British soldier hacked to death after being run over with car

[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?

[David88vert]

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.

Then why even bring up UK's gun laws?

A gun was involved in the incident.
An attack on a soldier (who is trained to use firearms) and hsi subsequent public murder was the incident.
It took officers 30 minutes to respond, according to some of the people who witnessed the attack. During that time, the attackers could have take the opportunity to kill multiple others if they had chosen to, and the citizens would not have been able to meet deadly force equally.
If the police are not there to defend the citizens, why take away their ability to defend themselves?
One item to note - I have been to England and London before the gun ban, and even then, guns were not as prevalent there, as we see them here. They just aren't a "gun society", so in all honesty, I doubt any of the civilians would have been carrying a gun, even if it was legal (and easy).