Defending against Violent Crime

There has been much talk about allowing the Police to routinely carry sidearms with the increasing violence against them, but there hasn’t yet been a serious discusson about allowing citizens the right to defend themselves from violent crime.

In New Zealand we have been content to allow the Police to protect us, but the thin blue line is stretched defending even themselves let alone the general citizenry. A call to Police for help in the face of violent crime may well be what the official line is but can you really afford to wait until they turn up.

It isn’t the Police’s fault that they are stretched and with the ever expansion of meth fueled crime it is becoming increasingly likely that, in big cities at least, that you will be assaulted, stabbed, or maimed in some way by a P-head. Calling the cops is often too late.

The problem we have is that we have allowed the situation to develop as a society where we are largely dis-armed and thus vulnerable. There was a time, not too far past where bank officers would be issued revolvers and shotguns to go pick up the cash from the Reserve Bank. I know this because I worked with a few who did it when I worked at the National Bank.

If we were to visit allowing citizens to protect themselves then I think Open Carry should be the default…for as they say no one ever raped a .38.

Discuss away.

Nobody ever raped a .38

  • http://n/a nasska

    Regrettably the only way to slip open carry past our hand wringing crim cuddlers would be for a couple of hundred P addicts to open fire on a Green Party conference, a kindergarten & the SPCA cat shelter…..simultaneously. Even then an enabling law would have enough amendments to choke it.

    Probably the only way back to an armed citizenry would be to introduce legislation gradually & stealthily under the radar the same way our rights are normally stripped from us. A good start would be a complete rewrite of all laws relating to self defense. Regardless of whether a citizen defends him/herself with a gun, a shovel or a bunch of carnations they should not face the ordeal of a trial unless their actions were grossly reckless.

    Then & only then will the general populace start to claw back the upper hand.

  • pervach

    All for open carry as long as it doesn’t mix with intoxication, and there are ways around that. Naturally a land or building owner can refuse entry to armed people if they so choose.

  • robf

    Our current Gun Laws are perfectly adequate and probably the best in the world, those who want firearms are generally allowed them. We don’t allow criminals, the mentally unstable and general misfits to own them, the training and vetting is in place and for the most part working.
    What we don’t have is the basic Human right to defend ourselves and others.

    • mikeman

      So none of the criminal element in New Zealand have guns is that what you are saying?

      Just because we have a law does NOT stop people from acquiring weapons and when the good guys do not have weapons but the bad guys do you end up with the situation NZ is in!

      The only people who have almost unlimited access to weapons are the bad guys.

      Sorry this needs to change.

      • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

        Of course criminals have guns. They just have to go through the hassle of vetting, reference checks, medical checks and licence renewal.

        Absolutely it needs to change…but what too. I personally don’t have a problem with licencing gun owners. I think it was a mistake to remove the registration of firearms though.

        Any solution though, I firmly believe, must include comprehensive and regular training/testing, just like operating a motor vehicle. Membership of some sort ofclub outdoors/ hunting/ sorting club would also be good too.

        If you are going to have firearms more readily available then you also need training facilities that are a bit more than a tin shed in a poorly drained bit of land for shooting practice. It has always been my dream to have a metropolitan shooting range not unlike a gun version of a driving range, with a pro-shop/gunshop attached where people can actually get training, advice and confidence using firearms in a highly regulated environment.

        • animalmother

          “Of course crim­i­nals have guns. They just have to go through the has­sle of vet­ting, ref­er­ence checks, med­ical checks and licence renewal.”

          I thought the criminals were the ones that without exception avoided bothersome legalities like vet­ting, ref­er­ence checks, med­ical checks and licence renewal.

    • http://n/a nasska

      Totally agreed………….. the problem is that these selfsame people don’t bother asking us, nor do they give a stuff about laws yet as a group they are probably the best armed in the country.

      Additionally although we may be allowed firearms, with few exceptions they are sporting type guns. Try using a scoped 22 when fending off some arsehole in your own hallway.

      • bobbydelorot

        Very few do have guns, let alone handguns, especially when compared to criminals in other parts of the world. It might be nice fantasy to mow down some unarmed criminal breaking into your house with a handgun, but in reality increasing acess to guns will mean the forementioned unarmed criminal will find it far easier to arm himself and now also have motivation to do so.

        And lets face it, any remotely fit, strong, and motivated man with half a brain doesn’t need a gun to defend his home. The American example and the 50,000 plus deaths a year from deliberate shootings is exactly why are current gunlaws are working and should stay the same.

        • http://n/a nasska

          …..any remotely fit, strong and motivated man with half a brain doesn’t need a gun to defend his home.

          Leaving aside motivation it paints a bleak picture for the unfit, sedentary or female section of the adult populace………. say about 80%.

        • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

          You comments might have carried some weight if you hadn’t pulled a figure straight out of your arse. Once you did that your whole argument fell right down around your pants.

          According to this graph there aren’t even remotely 50,000 homicides in the USA in total let alone ones where a gun was used.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg

          According to Wikipedia:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

          In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified. Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm. The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.

          In line with the comment above where having a firearm present is likely to result in a death we can all rest easy knowing that the likelihood of dying is dramatically reduced if you don’t have a prior conviction. In other words the deaths involved are those of criminals. As i like to say cry me a river of tears.

          People with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims. Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record. In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996. In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.

          • robf

            Nasska I won’t pull stats out my arse but I would not malign the humble .22. Untill you have checked the stats on deaths related to the humble, much maligned .22, basically you don’t need a .45 Cannon if you do the job properly the first time.

          • bobbydelorot

            50K figure related to deliberate shootings, not fatalities, my mistake.

            But still the American example stands as a perfect example of where we don’t want to be.

            Arguing that we need more liberal gun laws and availability to protect ourselves against criminals just doesn’t work given the catch 22 scenario it creates.

          • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

            So you are quite happy that the status quo, where criminals come at us with guns but the Police and general citizens remain un-armed is just fine by you?

            Can you be my body-armor please?

          • http://n/a nasska

            Now you’re being cynical Whale. What do the progressive liberals have to do to make you see that making breast feeding compulsory, more family group conferences & a few chords of Kumbaya would make the whole problem go away. Talk of guns & self defense will earn you twenty minutes on the naughty step.

  • whalewatcher

    the upcoming One World Govt, which will replace it’s precursor UN, does not want citizens armed – that would threaten the total control of the Illuminati who are pulling the strings.
    You will all note that Helen Clark, who signed us up to so many UN treaties without a mandate to do so, is now high-up in the UN.

    But may be we should quietly arm anyway. Very hard to get a handgun with our current laws. However the gangs seem to manage it…

  • Blondie

    Ummmm….. whilst I agree with the premise that the general public should be better equipped to defend themselves against violent crime, I do see a problem in that often, besides being armed and/or aggressive, offenders are also bigger and stronger physically than their targets.

    I’m fairly certain that if someone decided to break into my house right now, I would be no match for them physically. Furthermore, if I pulled a gun on them, I’d be more likely to accidentally shoot myself than the intruder (or to have the weapon wrestled off me, used against me, and then used for the next home intrusion also). And whilst I’m sure some of you would be delighted at the prospect of ME shooting myself, it’s possibly a less appealing scenario when applied to other families.

    • http://n/a nasska

      Delighted – no……… relaxed – yes.

      • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

        Nasska that is unacceptable behaviour. I’ve been offline tonight otherwise you would have been banned earlier. Take a break…say about a month…or send me an apology via email so that I can forward it to Blondie. Fuckwit.

  • bobbydelorot

    Where I live we don’t have criminals coming at us with guns and body armour isn’t exactly required. Arming the citizens as you suggest would also result in arming the criminals and give them the motivation to use those firearms to commit even minor offences. The status quo, in which the general public have little to fear from armed criminals as only a tiny percentage use them, seems far more preferable to the alternative.

    • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

      You are in denial. Arming citizens does NOT result in the arming of criminals. Incase you hadn’t noticed, the criminal are the ones who are already armed. They don’t need motivation, they already use them in committing crimes. You either don’t read the papers or don’t want to keeping yourself in your liberal wonderland where criminals in NZ aren’t regularly chopping, shooting oir stabbing shop-keepers, bank tellers or RSA workers.

      I just bet Navtej Singh’s family wishes he had been able to defend himself with a gun when the gin-toting robbers that don’t exist in your world robbed and killed him.

      I prefer a place where criminals fear the general citizens not the other way around.

    • animalmother

      Beverley Bouma’s corpse respectfully begs to differ with you on that one.

      • bobbydelorot

        The fact that they are such rarities that you guys are naming each one individually proves my point even from over a decade ago proves my point. And that is regardless of the fact that making our gun laws more liberal wouldn’t have made any difference to the victims.

        I’m interested in the stats you have showing that criminals are armed, outside of a handful of newspaper articles over the years, to my knowledge the vast majority are unarmed and it’s only a tiny minority of hardcore offenders that have access too and use firearms. And given that by and large those firearms are stolen from gunowners and modified, ie sawn offs/cut down rifles etc, then surely increasing the amount of firearms in the country, especially handguns, would also result in a rising amount of guns landing up in the hands of criminals whom inturn would be much more likely to carry firearms knowing that their intended victims may be armed.

        Maybe you guys should join a gym, lift a few weights or do some basic martial arts classes if you are living in perpetual fear of criminals, most of whom are untrained, malnourished and rather weak.

  • joes

    I’m no fairy labour supporter, but really citizens arming themselves in the street is stupid. You just LOVE your “if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns” line.

    But if everyone walked around like a cowboy, then we’d have people shooting each other over car accidents, someone looking at your Mrs the wrong way, after being told you can’t bring your gun on the plane (or maybe we should make it legal to take your gun where ever you want), or a million other day-to-day occasions when people get mad at each other. Fist fights would default to gun fights.

    You know that there are masses of stupid, irresponsible people out there (most of them vote for labour) yet you don’t have any problem with them all being allowed to carry guns, and assume that new laws would prevent them from being drawn when they get in a tiff with the neighbour who doesn’t trim their tree properly.

    If you wanted to rob someone on a quiet street, the desperate p-addict crim is 99% sure that his intended victim has a weapon… instead of being scared off, the crim knows that he’d better take that target out before taking his rolex.

    Weapons allowed in homes for self defense is something that is an interesting debate most of the time (well it would be if it wasn’t so old), but arming people in the streets is a stupid suggestion. I’m of half a mind that WO wouldn’t actually advocate this, and that he’s just doing it for a reaction such as this.

    • http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz Whaleoil

      joes, your reply is full of mis-conceptions and half-truths desperately trying to prove a point.

      In the US in States with Open Carry laws the incidents of the type of altercations that you talk about are actually lower, this is most likely because of the very real risk serious harm if things escalate. If you then compare those areas to areas where there are comprehensive, un-constitutional, gun bans in place then that is where you find the mass shootings.

      If your contentions were true then gun homicides in the US would be far, far higher than they actually are. Further as evidenced by FBI statistics, most killed in gun homicides wouldn’t have had any conviction, instead it is the other way around, where 73% of those killed in an altercation have actually got convictions and are essentially criminals.

      In my experience criminals prey on the easy and the weak. It is for this reason they break into houses without alarms or businesses that present a quick and easy get away. They abhor confrontation, that is why they adopt low profile activities like operating at night or during holidays, so they draw as little attention as possible to themselves. Using your logic people shouldn’t bother with alarms either.

      As for carrying firearms on planes…I tell you what, if it was allowed then 9/11 would never have happened…the knife carrying terrorists would have been blown away.

      In your scenario of a p-addled crim taking out an intended victim…another point that is facetious, you forget that under my proposals that there would be comprehensive training required to own a handgun…in that situation what you have is a licenced and trained gun owner who has fired literally thousands of rounds down range, is highly accurate and proficient with their firearm up against a crim who probably never fired the weapon he has….my money is on the proposed victim and not the crim. This has been proven time and time again. Still the chances of that happening are almost nil because the criminal through his own avoidance of wanting to attract attention will have moved on to pick on a less secure citizen.

      • joes

        I always appreciate a reply, thanks. I’d give it mixed reviews though.

        First, the USA. I’ve had a quick glance at some of their stat’s previously, but never really got into it in immense detail. If there was some report out there, from a genuine unbiased source, that could show gun crimes were lower in areas where anyone is allowed to carry guns in the street, then please share it with me. If this is just your feelings based on anecdotal evidence, then I’m not particularly interested.

        I do find it funny that you consider it ok for 73% of those killed to be criminals. Do you like Judge Dredd? It seems you would be happy for every armed citizen to act as judge, jury and executioner. What about the 27%? How many people does that represent for a x% reduction in muggings etc?

        “In my expe­ri­ence crim­i­nals prey on the easy and the weak….” Someone will always be weaker. Someone will carry a .22 instead of a .45, someone will be an elderly lady who doesn’t exactly have the same ability to use the gun as someone such as yourself. Some attacks may be prevented, but there are desperate people out there… no excuses for breaking the laws that they do… but now you got the attacks away from someone who was weak (but can carry and operate a firearm) to someone else who, even though carrying, is still not much of a risk.

        “Using your logic peo­ple shouldn’t bother with alarms either.” Huh?

        “As for car­ry­ing firearms on planes…I tell you what, if it was allowed then 9/11 would never have happened…the knife car­ry­ing ter­ror­ists would have been blown away.”…. The terrorists wouldn’t have been carrying knives.

        You think that your training would turn everyone, on a plane for example, into marksmen? Damn people in the military sometimes get it wrong and hurt themselves or their team mates. People that already have training can’t be trusted. Now try get hundreds of thousands of people through courses, arm them, and hope that things don’t get worse.

        I must point out that I’m not saying some crimes won’t be prevented. Obviously they will be. But the additional deaths on accident, or on purpose, when the general populace is armed…. craziness…. I’m not talking about small towns like Gore or Dannievirke, I am talking about South Auckland, the CBD, skinheads in Chch. It speaks for itself.

        • joes

          You should invest in an ‘edit’ button:

          “You think that your train­ing would turn every­one, on a plane for exam­ple, into marks­men? Damn, peo­ple in the mil­i­tary some­times get it wrong and hurt them­selves or their team mates. Some peo­ple that already have train­ing can’t be trusted.”

          • bobbydelorot

            You have a conviction WO but your hardly a criminal who is only getting whats coming to him if he’s shot. Same applies in America, there are tons of people with DUI’s, public intoxication, disorderly and other minor misdemeanours, unless that study only focused on felony convictions then it is more representative of American society than a reflection of gun crime victims.

            In our situation, you would also have to prove that introducing more liberal firearm laws and allowing open carry would actually reduce our firearm homicide rate, which is already the lowest in the world, to even lower levels for it to be of merit. Given that more guns in the hands of the public, create a motivation and means for criminals to arm themselves, it’s hard to see how this could be the case and would not instead result in the opposite. Couple that impact with our extremely high domestic violence rate and the situation becomes even more unlikely.

            Of course then our Police would need to adopt a more American style confrontational rather than cooperative approach when it comes to dealing with the general public with an assumption that anyone could be armed.