how often gun taken from holder


PDA






thorn726
July 9, 2005, 08:00 PM
i know i keep asking similar question, sorry, i guess i am looking for stats.

OK- situation- a new "gang" enters town, 3 guys and a girl. apparently they did a home invasion nearby, girl holds gun on resident, guys take plasma tv. cops feel it was planned and they might have more targets in mind.

2) while this is happening, neighbor hears screams and goes over (unarmed) and becomes hostage number two..
Doh!

so i am talking with friends about this, and my reaction is- this is why there should be a big ole pistol in the house, and Worse why didn't neighbor come over with one!?!

response from typical idiots= 50% of the time person gets disarmed and has gun used against them.
now this situation was a bit odd, and really neighbor should NOT have entered,. rather called police and waited outside.

BUT- ok first yes i told my frined the "take my water gun" story, and that he was most likely incredibly worng. do we have any site with actual stats or numbers on victims having their defense weapon takan???

second- can you guys give me some of the 9 million ways a .45 could have prevented this incident????

i am thinking good guy waits outside with .45 aimed at door.

better= homowner is aimed at intruders as they enter........

If you enjoyed reading about "how often gun taken from holder" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cracked butt
July 9, 2005, 08:29 PM
and Worse why didn't neighbor come over with one!?!

For one, if the neighbors are holding some sort of freaky sex party rather than being robbed and you bust in with a your big old pistol, you are going to be in a huge heap of trouble.

i am thinking good guy waits outside with .45 aimed at door.

Yes

better= homowner is aimed at intruders as they enter........
yup, even better.

Kamicosmos
July 9, 2005, 09:57 PM
I saw some stats ...maybe in an NRA mag, about what calibers were used to kill along with whether or not it was the cop's gun that fired the fatal shots.

I'll try to look it up. Granted, that's only for cops, so the numbers would not be of much use for this topic, since most sheeple believe the average cop to be some kind of weapon retention ninja guru.

(No offense to LEOs, I'm just saying...)

jefnvk
July 9, 2005, 11:17 PM
I would bet, that short of some special-ops guy specifically trained in hand-to-hand combat, that anyone that attempts to take a gun out of my hands while I am holding it pointed at them is probably going to be hit multiple times.

Moonclip
July 10, 2005, 12:20 AM
I read before that about 25percent of LE killed in the line of duty is with their own gun. This must have changed to a lower percent though I think due to increased weapon retention training and better snatch resistant holsters and the fact at least some LE handguns have manual safeties unlike the revolvers of yesteryear.

Studies have been done and your average untrained person can grab a DA revolver and hit a close targer it under 2 seconds. With a cocked and locked single action auto this climbes to close to 17 seconds.

I think there is a PD in Conn. maybe Hartford where every officer gunned down in the line of duty was with the officers duty weapon. My local Sherrifs dept , one of the largest in the US, mandates on safe carry for all personnel. Obviously this means no Glocks.

rhubarb
July 10, 2005, 12:22 AM
How often does it happen? Don't know. It happens.

Read of a local case where a woman took a gun away from a robber and kilt him with it. I can remember a couple of cases in which women shot their rapists with the rapists' guns. Lesson here? Don't anger unarmed women.

I ain't never trained in gun disarms nor tried in practice. I bet it wouldn't be hard to avert the muzzle momentarily if the bad guy is careless and doesn't hold his gun in a secure retention position, but taking the gun away is a nother story.

MechAg94
July 10, 2005, 12:39 AM
If he is close enough to take your gun and you know he is a threat, you should have shot him already. :D

There is some wisdom in maintaining some distance if you have a choice. Otherwise, there are stances you can use other than holding your gun at arms length toward the criminal (like in the movies). but I am certainly no expert. I guess it depends on how alert you are.

Also, when approaching a doorway or turn in the hallway, always hold the gun at arms length in front of you. That way, they can grab the gun just like in the movies. :)

Mad Man
July 10, 2005, 02:29 AM
Response from typical idiots= 50% of the time person gets disarmed and has gun used against them.


If it's so easy to take a gun away from somebody, just take it back from the criminal.

Tom Servo
July 10, 2005, 12:56 PM
I can't remember ever hearing of a story where a civilian had a gun taken out of their hands and used against them. There are situations where, say, someone comes across a burglar in their house, and the burglar found the gun somewhere, but even that's probably very rare. It'd be a very difficult and dangerous thing to do, and I certainly wouldn't try it.

OTOH, it does happen to LEOs more often in comparison. Officers carry openly and wear a uniform, so everybody knows who they are and knows they're packing. Second, the gun is relatively easy to get at while holstered, as opposed to being under a layer of clothing or wedged in an IWB holster.

The other big difference is that LEOs get in close to the bad guys when they engage. I don't. If I see someone doing something illegal, I don't have a duty to engage; an officer does, resulting in close-quarters contact. I don't have to let someone get that close to me, and I won't. What's more, officers are frequently multitasking, ie. handcuffing or restraining, while holding the weapon, so retention is more difficult in these scenarios.

Justin
July 10, 2005, 01:01 PM
As far as I'm can tell, this is a myth perpetrated by gun control advocates. Despite their cries of "they'll take it from you and use it on you" this just doesn't seem to happen, or at least I can't locate a study from an unbiased source that shows it to be a statistically significant occurrence.

If it's something you're worried about, do weapon retention and close-in shooting drills.

Mad Man
July 10, 2005, 01:20 PM
Anyone who claims an exact figure is ignorant about the quality of data available, which is sketchy at best, or just plain lying.

FYI: The FBI's annual Law Enforcement Officers Killed And Assaulted report is available, along with the rest of the Uniform Crime Reports, at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

In the following text, DGU = "defensive gun use" and NCVS = "National Crime Victimization Survey (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm#ncvs)"


It has also been claimed that many people who attempt to use guns for self-protection have the gun taken away from them by the criminal and used against them (e.g., Shields 1981:49, 53; McNamara 1986:989; Reiss and Roth 1993:266-267). Although this type of incident is not totally unknown, it too is extremely rare. In the 1979-1985 NCVS sample, it was possible to identify crime incidents in which the victim used a gun for protection and lost a gun to the offender(s). At most, 1% of DGUs resulted in the offender taking a gun away from the victim (author's analysis of NCVS data). Even these few cases did not necessarily involve the offender snatching a gun out of the victim's hands. Instead a burglar might, for example, have been leaving a home with one of the household's guns when the resident attempted to stop him using another household gun. Thus, the 1% figure probably represents an upper limit estimate of the relative frequency of these events.

Some people have misinterpreted data on police killings as indicating that even trained police officers can have their guns taken away while attempting to use them for self-defense. For example, in the context of the claim that "firearm ownership can carry substantial risks," Reiss and Roth (National Research Council 1993:266-67) reported that 19% of the officers killed between 1984 and 1988 were killed with their own guns. The period the authors cited was highly unrepresentative of the full period for which data were available: for 1974 - 1991, the figure was only 12.4%, and for the two most recent years available to the authors, 1990-1991, it was just 8.1%. These percentages were, in any case, misleading as measures of risk since they did not reflect the number of officers exposed to the risk. With about 600,000 sworn officers carrying guns on duty, and an average of about sixty-eight killed per year, 1982-1991, and thus about eight (12.4% of 68) per year killed with their own weapons, this would imply an annual risk of 1.4 police officers killed with their own guns per 100,000 officers.

More misleading still was the suggestion that these rare killings bore on the issue of risks of DGU. In a detailed study of killings of officers, the FBI found that, among eleven officers who were killed with their own gun, only one involved a gun taken from the victim officer's hand (U.S. FBI 1992:40). Since actually using a gun for self-defense would have to involve the officer holding the gun, this implies that cases of officers killed with their own guns almost never involve an attempt by the victim officer to use the gun in self-defense. Instead guns were typically taken from the officer's holster or vehicle. Thus, contrary to the impression left by Reiss and Roth, police officers are almost never killed by offenders who took their guns away while the officers were trying to use the guns defensively. Police killings therefore offer no support for the notion that using guns for self-defense is risky. Rather, they establish only the obvious point that, on extremely rare occasion, the possession of a gun for defensive purposes can provide an aggressor with a deadly weapon.


Gary Kleck (http://guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html)
Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Controls (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0202305694/qid=1121015641/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/102-7893179-9032131?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).
1997
pp. 168-169
emphasis added.

Desert Dog
July 10, 2005, 01:32 PM
It is kind of hard for them to take the gun from you if they have two 230 gr. HP's in their COM, and are lying on the floor...

Joejojoba111
July 10, 2005, 02:55 PM
"For one, if the neighbors are holding some sort of freaky sex party rather than being robbed and you bust in with a your big old pistol, you are going to be in a huge heap of trouble."

I think people throw the word 'reasonable' around a lot, but hearing screams and seeing people in masks, well, I think it's reasonable not to conclude 'sex party' right away. Even if it is you could cautiously knock on the door (standing to the side) and find out.

But if you want to do nothing, you don't even need to pretend it was something else, people ignore more heinous crimes than robbery all the time. People have bled to death lieing in a snow bank in clear view of offices, and no-one does anything.


"There is some wisdom in maintaining some distance if you have a choice. Otherwise, there are stances you can use other than holding your gun at arms length toward the criminal (like in the movies)."

Lol freaking movies:) But..What about Bogart? Hell in lots of old movie, like private detective ones, the dick would keep the revolver/pistol real close to his side.

"If it's so easy to take a gun away from somebody, just take it back from the criminal."

I love it! Lol turn their argument back against them:) Lol stupid anti's.

psyopspec
July 10, 2005, 06:01 PM
second- can you guys give me some of the 9 million ways a .45 could have prevented this incident????

As a neighbor to a robbery in progress, my first priority would lie with protecting my own domain and those in it. If I stand outside with a gun trained on the door, this means I'm waiting for the perps to do what they're going to do inside that apartment whether or not I'm there, and that I could get popped while their on the way out. Equally as bad, the situation might not be what it appears and I shoot someone who's unarmed. What I'd do - call 911, look out the peephole and be a good witness.

bigun15
July 10, 2005, 06:50 PM
hearing screams and seeing people in masks, well, I think it's reasonable not to conclude 'sex party' right away.

God knows I would love to be able to agree. Some people...

Vermont Guy
July 10, 2005, 09:19 PM
It seems to me the best counter to the gunwillbetakenaway comment should be a perfectly dead pan,

"Then take it back."

(Silence)

"Yeah, if it is so easy, just take it back."

jefnvk
July 10, 2005, 10:02 PM
Quote:
hearing screams and seeing people in masks, well, I think it's reasonable not to conclude 'sex party' right away.



God knows I would love to be able to agree. Some people...

If you walked up on a jeep with a naked guy and girl screaming, with the girl bound to the rollbar, you may have just walked up on one of my friends, who is not a rapist.

If it were some people that are here, I'd have a dead friend.

Hardtarget
July 10, 2005, 10:50 PM
...suggest your friend...and his friend...lock the jeep in a private basement....and party on.
Mark.

Standing Wolf
July 11, 2005, 12:30 AM
If he is close enough to take your gun and you know he is a threat, you should have shot him already.

Precisely! Once in awhile, someone slices neatly through the knot.

peacefuljeffrey
July 11, 2005, 02:08 AM
What's more, officers are frequently multitasking, ie. handcuffing or restraining, while holding the weapon, so retention is more difficult in these scenarios.

I'm trying to think of what I've seen on COPS (since I haven't really observed this kind of thing in TRW)... but I don't really remember any cop handcuffing someone with one hand while holding their service firearm in the other hand. Do cops, as a general rule, even do that?

Psyopspec mentioned protecting one's own and being a "good witness": Sadly, this is where thing stand. I don't blame him one bit, and I think I agree mostly. We can thank the idiotic turn of events in legal circles for that. I am thinking of situations where do-gooders get it in the butt because some jerk decides to sue. Or that thread about the guy who is now forced to register as a sex offender because he grabbed a girl's arm.

The morons who make us pay this way for doing good, and for attempting to aid victims and stop bad guys, deserve what they get in terms of a world where people who COULD help REFUSE to help because it tends to land good people in hot water.


StandingWolf, I like the way you phrased that. "Slices neatly through the knot." Cool image. And I agree with the point that you were agreeing with, to boot.

-Jeffrey

thorn726
July 11, 2005, 04:01 AM
these answers get better and better, thakns. still reading thru all of them, this is a funny one=

If it's so easy to take a gun away from somebody, just take it back from the criminal.

HA!

ALso= noted , and excused, LEs- i mean especially years back, and i am sure it happens way less these days- but LE is walking around with gun on hip-
unfortunately this says something about open carry, but anyway point is, in the line of duty it is needed, and of course some jerk crooks will take that gun occasionally. so it shouldn't be held against gun owners that LE have had their guns taken from their holster

not at all the same as taking a gun out of someone's hands.

PS=

hearing screams and seeing people in masks, well, I think it's reasonable not to conclude 'sex party' right away.



God knows I would love to be able to agree. Some people...

yeah, remember where i am located- heheh , we had naked people walking around the big shopping area with protest signs today.

does seem like entering was a really dumb idea, no matter what

If you enjoyed reading about "how often gun taken from holder" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!