.
‘They can’t arm themselves, they can’t fight criminals and therefore they run away and leave little girls to fend for themselves. ‘
Yes we can, I own three guns. Our self-defence laws are very similar to yours. The runners were muslims.
‘beautiful...they are only allowed to fight at soccer matches and pubs over fat chicks.’
Fighting over football is fair enough, but why would we fight over American women? :)
Only a small percentage of Americans who own guns carry guns. Where "it happens" is more often in states or jurisdictions where guns are strictly controlled.
I don't know if you are in the UK or the US, but there are some things you should know about guns and crime in the US. Many, actually most, U.S. states and local jurisdictions don't allow guns in cars unless the owner has a concealed carry permit, and only a very small minority of the people have permits in any state. Also, some states don't issue permits to anyone, and even in some states which issue permits they are only issued to people who are either very wealthy, politically connected, celebrities, or prominent in some other way, and those jurisdictions are often the ones with the highest violent crime rates, Washington, Chicago, NYC, LA, NJ, etc.
I lived in FL when the first "shall issue" carry permit law went into effect in 1987. Within 5 years the FL murder rate had dropped by IIRC about 20%, and the armed robbery rate of out of state tourists in the Miami-Dade area had gone up by a much larger percentage because the BGs knew the tourists were not armed but the locals might be. Tourists were easily identified by the BGs because they usually drove rental cars with rental car license plates and locals drove private cars. I left FL years ago, but I believe the state changed the rental car plates for that very reason.
Strict gun control laws work alright, they just work opposite the way the anti-gun people think they will.
“If men were allowed to own guns, these thugs wouldnt have gotten away with this.
Well, as men are allowed to own guns in America, I can only assume that this type of crime never happens in the US. . . . . .”
men may need to wait and be given government permission to bear arms. But Men don’t.
Bearing arms is not a right given by government. It’s a right given by the creator.
‘Strict gun control laws work alright, they just work opposite the way the anti-gun people think they will.’
All very reasonable points except the last one. Gun control is pointless and counter-productive in America. Introducing gun control in the US is just plain wrong for many reasons. In the UK, however this is not true and it works well here.
Two very different countries in need of very different solutions. It would be idiocy of the highest level to try to impose what the US needs on the UK and vice versa.
“Baloney, it requires backbone and balls.”
Well, my old friend Chuck had both, plus a fairly high degree Blackbelt. And he’s dead! Shot in the head. If a criminal’s got the drop on you, and you even twitch,,,,,,,,,
“The UK has on average 246 people per square kilometre compared to 31 in the US, thus its a bit like comparing Manhattan figures with Montana ones as we all know population density equals crime! :)”
Those of us who don’t live in the cities understand that very well.
Dr Watson, I presume.
So the Jezail bullet really did hit you in the leg? Neither Watson's or Holmes' writings were definitive on this score.
I worked in London back in this 70's for a time. Loved the place.
That’s “the 70’s”. Keyboard is acting up this morning.
“Think of the Virginia Tech shooting - its not really logical to expect typical college kids to react like Army Rangers or Navy Seals.”
Obviously not without some training. Freshman year, martial arts required course for all students physcially capable. Teaching them how to: as an individual, and as a group to disarm a a mass murderer that preys upon the unarmed innocents.
Sophmore, Junior, and Senior years should be given an elective to continue education in martial arts.
Football, basketball, tennis, golf, soccer, rugby, volley ball etc etc are all wonderful sports offered in most colleges. But none of these teach the student how to defend his/herself against an armed assailant or rapist.
So yes, it is not logical to expect vunerable college kids to react like seals or rangers. But that should change. And it should change now.
Since colleges prohibit weapons for protection against mass murderers and rapists, then colleges should be required to provide courses in self defense...again, making it a required course in the freshman year for all capable students.
Fine. Ill grant that Government Reported Crime seems lower. In fact from the Home Office claims some startling reductions for 2006/2007:
Figures published in the British Crime Survey (BCS) 2006-07 show that overall crime rates held steady in England and Wales over the past year. This is part of a long-term trend - crime rates peaked in 1995, then fell by 42% over the subsequent 10 years. The decline reduced the risk of the average person becoming a victim of crime by 41%, although that risk increased by one percentage point last year. Police recorded crime rates showed violent crime rates fell by 1% over the last year - the first fall in that category in eight years. The number of police recorded crimes involving firearms declined by 13% during the same time period. Some crime categories did show increases, but vandalism was the only category to show a statistically significant change over the year - vandalism reports increased by 10%. However, even with that increase, reports of vandalism are still 11% lower now than they were in 1995.
The only question is: Can you trust their numbers? I can see this budding debate going nowhere in that I difficult to accept as proof Statistics that do not accurately cover what they report.
Most of what follows is from an article by Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen published in 2001.
As far back as April 1996, headlines in the London Daily Telegraph said it all: "Crime Figures a Sham, Say Police." The story noted that "pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics," and "the recorded crime level bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."
For example, where a series of homes were burgled, they were regularly recorded as one crime. If a burglar hit 15 or 20 flats, only one crime was added to the statistics.
A 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary charges Britain's 43 police departments with systemic under-classification of crime for example, by recording burglary as "vandalism." The report lays much of the blame on the police's desire to avoid the extra paperwork associated with more serious crimes.
Its not simply a local problem either. Britain's justice officials have also kept crime totals down by being careful about what to count.
"American homicide rates are based on initial data, but British homicide rates are based on the final disposition." Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. "With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham," the report concludes.
I own two shotguns and a .303 SMLE rifle with which to defend my property. I have never needed to do so.
I too have a shotgun (5 shot, pistol grip with high powered light) and numerous handguns for home protection. (Id advise, should you have to, use the shotguns. I also have a few SMLEs, along with Mosin, Mauser, and Styer rifles in many various military calibers. Full load rifle rounds can go though your target and into other nearby homes. Not a good thing at all.) The difference is I will not automatically become the next Tony Martin should I be forced to use one of them. Defensive gun ownership is entirely illegal in Great Britain, and considered an insult to the government, because it implies that the government cannot keep the peace. You may be allowed to ask Pretty please may I own a gun? and they sometimes say yes, but do not dare to use it in defense of yourself. You will most likely go to jail (Remember, Tony Martin initially got a LIFE SENTANCE).
I suspect we are on the same side here, but tossing Government supplied statistics around isnt going to get us anywhere. Total numbers dont add up because the U.S. is a much larger country. Per capita should, but different reporting methods skew the results into un-usability. I suspect they would show that personal, one-on-one crime to be higher in GB and lower in the States, and that pure property crime might be similar in rate or lower in GB.
“In fairness, running away when threatened with a gun is an instinctive reaction.”
I understand your point but we see news footage every day that contradicts that. I would strongly contend that it is NOT instinctive. Mose people freeze and comply.
What IS instinctive is the protection of our young. No way in hell I would run and leave a woman and a child there. No way. They basically said, “They are yours. Rape or kill at will, long as I can get away.” Cowardice of the first order.
Do you dream in color or black and white? If you're not dreaming, whatever you're having this morning I want some too.
Thanks to the virulent strain of anti-gun, anti-self defense philosophical microrganism that infects American academe, weapon-free colleges and high schools are foremost among the most vulnerable places in the US to armed attackers. The tragic irony of that situation is that those campuses contain what for most of us are the most valuable possessions we will ever have, our children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.