One more reason to carry

[comic boy]

What if all 10 spectators had a gun, and knew had to use it, and was willing to use it to defend the man that was being attacked? Would the man have even attacked the other man to begin with?

Best one yet

So a guy who is irrational with hatred , booze or drugs is going to ask bystanders if they are armed and then make an informed decision....Hee Hee

[black elk speaks]

i think the far greater issue isn't guns at all, it's that the majority of people did not step in like you say you would. whilst they may have some excuse for not stopping the attack whilst it was in progress, in that they were afraid, not even helping him once the attacker had left is inexcusable. a bit of social responsibility would go a lot further than arming everyone, which would probably just drive people further apart.

coming from a country where carrying guns is illegal, i would pretty firmly support the idea that you don't need a gun to protect yourself/others.

unless the other is an antagonist that you have no chance of defeating or deterring from attacking. then you're kind of up the creek, so to speak. if hammer time would have dropped his hammer and produced a fire arm, what then?

I agree, most likely the best case scenario would have been for the other passengers to simply stand up against the antagonist on the train. but there is always the possibility that the event can get out of hand. i am under the notion that it is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

[deepsouth]

unless the other is an antagonist that you have no chance of defeating or deterring from attacking. then you're kind of up the creek, so to speak. if hammer time would have dropped his hammer and produced a fire arm, what then?

I agree, most likely the best case scenario would have been for the other passengers to simply stand up against the antagonist on the train. but there is always the possibility that the event can get out of hand. i am under the notion that it is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

once somone's being savagely beaten with a hammer on the tube i think events have already gotten pretty out of hand as it is. the reason i say that these incidents can be solved without the use of a gun is because i have never seen someone need to break up a fight/attack by pulling a gun on those involved. in a lot of cases, the fact that someone else is standing up for the victim can often be enough to deter the attacker. granted, hammer man doesn't sound like your normal human being, but i don't think that a man with a hammer, who isn't paying the least bit attention to anyone else, needs taking on with a gun at all.

[pimpdave]

Had I been on the train, i would have intervened

I wish you had been on the train, so you'd know that's highly unlikely.

People say these kinds of things all the time "had I been there", "I wish I had been there", "I would have done so forth and such and such."

It doesn't play like that. The initial shock of witnessing the attack holds the average person up. Unless you've been trained to respond to such situations, the confusion of the moment will almost certainly keep you delayed.

I really doubt you've been in this type of situation, because you're describing what people who haven't been there do. Dude, don't bother with the hypotheticals and the "I would have done this". You weren't there, so you really have no idea. That's the truth. If you had received training in how to respond to such situations (like transit police are), you might tell us how you were trained to handle it, but then I highly doubt that, too, since it's probably not in a transit cop's best interest to broadcast his methods.

So I'm not trying to criticize you here. I'm really not. I'm just trying to convey that it's best to avoid the trap of "woulda, coulda, shoulda", cause the fact is you really don't know. Yes, of course those people "shoulda" intervened, but that's just not how these things play out in real life. There's a reason why there are terms like "good Samaritan" or "hero", but then there's also many cases of people who think they are heroes who are really "meddlers", or "in the way", or "adding to the problem". So it's a fine line.

Lets say you did intervene, and you shot the guy using one of your FMJ bullets.

in my pistol, I carry 2 FMJ (Full metal jacket, not hollow points) rounds, one in the chamber and one in the magazine. after that they are all hollow point. FMJ rounds do not split when they enter the intended target, rather they stay fully intact and only make a hole.

Did you know that the NYPD changed over to using hollow points a number of years back? What's striking is why. It's not to be more lethal with their fire (Lord knows the NYPD loves to fire off an entire clip, or even pause to reload and continue firing, when faced with a threat, so hollow point or FMJ, the guy's going down -- and I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's how it goes), it's to prevent harming bystanders.

Because the FMJ passes through the target with ease, those bullets tend to ricochet (especially in the case of a missed shot) and hurt bystanders. The hollow points don't ricochet with nearly as much ease (even in the case of a missed shot).

So really, even your hypothetical response is a dangerous one that could very easily "add to the problem".

Anyone who has witnessed a brutal crime (or hell, even worse, a murder) or has training in how to handle such situations can attest to what I'm saying. Playing the hypothetical game is a recipe for failure, cause if/when something really does happen, and you find yourself standing lamely on the side watching, you're only going to feel like more of a failure later on.

There are only two ways to respond, trained or untrained. Hypothetical postulations don't equate to training. If you really want to get involved and help prevent this sort of thing or intervene, I urge you to enroll in your local police academy and become a transit police. I'm sure you'd be great at it. You're obviously brave, I just doubt you've been trained.

(Edited twice to correct some spelling and grammar, and I probably didn't even catch all of them)

[black elk speaks]

unless the other is an antagonist that you have no chance of defeating or deterring from attacking. then you're kind of up the creek, so to speak. if hammer time would have dropped his hammer and produced a fire arm, what then?

I agree, most likely the best case scenario would have been for the other passengers to simply stand up against the antagonist on the train. but there is always the possibility that the event can get out of hand. i am under the notion that it is better to have and not need than to need and not have.

once somone's being savagely beaten with a hammer on the tube i think events have already gotten pretty out of hand as it is. the reason i say that these incidents can be solved without the use of a gun is because i have never seen someone need to break up a fight/attack by pulling a gun on those involved. in a lot of cases, the fact that someone else is standing up for the victim can often be enough to deter the attacker. granted, hammer man doesn't sound like your normal human being, but i don't think that a man with a hammer, who isn't paying the least bit attention to anyone else, needs taking on with a gun at all.

I believe that is what I said. first voice, then hand to hand, hopefully assistance is forthcoming from bystanders, then, if hammer man is too much to over take, brandish, warning shot, wounding shot, then if he is still in a rage, fatal shot. I would not suggest that a gun owner not have a full understanding of the repercussions of the mis-management of the situation, and the consequences if illegitimate action. when you shoot someone, even in self defense, there is an investigation that examines all fact and testimony of the case. But if I am to submit my self into the defense of another or myself, I want the assurance that I am not going to lose my life over the matter. having a pistol in my belt assures me that I will not be out gunned.

[black elk speaks]

Had I been on the train, i would have intervened

I wish you had been on the train, so you'd know that's highly unlikely.

People say these kinds of things all the time "had I been there", "I wish I had been there", "I would have done so forth and such and such."

It doesn't play like that. The initial shock of witnessing the attack holds the average person up. Unless you've been trained to respond to such situations, the confusion of the moment will almost certainly keep you delayed.

I really doubt you've been in this type of situation, because you're describing what people who haven't been there do. Dude, don't bother with the hypotheticals and the "I would have done this". You weren't there, so you really have no idea. That's the truth. If you had received training in how to respond to such situations (like transit police are), you might tell us how you were trained to handle it, but then I highly doubt that, too, since it's probably not in a transit cop's best interest to broadcast his methods.

So I'm not trying to criticize you here. I'm really not. I'm just trying to convey that it's best to avoid the trap of "woulda, coulda, shoulda", cause the fact is you really don't know. Yes, of course those people "shoulda" intervened, but that's just not how these things play out in real life. There's a reason why there are terms like "good Samaritan" or "hero", but then there's also many cases of people who think they are heroes who are really "meddlers", or "in the way", or "adding to the problem". So it's a fine line.

Lets say you did intervene, and you shot the guy using one of your FMJ bullets.

in my pistol, I carry 2 FMJ (Full metal jacket, not hollow points) rounds, one in the chamber and one in the magazine. after that they are all hollow point. FMJ rounds do not split when they enter the intended target, rather they stay fully intact and only make a hole.

Did you know that the NYPD changed over to using hollow points a number of years back? What's striking is why. It's not to be more lethal with their fire (Lord knows the NYPD loves to fire off an entire clip, or reload when faced with a thread, so hollow point or FMJ, the guy's going down -- and I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying that's how it goes), it's to prevent harming bystanders.

Because the FMJ passes through the target with ease, those bullets tend to ricochet (especially in the case of a missed shot) and hurt bystanders. The hollow points don't ricochet with nearly as much ease (even in the case of a missed shot).

So really, even your hypothetical response is a dangerous one that could very easily "add to the problem".

Anyone who has witnessed a brutal crime (or hell, even worse, a murder) or has training in how to handle such situations can attest to what I'm saying. Playing the hypothetical game is a recipe for failure, cause if/when something really does happen, and you find yourself standing lamely on the side watching, you're only going to feel like more of a failure later on.

There are only two ways to respond, trained or untrained. Hypothetical postulations don't equate to training. If you really want to get involved and help prevent this sort of thing or intervene, I urge you to enroll in your local police academy and become a transit police. I'm sure you'd be great at it. You're obviously brave, I just doubt you're trained.

you raise a good point. bringing FMJ into the equation does pose the logistical problem of pass through and unintended casualties. were the situation such that the clearing of bystanders were not possible then simply ejecting the FMJ shells from the chamber clears the way for the magazine filled hollow tip rounds, alternatively, the firing of those rounds (.380 rounds by the way, 9mm short, less kick, higher accuracy and really intended to have less punch and more accuracy) into a dead area, say a seat on the train or into the dirt, can rectify that situation.

As for my training, i study a martial art, and I am compelled to act in such situations. we re-create scenarios like this all the time. we even train on how to take a gun from an opponent when you have none. at my firing range, they offer loads of safety and training courses, of which I participate in regularly.

Again, let me reiterate, with ownership comes responsibility. you must know yourself in these kinds of situations. you should not assume that you know how I would handle a situation, rather you can explain how you might act in such a situation. for my part, as a law abiding citizen, i would be more compelled to show my children that it is not okay to sit by and watch such injustice at what was executed by hammer man. rather, it is far better to make the society safe by acting in the defense of our citizens.

[deepsouth]

i see pimpdave has once more decided to bring the high horse out of the stable for battle.

[bedub1]

That was long

I both agree and disagree with it. I fully support training and education, as without it "you" are just an ignorant fool with a gun. But simply because a small minority doesn't have training, or uses the tool irresponsibly, doesn't mean it should be taken away from everybody. I would prefer everybody carried, and everybody has just as much training, honor, integrity and knowledge as a police officer. We can all police ourselves instead of having a dedicated task force.

My pistol is fully loaded with hollow points because I don't want them exiting my house. I'd prefer they shatter when they hit the interior wall and dissipate on the way out the outside wall. I do not carry it as it's too bulky and I don't have the proper training/license, so it simply stays in my bedroom.

As the guy who's been mugged says..just give the guy your shit and he will probable leave you alone. I have a friend who was shot during a mugging, he lived. Rachel Ray was mugged, sprayed the guy with pepper spray to fend him off. He came back a week or two later and beat the shit out of her. Should she have shot him in the face and killed him instead of spraying him in the face with pepper spray? I'm not sure. Should she have just given him her shit and that been the end of it? One thing though...It appears to me she had a pretty good reaction....and could have just as easily done the same thing with a gun instead of a pepper spray can...

There are many people here in the United States who want to ban firearms. They actually want to ban everything that's dangerous and bad. So they'd probably want to ban European football(American soccer) as they are such dangereous sports with all the rioting....Like they banned smoking inside in my state. So you can't smoke inside a smoke shop that does nothing but sell things to smoke...like cigars and cigarettes etc....."No Drinking in Bars!"

EDIT: we americans really do like to stand up for ourselves and others when we see injustice being done. Apparantly it didn't occur on the subway though...but Rachel Ray showed it...

[comic boy]

Hurrah for all those 'responsible gun owners" keeping deaths/serious injuries down to 100,000 a year

[comic boy]

That was long

I both agree and disagree with it. I fully support training and education, as without it "you" are just an ignorant fool with a gun. But simply because a small minority doesn't have training, or uses the tool irresponsibly, doesn't mean it should be taken away from everybody. I would prefer everybody carried, and everybody has just as much training, honor, integrity and knowledge as a police officer. We can all police ourselves instead of having a dedicated task force.

My pistol is fully loaded with hollow points because I don't want them exiting my house. I'd prefer they shatter when they hit the interior wall and dissipate on the way out the outside wall. I do not carry it as it's too bulky and I don't have the proper training/license, so it simply stays in my bedroom.

As the guy who's been mugged says..just give the guy your shit and he will probable leave you alone. I have a friend who was shot during a mugging, he lived. Rachel Ray was mugged, sprayed the guy with pepper spray to fend him off. He came back a week or two later and beat the shit out of her. Should she have shot him in the face and killed him instead of spraying him in the face with pepper spray? I'm not sure. Should she have just given him her shit and that been the end of it? One thing though...It appears to me she had a pretty good reaction....and could have just as easily done the same thing with a gun instead of a pepper spray can...

There are many people here in the United States who want to ban firearms. They actually want to ban everything that's dangerous and bad. So they'd probably want to ban European football(American soccer) as they are such dangereous sports with all the rioting....Like they banned smoking inside in my state. So you can't smoke inside a smoke shop that does nothing but sell things to smoke...like cigars and cigarettes etc....."No Drinking in Bars!"

EDIT: we americans really do like to stand up for ourselves and others when we see injustice being done. Apparantly it didn't occur on the subway though...but Rachel Ray showed it...

Brilliant piece of Satire.......well I hope it was

[Snorri1234]

EDIT: we americans really do like to stand up for ourselves and others when we see injustice being done. Apparantly it didn't occur on the subway though...but Rachel Ray showed it...

You are not somehow more special than other people. Bystander apathy is common everywhere and defending yourself is human nature.

[deepsouth]

you can't really compare a ban on guns to banning american football. one is a sport you enter into knowing full well the chances of injury, the other is a weapon you can use to kill people. the problem with guns is that you will NEVER have everyone carrying them responsibly, knowing full well how to use them and only using them in self defence. there will always be some clown who decides to use his gun for criminal purposes, or who failed to read up on how to use it properly and end up shooting some innocent bystander. our driving tests are extremely thorough in england, yet people still speed, drink drive and kill innocent people.

there's also a difference between rachel ray and the subway guy: rachel ray was defending herself. i highly doubt that anyone in the area when it happened would have rushed to her aid had she been thrust up against the wall and mugged.

[bedub1]

Hurrah for all those 'responsible gun owners" keeping deaths/serious injuries down to 100,000 a year

"According to widely varying estimates, there are between 77 million and 90 million gun owners in the United States."

So I think that's .13%? ( 100,000 / 77,000,000 ) * 100 = .12987%

I believe alcohol, tobacco, and driving are more dangerous....

I think I saw that the average gun owner has 4 guns too....so that's about 300 million guns in americans homes? Do you want the deaths/injuries ratio in relation to number of guns too?

Is your only argument for their banning that "A small minority use them irresponsibly"?

[black elk speaks]

you can't really compare a ban on guns to banning american football. one is a sport you enter into knowing full well the chances of injury, the other is a weapon you can use to kill people. the problem with guns is that you will NEVER have everyone carrying them responsibly, knowing full well how to use them and only using them in self defence. there will always be some clown who decides to use his gun for criminal purposes, or who failed to read up on how to use it properly and end up shooting some innocent bystander. our driving tests are extremely thorough in england, yet people still speed, drink drive and kill innocent people.

there's also a difference between rachel ray and the subway guy: rachel ray was defending herself. i highly doubt that anyone in the area when it happened would have rushed to her aid had she been thrust up against the wall and mugged.

I would have, as I said, I am trained to react in those kinds of situations. i don't think that i am the only one. and i am even more likely to since i carry.

its true, there are those that will abuse the system. the same is true for driving an automobile. should driving be illegal?

[deepsouth]

I believe alcohol, tobacco, and driving are more dangerous....

i don't think smokers claim to be trained in using their cigarettes. there is also no responsible way to indulge in something which will definitely harm you if you do it.

the shocking standard of driving required for an american driving license, on the other hand, means that i would support a ban on americans owning cars as well as guns. might as well knock a couple of nails on the head at the same time.

the same is true for driving an automobile. should driving be illegal?

stricter regulation on both would go a long way in america

[black elk speaks]

I believe alcohol, tobacco, and driving are more dangerous....

i don't think smokers claim to be trained in using their cigarettes. there is also no responsible way to indulge in something which will definitely harm you if you do it.

the shocking standard of driving required for an american driving license, on the other hand, means that i would support a ban on americans owning cars as well as guns. might as well knock a couple of nails on the head at the same time.

the same is true for driving an automobile. should driving be illegal?

stricter regulation on both would go a long way in america

sure. if you are caught with an illegal gun, then you get 5 years in prison. at least I think. its called project exile. it works well when busting petty criminals that happen to get pinched with a gun in their possession. i think it works reasonably well.

now, i actually don't think that the problem is that people who are licensed are abusing their guns and accidentally killing people while defending themselves or others. i think the problem is that more criminals have guns than do responsible people. of course, if you keep a gun in your desk drawer and its not gun locked, and your kid gets into it and blows his head off or someone else, that is irresponsible. you should be held accountable. but you are suggesting that i should surrender my arms because of the folly of an idiot. its un-american.

[bedub1]

In 1998 there were 16 thousand casualties from road accidents involving illegal alcohol levels in the United Kingdom, 3 per cent of which were fatal.

Thats alot. I think you guys should ban driving, and ban alcohol. That statistic is only when you mix the two...I wonder what the stats are for non drunk driving and just alcohol and alcoholism etc....Alcohol doesn't have any useful effects..all it does is kill people. I mean... a small minority of people are using it irresponsibly so you all need to ban it. Cars too! I know some of you use them to get to work etc...but a small minority is using them to kill people! Bottles too! Yeah some people use them to store beverages and drinks...but look at the number of people using them for violence and to hurt each other! Knives too! I know people use them to chop food up...but some people use them to hurt each other!

"The first set of official statistics on the use of a knife or other sharp instrument, such as a broken bottle, show that there were 22,151 attacks in the past year - close to one in five of all violent attacks."

"The BCS confirms that alcohol-fuelled violence remains a key factor, with 947,000 violent incidents where the victim believed the attacker was drunk, compared with 383,000 attacks believed to be drug-fuelled."

[Snorri1234]

now, i actually don't think that the problem is that people who are licensed are abusing their guns and accidentally killing people while defending themselves or others. i think the problem is that more criminals have guns than do responsible people.

I'd say that most people who don't already own a gun in the US aren't responsible enough to own one anyway.

And ofcourse, if you have a huge market for legal guns, there will be an illegal market.

[black elk speaks]

now, i actually don't think that the problem is that people who are licensed are abusing their guns and accidentally killing people while defending themselves or others. i think the problem is that more criminals have guns than do responsible people.

I'd say that most people who don't already own a gun in the US aren't responsible enough to own one anyway.

And ofcourse, if you have a huge market for legal guns, there will be an illegal market.

there is a market for guns in your country. you have to be a hunter, but its pretty easy to saw off a shotgun and remove its butt, making it easily concealable, especially in colder climates.

[deepsouth]

In 1998 there were 16 thousand casualties from road accidents involving illegal alcohol levels in the United Kingdom, 3 per cent of which were fatal.

Thats alot. I think you guys should ban driving, and ban alcohol. That statistic is only when you mix the two...I wonder what the stats are for non drunk driving and just alcohol and alcoholism etc....Alcohol doesn't have any useful effects..all it does is kill people. I mean... a small minority of people are using it irresponsibly so you all need to ban it. Cars too! I know some of you use them to get to work etc...but a small minority is using them to kill people! Bottles too! Yeah some people use them to store beverages and drinks...but look at the number of people using them for violence and to hurt each other! Knives too! I know people use them to chop food up...but some people use them to hurt each other!

"The first set of official statistics on the use of a knife or other sharp instrument, such as a broken bottle, show that there were 22,151 attacks in the past year - close to one in five of all violent attacks."

"The BCS confirms that alcohol-fuelled violence remains a key factor, with 947,000 violent incidents where the victim believed the attacker was drunk, compared with 383,000 attacks believed to be drug-fuelled."

1998? what up to date statistics you have do you think our society hasn't changed in 10 years?

and the point of banning guns is that there is absolutely no positive reason for carrying a gun. what are you going to do with it except shoot people? use it as some sort of extra powerful hole punch?

as for alcohol, i see no real reason for people to drink it in the first place. it's stupid. but people all tanked up on alcohol tend to hurt themselves or each other rather than innocent people. people carrying guns tend to hurt whoever is unlucky enough to be on the recieving end of a bullet.

the other key difference between road deaths and gun deaths is that road deaths are accidents, whereas gun deaths are the result of deliberately shooting someone. your flag-wavingly patriotic opinions are flawed.

[Snorri1234]

now, i actually don't think that the problem is that people who are licensed are abusing their guns and accidentally killing people while defending themselves or others. i think the problem is that more criminals have guns than do responsible people.

I'd say that most people who don't already own a gun in the US aren't responsible enough to own one anyway.

And ofcourse, if you have a huge market for legal guns, there will be an illegal market.

there is a market for guns in your country. you have to be a hunter, but its pretty easy to saw off a shotgun and remove its butt, making it easily concealable, especially in colder climates.

Since you have to wait very, very long to get one and apply for all kinds of special permits, have a clean record, show that you are only going to use it for hunting, have to lock it up in a specific, safe way and stuff like that, it's really not that big of a deal.

Noone gets shot by a shotgun here.

Also: You can't get a firearm here, you can only get an air gun.

[pimpdave]

Noone gets shot by a shotgun here.

Also: You can't get a firearm here, you can only get an air gun.

So people get shot by that thing the guy had in No Country for Old Men?

Horrifying.

[Snorri1234]

Noone gets shot by a shotgun here.

Also: You can't get a firearm here, you can only get an air gun.

So people get shot by that thing the guy had in No Country for Old Men?

Horrifying.

No, air-guns propell munition by air-pressure.


(Btw, you can own a fire-arm but you will need to be a member of a shooting-club and the Royal Dutch Shooters Association for more than a year plus you'll need to have had a number of "shooting-turns" as a member so you can't join and just wait a year.)

[comic boy]

Hurrah for all those 'responsible gun owners" keeping deaths/serious injuries down to 100,000 a year

"According to widely varying estimates, there are between 77 million and 90 million gun owners in the United States."

So I think that's .13%? ( 100,000 / 77,000,000 ) * 100 = .12987%

I believe alcohol, tobacco, and driving are more dangerous....

I think I saw that the average gun owner has 4 guns too....so that's about 300 million guns in americans homes? Do you want the deaths/injuries ratio in relation to number of guns too?


Is your only argument for their banning that "A small minority use them irresponsibly"?

Firstly please show me where I requested a ban , they are not even banned in Britain, please at least attempt to make some kind of sense. Im glad you mentioned driving as it proves what a mockery some of your firearm laws are, you cant legaly drive without a test and a licence but you can buy a gun in certain places with no checks, no tests , no training - I know your not the brightest spark but surely even you can see that there is a problem and that is what I would like to see addressed.

[comic boy]

Hurrah for all those 'responsible gun owners" keeping deaths/serious injuries down to 100,000 a year

"According to widely varying estimates, there are between 77 million and 90 million gun owners in the United States."

So I think that's .13%? ( 100,000 / 77,000,000 ) * 100 = .12987%

I believe alcohol, tobacco, and driving are more dangerous....

I think I saw that the average gun owner has 4 guns too....so that's about 300 million guns in americans homes? Do you want the deaths/injuries ratio in relation to number of guns too?

Is your only argument for their banning that "A small minority use them irresponsibly"?

Guess what, if there were less guns the percentages would stay the same probably but the actual figures of course would fall. Less Guns = Less deaths , what part do you not comprehend