Samurai Knock Over Gas Station

Katherine Mangu-Ward | December 7, 2006

You knew this was coming. As U.K. bans on weapons grow stricter, crime doesn't decline, it just gets more creative. Three guys with swords robbed a gas (sorry, "petrol") station in Lancashire on Sunday:

Police were shocked by the degree of violence in the robbery, which netted the raiders £250 in cash and cigarettes.

Sgt Andy Lawless, of Blackpool police's robbery squad, said: "The man working in the garage has received a nasty cut to the back of his head which required several staples in it at hospital.

"At first the guy behind the till has had a go back and tried to fight off the offenders, possibly not realising at that stage the swords are real."

Comments

Jim Lesczynski|12.7.06 @ 12:19PM|#

"A nasty cut to the back of the head"?! They call that a samurai sword? If this were "Kill Bill," they would have taken the head clean off!

But I love it when cops have names like "Sgt. Lawless".

Christopher Monnier|12.7.06 @ 12:25PM|#

But come on, wouldn't it be better if the Bloods and Crips battled it out with swords?

|12.7.06 @ 12:27PM|#

Wouldn't it really have been better if the shop keeper had a Sig 9mm or my personal favorite Ruger .357.

Christopher Monnier|12.7.06 @ 12:29PM|#

> Wouldn't it really have been better if the shop keeper had a Sig 9mm or my personal favorite Ruger .357.

He'd probably get arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm.

|12.7.06 @ 12:30PM|#

I swear, I was nowhere near Lancashire.

|12.7.06 @ 12:31PM|#

Wouldn't it really have been better if the shop keeper had a Sig 9mm or my personal favorite Ruger .357.


Or a sawed off shutgun underneath the counter.

Bagger|12.7.06 @ 12:32PM|#

In the UK if you're being assaulted, the police recommend that you curl up into the fetal position so that when law enforcement arrives, they know who to arrest.

Shooting someone in self defense with a gun can get you charged with murder.

Guy Montag|12.7.06 @ 12:37PM|#

Wait, the Brits are ahead of the curve, so-to-speak, on this one: Knife Amnesty Yields Neat Knives.

Brutal Hugger asks During England's recent knife amnesty, a variety of homemade cutting and puncturing weapons were turned in. I wonder how many weren't turned in.

I think you guys found one.

|12.7.06 @ 12:39PM|#

Next up, Brits will surrender part of their
middle finger so they can no longer use a long bow.

|12.7.06 @ 12:42PM|#

Wouldn't it really have been better if the shop keeper had a Sig 9mm or my personal favorite Ruger .357.

My personal favorite, a GI .45 cal. semi-automatic. It's a stopper.

|12.7.06 @ 12:43PM|#

See...you all laughed when the Australian government banned the ownership of swords. But if even one man is saved from a nasty cut, it's worth going from house to house and seeking out every last claymore. And don't even get me started on those A-rabs with their scimitars...

Dan T.|12.7.06 @ 12:43PM|#

Boy, this totally destroys the common argument that crimes can only be committed with guns!

|12.7.06 @ 12:48PM|#

Wouldn't it really have been better if the shop keeper had a Sig 9mm or my personal favorite Ruger .357.

Not nearly as good as it would be if the shopkeeper had been Toshiro Mifune.

|12.7.06 @ 12:50PM|#

The reason the shopkeeper only received a "nasty cut" to the back of his head is that had enchanted armor with +5 melee defense equiped. If he was wearing his helm, all would be well.

Elminster|12.7.06 @ 12:55PM|#

The shopkeeper was lucky the sword wasn't a vorpal weapon.

|12.7.06 @ 12:57PM|#

I'll follow up on what creech said by stating that the Brits could do the opposite of what the Amazons did and give everyone in the country (men included, to be fair) enormous breast implants. Thereby making it impossible for them to use a bow and arrow.
It would also undoubtedly increase tourism.

|12.7.06 @ 12:57PM|#

...crime doesn't decline, it just gets more creative.

Not that I support the British ban, but is there any evidence that supports this statement?

Guy Montag|12.7.06 @ 12:59PM|#

stuartl,

Well, we are commenting on one instance of the evidence you seek right now.

The Kurgan|12.7.06 @ 1:08PM|#

The shopkeeper wasn't on holy ground. This was completely legit.

|12.7.06 @ 1:14PM|#

Guy, I was looking for actual crime statistics, not one case. For all I know the ban is doubling the number of crimes since people can't defend themselves, or halving it since swords are tough to carry inconspicuously.

wingnutx|12.7.06 @ 1:41PM|#

At least he wasn't pushed out a window.

wingnutx|12.7.06 @ 1:42PM|#

Fifty teens rush a farmer's market with knives and bats, kill one and injure others.

|12.7.06 @ 1:42PM|#

So, they treat a sword victim by taking a stapler to the back of his head?

|12.7.06 @ 1:43PM|#

The shopkeeper wasn't on holy ground. This was completely legit.

What if the shopkeeper was originally from Scotland? Perhaps you have hit on the real backstory here...There can be only one!

|12.7.06 @ 1:45PM|#

They need to ban swords, then this won't happen again.

gerg|12.7.06 @ 1:55PM|#

"The man working in the garage has received a nasty cut to the back of his head which required several staples in it at hospital."

Gosh, obviously gun control is completely futile. That criminal could have given him that same nasty cut with a gun!

Can't come up with a better anecdote than this to support the idea of gun control.

Dan T.|12.7.06 @ 2:03PM|#

...crime doesn't decline, it just gets more creative.

Of course, if the banning of guns means that criminals have to come up with more creative ways to commit the same crimes, wouldn't that be an argument for banning guns? It makes committing crimes more difficult, so unmotivated or uncreative criminals will be less likely to commit them.

Dan T.|12.7.06 @ 2:14PM|#

Hello? Anyone out there? Please feed me.

|12.7.06 @ 2:20PM|#

I don't believe that Jaunita is a real person, at least not the one that's been posting lately.

|12.7.06 @ 2:20PM|#

[e-mail], indeed.

|12.7.06 @ 4:09PM|#

[e-mail] is the original Juanita address. [e-mail] is a new one that came out recently.

And I thought it was Scotland that banned swords, not Australia.

|12.7.06 @ 4:37PM|#

The Australian State of Victoria banned swords in 2004.

Scotland's ban was this year.

I seem to recall that it was Victoria that first made seatbelt wearing mandatory back in the 70s.

Real bunch o' pioneers those Victorians.

|12.7.06 @ 4:39PM|#

I'm agnostic on gun control, but doesn't this anecdote tend to give the lie to the old "If guns are banned, only criminals will have guns" bumper sticker? Seems like the criminals in England must be having a tough time getting guns.

|12.7.06 @ 4:56PM|#

Thanks for the info, Isaac Bartram. Estonia is looking better and better.

Dan T.|12.7.06 @ 5:04PM|#

If this incident would've occured in America, the shopkeeper would be dead from a gunshot wound.

|12.7.06 @ 5:17PM|#

I've always imagined that cultures and the forms of criminal organizations and their ethnic makeup played a role in who gets guns or where guns can be available from. Japan for instance has a somewhat homogeneous criminal structure, in terms of both ethnicity and running. There are no major wars between rival factions that don't exist, so there is no demand for illegal guns. The worst kind of violence happens between street punks in the yakuza, or between the punks and those who owe money.

There wouldn't be guns unless there were demand, and it seems there is not demand without the infrastructure in place to feed it.

|12.7.06 @ 6:35PM|#

"Can't come up with a better anecdote than this to support the idea of gun control."

What? That disallowing citizens to defend themselves with firearms is alright, because being assaulted and wounded by a blade-wielding criminal is somehow a better outcome than being able to fight back?

Awesome.

No, really, I mean that.
You.
Rock.

|12.7.06 @ 7:11PM|#

The way I see it, guns are an equalizer. In a society without guns, big, strong, males have more power, and can commit crimes more easily, since they know that some little old lady in a convenience store won't be able to fight back. In a society with guns, there is an equal opportunity for everyone to be a criminal, since a firearm more than compensates for being small or weak. There is also a deterrent though, in that the target of a crime may also be armed. So, overall, I don't know if guns have a net effect on the amount of crimes committed.
I think the main purpose of the right to bear arms is protection against a tyrannical government. When people propose gun control, they usually are referring only to civilians, not Law Enforcement. Restricting guns to cops/government agents gives them unchecked power, which can easily be abused.

|12.7.06 @ 10:11PM|#

Are you sure the clerk wasn't arrested for resisting the assault?

Guy Montag|12.7.06 @ 10:44PM|#

Brian24,

Gun control means hitting your intended target.

|12.7.06 @ 11:08PM|#

Don't know what y'all are arguing about. It's no problem, it's all on CCTV.

|12.7.06 @ 11:24PM|#

Far be it from me to interrupt gun nut fantasies folks, but, here we have a cashier who needed to get a few staples in the back of his head.

How would he have made out if it had been a .45 slug that hit him in the back of the head? Somehow, I doubt that a few staples would have done it.

The article intended to demonstrate the fallacy of gun law instead makes a case for them.

And no, I'm not necessarily advancing that case myself. Just pointing out how far off the mark the bunch of you are.

Paul|12.8.06 @ 1:41AM|#

It makes committing crimes more difficult, so unmotivated or uncreative criminals will be less likely to commit them.

Dan T.:

wwwrong. What it means is that the committed criminals have weapons and the rest of us uncommitted innocents are left defenseless. I don't want 12 creative criminals storming my house with large, sharp pointy things while I cower inside sans gun, sans sword, sans anything because I'm "law abiding".

Lucky for me 'n mine, though, I ain't law abiding. Gun ban or no, I'll always be holding.

david|12.8.06 @ 8:06AM|#

I am living in London and I can tell you, that crime has been increasing ever since the ban on guns...violent crimes, burglaries, especially "hot" ones, etc...
furthermore, criminals still have guns and they use it...just spend a weekend in manchester, your bound to experience gun crime...
if u ban guns, only criminals will have guns...
btw: in england you are not even allowed to walk around with pepper sprays or have a baseball bat in your car
one last point: for references on how gun control works, read John R. Lott's books. the guy puts out a huge number on statistics with reference to the us though...but if you want statistics for european countries compare crime rates from england and switzerland (which has more guns per capita than the us)

|12.8.06 @ 8:38AM|#

Sounds like its time for the UK to bring back the Mace and Shield for petrol shop keepers.

Well at least we know the cops caught it all on camera. Just think how much footage they will have soon from these cameras. I can see it now a whole cable channel KBBC Killed by Burgulars Channel with shows like When Good Robberys Go Bad or If Only I Had A Gun...

|12.8.06 @ 8:39AM|#

Sounds like its time for the UK to bring back the Mace and Shield for petrol shop keepers.

Well at least we know the cops caught it all on camera. Just think how much footage they will have soon from these cameras. I can see it now a whole cable channel KBBC Killed by Burgulars Channel with shows like When Good Robberys Go Bad or If Only I Had A Gun...

|12.8.06 @ 8:39AM|#

You are most certainly allowed to keep a baseball bat in your car in the UK. If I had lived there longer I would have been "on my way to a baseball match" every single day.

|12.8.06 @ 11:54AM|#

"Far be it from me to interrupt gun nut fantasies folks, but, here we have a cashier who needed to get a few staples in the back of his head."

The facts have borne out that firearms in the hands of citizens are used far more in self defense than they are to commit crimes. And statistically speaking, a person who resists with a firearm is more likely to come out unscathed than one who resists via other means, or does not resist at all.

Kleck reproduction of NCVS information.

This is hardly gun nut macho posturing or fantasizing.


"How would he have made out if it had been a .45 slug that hit him in the back of the head? Somehow, I doubt that a few staples would have done it."

Again, I point out that perhaps had the intended victim been armed, then odds are he wouldn't have been injured at all.

"The article intended to demonstrate the fallacy of gun law instead makes a case for them."

Only if one assumes the following:
1) That the criminal would have had a gun.
2) That the criminal would have inflicted a more deadly wound with it.
3) That the victim would not have possessed his own defensive firearm.

"And no, I'm not necessarily advancing that case myself. Just pointing out how far off the mark the bunch of you are."

Again, see above. Also, this one incident doesn't take into account the fact that violent crime committed with firearms has been increasing in the UK.

Certainly it would appear on the surface that one could make the argument that "see, gun control works, because the criminal used a less-deadly sword instead of a knife."

But I don't buy it. Handguns generally are not the one-shot man stoppers that so many people believe them to be. The biggest advantage a handgun has over a blade is that it is a ranged weapon.

David|12.8.06 @ 12:09PM|#

# Mark: you are allowed to have a baseball bat in your car when you can prove to the police that you were using or are using the bat for playing ball. The bat should be in your boot, otherwise you are carrying an offensive weapon, which could get you into trouble, depending on the cop.

Guy Montag|12.8.06 @ 1:00PM|#

The baseball bat thing . . .

I prefer to keep a large wrench handy. One that fits *something* on the vehicle it is being transported in.

A good long tire iron is always a good choice.

Larry A|12.8.06 @ 1:33PM|#

I prefer to keep a large wrench handy. One that fits *something* on the vehicle it is being transported in.

It doesn't matter what you swing in self-defense in Britain. You're going to jail anyway.

Guy Montag|12.8.06 @ 1:48PM|#

Larry A,

That is one reason why I will be staying in the USA with my hybrids.

|12.8.06 @ 2:53PM|#

"There can be only one petrol supplier!"