British soldier hacked to death after being run over with car

[bu villain]

C'mon David don't make this about gun laws. Two homicidal guys wanted to kill someone in public to make a point. No gun law would have stopped this.

[BanginJimmy]

C'mon David don't make this about gun laws. Two homicidal guys wanted to kill someone in public to make a point. No gun law would have stopped this.

It was a valid response to the statement he quoted. I sure as hell am not getting involved with 2 armed men bent on murder if I dont hold some type of serious advantage.

[Sinfix_15]

C'mon David don't make this about gun laws. Two homicidal guys wanted to kill someone in public to make a point. No gun law would have stopped this.

A gun did stop it. Luckily the guy didnt want to kill anymore people, because he would have been able to do so as he pleased...... that is.... until someone with a gun showed up, which is exactly when it stopped.

[bu villain]

Gun laws prevented any legal citizens from carrying and being able to respond to these two - that's fact. These two ran the guy down first with the car. They didn't just cut him first. While we will never know for certain if the result could have been different if someone had a legal firearm, we can say that there could have been a possibility at least.

A gun did stop it. Luckily the guy didnt want to kill anymore people, because he would have been able to do so as he pleased...... that is.... until someone with a gun showed up, which is exactly when it stopped.

Well as long as we are dealing with hypothetical scenarios, how about the scenario where these two guys simply walked up to him on that street and shot him in the head. One guy did have a revolver right? You can't just pick the situations where guns could have helped and make a conclusion about the validity of gun laws for a country, you also have to consider the situations where they cause more damage or wouldn't have helped.

[David88vert]

Well as long as we are dealing with hypothetical scenarios, how about the scenario where these two guys simply walked up to him on that street and shot him in the head. One guy did have a revolver right? You can't just pick the situations where guns could have helped and make a conclusion about the validity of gun laws for a country, you also have to consider the situations where they cause more damage or wouldn't have helped.

Well, if you want the hypothetical to be in this situation - the guy with the revolver did attempt to fire it at the cops. Reports are that it was rusty and blew up in his hand, destroying one of his fingers. So, if they had tried to shoot the guy first, he might still be alive.
That's not what you want to hear, but we can't always get what we want.

[bu villain]

Well, if you want the hypothetical to be in this situation - the guy with the revolver did attempt to fire it at the cops. Reports are that it was rusty and blew up in his hand, destroying one of his fingers. So, if they had tried to shoot the guy first, he might still be alive.
That's not what you want to hear, but we can't always get what we want.

My whole point is that these hypothetical scenarios, whether I like them or not, are pointless. You can invent hypotheticals that support your view (which you have done here) just as I can invent them to support the opposite view. It's all just mental masturbation and isn't particularly helpful for determining the validity of gun laws.

[David88vert]

My whole point is that these hypothetical scenarios, whether I like them or not, are pointless. You can invent hypotheticals that support your view (which you have done here) just as I can invent them to support the opposite view. It's all just mental masturbation and isn't particularly helpful for determining the validity of gun laws.

I based my statements off the known facts of the situation. Read the reports and tell me if I have incorrectly stated anything. I know that I have not.

[bu villain]

I based my statements off the known facts of the situation. Read the reports and tell me if I have incorrectly stated anything. I know that I have not.

I'm not questioning your facts. I am questioning the relevance of UK's gun laws in light of this incident. I don't see them as particularly relevant.

I agree with both statements.

Then why even bring up UK's gun laws?

[Sinfix_15]

Well as long as we are dealing with hypothetical scenarios, how about the scenario where these two guys simply walked up to him on that street and shot him in the head. One guy did have a revolver right? You can't just pick the situations where guns could have helped and make a conclusion about the validity of gun laws for a country, you also have to consider the situations where they cause more damage or wouldn't have helped.

But you can cherry pick the crimes committed with guns???????????

If guns are evil and cant be controlled by their owner, then police, military ect should not have guns. If a gun is just a tool and only does what it's told.... sweet.... no reason i cant have one.

[bu villain]

I cherry picked with the stated intent to show that it is not a valid way to make a policy decision. That was the whole point. Guns are only tools (albeit powerful and dangerous ones) and are sometimes controlled properly and sometimes not. That is why the ideological debate over guns goes nowhere. Don't base gun policy on cherry picked anecdotes, particularly hypothetical ones. I don't care which side of the issue you are on.

Trying to turn this incident into a discussion on guns still doesn't make much sense to me either. If someone wants to have a gun debate, you can find a lot better conversation starters than a knifing incident in London.

[Sinfix_15]

I cherry picked with the stated intent to show that it is not a valid way to make a policy decision. That was the whole point. Guns are only tools (albeit powerful and dangerous ones) and are sometimes controlled properly and sometimes not. That is why the ideological debate over guns goes nowhere. Don't base gun policy on cherry picked anecdotes, particularly hypothetical ones. I don't care which side of the issue you are on.

Trying to turn this incident into a discussion on guns still doesn't make much sense to me either. If someone wants to have a gun debate, you can find a lot better conversation starters than a knifing incident in London.

The debate over guns should only involve what to do with criminals who misuse them. As a law abiding citizen, i'm tired of listening to politicians talk as if theyre entitled to take my rights away.

This is a perfectly fine topic for discussing the usefulness of gun ownership. If democrats had their way, i could potentially be one of those people standing helplessly in the streets as criminals have free reign to decide who they do or do not want to kill. London is often used as example of how great gun control is and why we shouldnt oppose it.

[bu villain]

This is a perfectly fine topic for discussing the usefulness of gun ownership. If democrats had their way, i could potentially be one of those people standing helplessly in the streets as criminals have free reign to decide who they do or do not want to kill. London is often used as example of how great gun control is and why we shouldnt oppose it.

First of all, having a gun will not necessarily prevent you from being killed in the street. Second, this incident doesn't prove that gun control isn't a good policy either here or in the UK. If you really want to make this incident about guns, how about using it to illustrate that you don't need a gun to murder someone. At least that is a factual statement proven by this case and not some hypothetical scenario implying looser gun laws would have prevented this attack.