Criminals and the Guns They Carry

His findings don’t surprise any, I have known enough BGs in my time, couple that with things in police reports about guns malfunctioning in the course of a crime. These people (BGs) get their information mostly from Hollywood. Some of the guns I have seen had taped up handles, I once saw a 22 revolver that you had to turn the cylinder by hand to get a fresh chamber, cocking it or pulling the trigger wouldn’t move the cylinder.

I have known some to carry blank guns others that only had 2 or 3 rounds in the gun. I asked what if it goes bad, the standard response was, get out of there ASAP.

The average BG doesn’t shoot his weapon, he just shows it to get what he wants, he will play with it rack the slide thinking this is the same as a function test like firing it, it will make him think it is fully ready, but in the middle of a conflict it fails.

I have been around guns all my life but I found out just recently the woes of repeated chambering, I had 6 out of 25 of my carry rounds that didn’t work as designed, 4 never went off and 2 were hang fires. I am just glad I didn’t find this out in the middle of a gun fight, especially since the first one didn’t go bang.

I'm wondering, if you were to claim self defense in a case where the perp uses an unserviceable gun, in a quite left wing state/area, that the prosecution would try to peruse charges being that a 'deadly' threat was not posed. I don't see it being likely, or even going through if tried, but I wonder if Chicago, NYC or California would try such a thing.



...sent from my mind, using telepathy!

As interesting as that article was, don't ever assume that because someone is a criminal, that they are the typical Ghetto gutter rat with a duct taped Lorcin .22. The worst thing we as armed citizens can do is to underestimate our adversary, and to believe that micro mini pocket .380 with a 3" sight radius, crappy trigger and no sights that we've put 200 rounds through 6 months ago is all we need because all criminals are stupid, untrained, all the time.

I don't recall if it was this forum or another, but a while ago I read an account given by a police officer about a search warrant he and his department has served on a criminal's home. Once inside, they found mostly full size duty pistols, long guns, lots of ammo, spare mags, and a home library of training videos and books by people such as Jeff Cooper and Massad Ayoob. Now I realize that fellow is the exception, but there are criminals out there like this. Let's face it, there are criminals out there that are better trained with a better survival mindset than many of us armed citizens.

It's only in Hollywood where the bad guy's always lose, sometimes in real life, they win the fight. We need to prepare ourselves for the well trained, capable criminal element and not just the baggy pant wearing, broken .22 revolver packin typical dirty street kid trying to make a name for himself.

I apologize if this is considered a hijack but these were my first thoughts as I saw the thread title. The thread figures may be the numbers for Ohio, but I have attended several drug related trials in the Charleston area of SC and many of the firearms that I have seen are FN5.7X28 semis. The forums dedicated to the 57 firearm have also shown (and results are skewed because the primary purpose is related to that firearm) many drug traffickers and drug cartels in Mexico etal with this same firearm. There has also been some court cases relating to the ammunition that can be available for the 57 that is body armor piercing. We are talking about a very lethal, high velocity (accuracy), high capacity (20+1), lightweight, lo recoil pistol with a bullet that approximates the NATO 556, which was the original idea for the pistol as a complement to the 556 rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phillep Harding

His numbers include firearms that were in the criminal's house or car, indicating to me that the criminal may not regard the firearm as immediately usable. They should not have been included.

---

From the article:

"Some were taken from the criminal's body, some from the criminal's house, and some from the criminal’s car."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southchatham

I think the hand guns used are what's available to them, not their chosen weapon. Rob a house, get whatever weapon was stolen. Also, just because the criminal has a 9mm and you may have a 380 makes no difference, He either hit's you or he doesn't, vice versa. Watch all the video of robberies available, once the crooks are shot at they run. The most important thing a ccw carrier can have is attitude, viscous attitude at that moment of truth, no hesitation.

---

It's important not to cower and to maintain options. I think the most important thing for a "ccw carrier" is the mindset that one can't lose the gunfight that one avoids or evades. Then one is in the best position to counter, if necessary.
Always drawing without hesitation when the BG has the drop on you will get you killed almost 1 time in 7 according to Mr. Ellifritz's numbers (59% of firearms are functional and only 23% of shots are fatal). As he says, he's "not advocating resistance in every instance of criminal violence, [although] that course of action is likely to be more successful than the average person realizes." Here's a cop who says resistance may be appropriate. :thumbsup:
Attitude and function are both important, and both improve with training.
A gun fight is not a zero-sum game. It can end with both GG and BG dead or dying. Training FoF may improve any sense of when to engage. The most important weapon is between your ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brass63

I came across an interesting and informative article on what the BGs are carrying.
Thoughts?

Criminals and the Guns They Carry

---

As you read this, please keep in mind that the author is located about 50 miles SE of Cincinnati. In a relatively small town in central OH, not in the city where statistics may be different. It would have nice to have the geographical area outlined in the article.
Forgive me if I missed, just skimmed most of it but did specifically look for that info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HardLuck682

I'm wondering, if you were to claim self defense in a case where the perp uses an unserviceable gun, in a quite left wing state/area, that the prosecution would try to peruse charges being that a 'deadly' threat was not posed. I don't see it being likely, or even going through if tried, but I wonder if Chicago, NYC or California would try such a thing.



...sent from my mind, using telepathy!

---

I have no doubt they would try such a thing.

Well, CA is a liberal state. But our cops are cleared of shootings vs non-functioning "firearms". If a judge allowed such a line as to supersede the reasonable man test, it probably wouldn't fly with the jury if there were any competent council to present opposing evidence. Our laws don't work like that.
In Britain or outside of the U.S., the laws may be that twisted. There, a reasonable man gives way to forceful criminals or faces charges himself. I hope that we have a clearer and more definitive understanding of what a reasonable man believes to be a lethal threat.
That said, the subject in the above story had a history of mental illness and may have been playing without any inkling that he was under police observation and never intended to threaten. The point is that officers are cleared in self-defense from what is actually a water nozzle. So expect one to be cleared in self-defense from what is actually a firearm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HardLuck682

I'm wondering, if you were to claim self defense in a case where the perp uses an unserviceable gun, in a quite left wing state/area, that the prosecution would try to peruse charges being that a 'deadly' threat was not posed. I don't see it being likely, or even going through if tried, but I wonder if Chicago, NYC or California would try such a thing.

...sent from my mind, using telepathy!

---

No, a water pistol and a Nerf ball guns are deadly weapons in such places. Won't make any difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pistology

Well, CA is a liberal state. But our cops are cleared of shootings vs non-functioning "firearms". If a judge allowed such a line as to supersede the reasonable man test, it probably wouldn't fly with the jury if there were any competent council to present opposing evidence. Our laws don't work like that.
In Britain or outside of the U.S., the laws may be that twisted. There, a reasonable man gives way to forceful criminals or faces charges himself. I hope that we have a clearer and more definitive understanding of what a reasonable man believes to be a lethal threat.
That said, the subject in the above story had a history of mental illness and may have been playing without any inkling that he was under police observation and never intended to threaten. The point is that officers are cleared in self-defense from what is actually a water nozzle. So expect one to be cleared in self-defense from what is actually a firearm.

---

While this is often the case involving law enforcement shootings, that have a union to put lawyers up for your defense, it is a different thing for us lowly citizens. We need to make sure of who we shoot or the DA will see to it that we pay the price for thinking we have the right to defend ourselves.