ARS on Twitter
RSS
I thought there was a ban in effect to prevent exactly this..
Posted by Duncan on February 12th, 2009
A British family settling down for a dinner party were held up by an armed gang who burst into their house and threatened their 5-year-old daughter.
The gang of up to five men, all wearing hats or hoods with scarves covering their faces, demanded that the terrified owners and their two guests tell them where they “kept the drugs.”
The family could not give the gang what they wanted because the men had targeted the wrong home in Croydon, South London.
Frustrated at their lack of success, the gang threatened to hurt the young girl and a shot was fired.
The family and friends were waiting for another couple on Saturday night when there was a knock at the door. When the homeowner opened the door he was confronted by the masked gang who forced him back into the dining room.
He suffered minor injuries as he was bundled back into the house and was hit with the gun.
The little girl began crying and the gang said they would hurt her unless the adults handed over the drugs.
Eventually the gang was persuaded that there were no drugs in the house, so they took everyone’s cell phones and jewelry.
“The line we are taking is that this was an entirely innocent family and the gang have got the wrong house and thought it contained drugs,” a police source told The Times. “It was absolutely terrifying for the family. They are traumatized and do not want any of their personal details released.”
Police believe the handgun was fired accidentally.
“We are following several lines of enquiry, one of which is that the suspects may have targeted the wrong address,” Detective Sergeant Simon Mitchell said.
If there is this ban on handguns, where’d the bad guys get theirs? OHHHHHHHH. That’s right, they are criminals, don’t give a hoot in hell about the law, will buy one on the black market, and terrorize law-abiding families who don’t have firearms of their own because they’re banned…. for The Children™ ofcourse.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
This is one case, Duncan. No, a ban on handguns will not completely eliminate violent crimes, but it would significantly reduce it over time. If I remember correctly, England actually has a much LOWER rate of violent crimes. It is helpful to look at the statistics as a whole, rather than one example.
February 12th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Besides, my understanding is that the statistics on handguns in the home are that they are RARELY used for self defense, and are much more often used in domestic violence, suicide, accidental shooting deaths (children playing with them), and even in cases where the intruder finds and uses the gun on the homeowners.
February 12th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I have to agree with reasic. Duncan’s point misconstrues the facts. Besides, for every article like the one Duncan posted you could probably find at least 3 in the US where someone was killed with a legally purchased handgun. Using Duncan’s theory of statistics you would have to conclude that legal handguns cause crime.
February 13th, 2009 at 5:45 am
I would say the ban was put into effect to evoke this sort of event. Fear is the ultimate tool of control. A fearful populace will do whatever the strongest power in their locale tells it to do.
The irony is that the British government has demonstrated that it is not that power.
February 13th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Oh, by the way, for the anti-gunners in the audience: Can you name a place and time in history where a gun ban, however structured, has been followed by a net decrease in homicides? I know of no such, and I’ve been studying gun laws and their consequences for more than twenty years. But if you can tell us of such an occurrence, it might lend your otherwise fatuous argument — that disarming the innocent is good for them — some substance.
February 13th, 2009 at 11:21 am
You might want to do some research on that, Reasic. I know you lefties always want to make America to be the worst, but, England has one of the highest crime rates in the 1st world. Why? Because criminals have handguns, and law abiding people have no way to protect themselves. And there are laws that make people with legal type guns (hunting rifles usually) who shoot criminals who invade their homes criminally liable. Heck, the homeowner can just stab the invader with a knife, and they can go to jail.
February 13th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Yeah. It sounds much safer over there now that law-abiding citizens are without weapons.
And it looks like it has done a lot to stop the killing by guns.. or not..
and perhaps they should ban knives and fists as well:
Would a firearm have done anything to defend the family in the post I wrote above? Probably not since unless they had the firearm on their person, there apparently was no time to retrieve it from wherever it would have been secured. Would the possibility of a homeowner possessing a gun been a deterrent? Possibly, since I could find a statistic that the per capita crime of Washington D.C is higher than say… Texas. I’ll look for it. Had these scumbags broken while the homeowner was in bed or near access to the pistol or firearm, atleast he would have had the option to defend his family and home. Instead they were at the mercy of druggies, who could have done God only knows what to them had they chosen to.
At the end of the day, my point is that only law abiding citizens will follow the laws and not own firearms if there is a ban. If I want to kill myself, I don’t have to use a firearm if I am really motivated, nor is my only option in a domestic violence situation a firearm. At the end of the day, “gun violence” might no longer be the major cause for “violent crimes”, though I don’t know how you can then reason that there will be a “reduction in violent crimes” to follow.
February 14th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Resonable Reasic’s silence is deafening.
The crickets chirp….and chirp…………..
February 14th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Well, I am sure that Reasic will quote some study, from the Brady Campaign or so, in response.
And Apple,
Really? Could probably?
Nice strawman there. I’d never say that, as guns are a tool and it is the criminal who is the cause of crime.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
It was probably all caused by mental health issues brought on by AGW.
February 14th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Since guns are the real reason for so many shooting deaths, why have I never heard of a gun being sentenced to either life w/o parole or the death penalty? Since they are, in your facts, the real culprits, aren’t the real culprits the ones supposed to be punished in our legal system?
Oh, I know! It’s because of the overtly conservative press shielding the Great Unwashed from such news. Right, reasic and apple?
February 16th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Yes, I’ve been both sick and busy. I’ll share some thoughts now.
Possibly, but the point should be on the number of gun-related fatalities, since that is the subject. Let’s just compare, for instance, homicides involving firearms from the UK and the US. In 2004, the UK had 68 firearm homicides, while the US had 11,624. Now, their respective populations are 60,943,912, and 303,824,640. Those are 2008 populations, but for the purpose of calculating rates, they sould be close enough. This makes the rate of gun-related homicides about 0.0001% in the UK, compared to 0.004% for the US. This makes the RATE of homicides from firearms in the US 34 times greater.
So, it’s extremely important that we first get our facts straight. Then, maybe we can look at why this could be. Maybe it has to do with the fact that there are about 65 million handguns in the US, with very little if any restrictions on them, while they are virtually non-existent in the UK.
You guys should know that I’m not a rabid anti-gun nut, who doesn’t want hunters to have shotguns or licensed and trained citizens to be able to safely store a handgun in their home. I just think there should be a reasonable level of compromise, which involves bans on certain types of guns (do you really need an AK-47?) and restrictions on storing your guns (so your child can’t accidentally shoot his friend with it).
Handguns are a big part of the problem. Of all firearm-related crimes, 86% involved handguns. At the same time, a handgun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to injure or kill family member or friend than to be sucessfully used in self defense. However, I can definitely agree that a properly trained person who safely stores their gun away would not likely contribute to this statistic. So, I do believe that a ban on certain weapons, and limited restrictions on others, which are properly enforced, would be very effective in helping to lower these unfortunate statistics.
My main problem with this post, Duncan, was that you took one incident and complained that a gun ban should’ve prevented it, which is nonsense. No law is going to prevent every crime from occurring. However, they could be greatly reduced, while at the same time, allowing responsible hunters and sportsmen to store guns in their homes.