And THIS is why high capacity magazines are needed!

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FrontSight

New member
And THIS is why high capacity magazines are needed!!!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ie-gang-outside-pub.html?ICO=most_read_module




Tuesday, May 22 2012

Father, 56, fighting for life after being stabbed trying to shield dying son from frenzied attack by hoodie gang outside pub after Chelsea match

• 20 hooded youths stormed pub with knives 'like a pack of wolves'
• Bernard Fitzpatrick is critical after acting as a human shield when son Luke, 25, was dragged away then stabbed to death in the street
• Gang attacked after Champions League final in scenes 'like something out of a horror film'
• Youths were known troublemakers - 'at 17 why have they got knives? it's disgusting' says one witness
• 'He had never done a bad thing in his life but he can’t even go to the pub with his dad and have a pint without getting murdered', says friend
• 'Bad things happen to good people. None of the scumbags who did this could ever live up to our friend.'

By Chris Hanlon
PUBLISHED: 13:24 EST, 21 May 2012 | UPDATED: 11:41 EST, 22 May 2012
• Comments (539)


Senseless: 'True gent' Luke Fitzpatrick was stabbed to death after a hooded gang stormed a north london pub on Saturday
A gang of 20 hooded youths stormed a pub after the Champions League final before dragging away a 25-year old man and stabbing him to death in scenes 'like a horror film', friends said today.
'True gent' Luke Fitzpatrick was killed and his father Bernard, who threw himself on top of his son in a desperate attempt to shield him, remains in a critical condition in hospital after being stabbed four times.
The pair were attacked when a gang armed with bats and knives stormed the north London pub after father and son had watched Chelsea win the cup together at on Saturday.
A forensic tent remained at the scene of the tragedy just yards from the pub near his Dollis Hill home.
A female friend, 22, who asked not be named, said: 'Luke was one of the nicest guys around, always looking after people, he actually cared about people, a really nice, funny guy.
'The amount of flowers that are here just shows how loved he was, this has ruined this community.
'I was there on Saturday and it was like something out of a horror film.
'There were about 20 young black guys all with their hoods up armed with sticks and bats and knives. They just ran in the pub and started trying to attack people.
'It was really frightening. But it should not have happened to Luke, it shouldn’t have happened to anyone, but he was a complete innocent.'
His mother Constance, 56, and brother Ryan, 21, were in Majorca and had to rush home.


Oooooh, England, how far you have fallen!!! More at the link...
 
And THIS is why high capacity magazines are needed!!!
Click to expand...

Let's review for a moment. The regular citizenry in Britain has no second amendment rights, therefore no guns. How exactly would a magazine have helped?

Further, what is a "high-capacity" magazine? Taking the basic example of the Glock 17, which holds 17 rounds, it seems as if that would be a normal capacity magazine.

Would I need 17 rounds? Probably not. These thugs are basically cowards and pick on unarmed people. I would submit that one guy with a revolver could have turned them away. The crowd mentality only works if you're not the guy in front getting shot.

Oooooh, England, how far you have fallen!!!
Click to expand...

Concur.
 
Oh, I didn't mean for them, specifically.

I meant it as a real-world example to dispel the antis' b.s. argument of "You don't need the ability to be able to shoot more than a few rounds to defend yourself...a few rounds is all you should be allowed to be able to shoot and anything more is an unreasonable request and goes against common sense."

This proves that there are indeed times when you may be attacked by a very large group, instantly, and need to be able to fire more than "a few rounds" in order to effectively defend yourself.

The fact is that they were attacked by almost 2 dozen thugs...but it is only a guess that all of them would have stopped attacking after a shot or two was fired in defense. Mobs are unpredictible; some may have tried to continue the attack.

It is not a fantasy; it really does happen, and with terrifying speed and horrible results.
 
This really isn't proof of anything, especially anything related to a device that wasn't even present, say nothing of used in any quantity at all.

Yesterday, I was fishing in a small pond. I hooked this neat, mid-sized carp. Maybe 18 inches. I was messing around with him near the shore, waiting for my uncle to go get a bucket, when he broke the line.

Just goes to show you why you need an aerator in your live well.... right?

Well, maybe hi-cap mags are useful and maybe you do need an aerator in your live well, but neither scenario has any relation to the claim being made.
 
Okay, suppose the Brits allowed handguns. Let's see, if 20 guys with Glocks of their own and high capacity mags come after you and all you have is one Glock and a couple of reloads, well, I suppose you'd better be quick. Really quick.

John
 
Jeez, gents, give the OP a break. Semantics and legal aside, if I were armed, in position, and inclined to help I would rather have a weapon capable of holding more than a John Browning single-stack's worth.

Of course, given the situation and the laws of the land, this is not possible. Still, it stirs the blood to hear of things like this.
 
Darn shame how the brits disarmed themselves. But I have no empathy for them. I have English relatives who all to person look down their collective noses at their uncouth colonial cousins...and literally make no bones about how barbaric we are, as individuals and a nation, allow our citizenry to own ghastly guns.
 
Honestly, this is why people need to learn how to find and use improvised weapons. As humans we've been doing this for thousands of years, other animals do it too. Granted, drinking isn't going to help you think clearly, but shooting after a few isn't smart either. It sure sucks for those who were hurt though, undeserved...

Such incidents make knives seem so much worse, and it's a pity they aren't even allowed to carry such tools in the first place. But criminals will do as they please...

In this scenario, any weapon is going to help. Guns, sticks, sword and shield, anything. But the issue I'm looking at is that when there are 20, and you have the only gun, you can be easily over whelmed. Worst case scenario, I run out and they swarm me, out of bullets they can't shoot me. Not going to rely on that, just a thought.
 
It's not a matter of what I might prefer or if I might be able to make a good argument for that preference, it's simply that the premise "high-cap magazines are needed" is not supported by the example given.

What would be needed to make a reasoned argument would be two, similar situations wherein the good guy lost in one while using low-cap magazines but prevailed in the other, using high-cap magazines. There would still be much left to assumption, too many variables for a real conclusion, but at least we could see the rationale for the argument.

In the scenario in the OP, we don't know what difference, if any, a firearm of ANY kind might have made. Low-cap, high-cap, 9mm, 45acp? He can we know?

IF there had been a firearm and IF it were in the hands of the right guy and IF he had been able to employ it successfully and IF the bad guys didn't give up or run at the first shot and IF they continued to fight after shots were fired and IF...

What does it prove?
 
What does it prove?
Click to expand...

It proves that there are times when people are attacked by multiple aggressors; that it is not a fantasy; it is a reality. The anti's main argument is that high capacity mags are not needed for self defense, and are only useful for attacking innocent crowds. This proves their argument is wrong.

It also proves that he & his dad, together, would have had enough ammo to shoot each attacker at least once, without reloading.

It also proves that he & his dad, together, would not have had enough ammo to shoot each attacker at least once, without reloading.

Do we prepare for what will only definitely happpen, or do we prepare for what could possibly happen, to the best of our planning? I choose the latter...
 
Very similar incident just took place near me. 15 masked men stormed a restaurant with baseball bats and police batons and attacked the patrons. They were supposedly targeting a white power group that was eating there, but either way, there were civilians in there too that got hurt.

My buddy and I both agreed that if we had concealed carry, those guys would have thought twice, and the victims would have a lot more options.
 
Yes, well, I've had this discussion a good many times here on TFL so this will be my last post in this thread.

What we prepare for, if we're honest, are those things within our sphere of interest.

We, here, are interested in firearms and self defense, so we prepare to defend ourselves and we make choices and we can't imagine how others don't and how naive they are who don't, and how paranoid those are who prepare more than do we.

I used to be friends with a guy who did cone racing (can't remember the name of the organization). He had roll cages, racing seats and 5-pt racing harnesses in his STREET cars. He couldn't believe none of he rest of his friends cared about doing the same. He would make endless arguments about driving being the most dangerous thing we ever do, how likely we are to die in a crash.... Yada Yada Yada. We didn't care because we weren't "into" cars, but he was right. If anything ever kills me besides being old, it's more likely than anything else to be a car crash and there's a very good chance that his racing seats, roll cage and 5-pt harness would have saved me.

We carry guns because it's what we're into. We strategize and agonize and argue over caliber, capacity, reloads, carry methods.... Yada Yada Yada... And it's all good, because we can. This is America. Have at it.

But the example still isn't related to and doesn't support the assumption.
 
robhof

That's why my M9 has a 40 round mag when I'm in the car. If I'm ever carjacked and they ask why I shot him 40 times; I can reply that's all the bullets that I had.:D:D:D:):eek:
 
Quote. Darn shame how the brits disarmed themselves. But I have no empathy for them. I have English relatives who all to person look down their collective noses at their uncouth colonial cousins...and literally make no bones about how barbaric we are, as individuals and a nation, allow our citizenry to own ghastly guns.
========================================================

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. I live in n Ireland which is part of the UK and have firearms and enjoy shooting. Their are also lots of other people (Brits) in the rest of the UK that have firearms and enjoy shooting. PS. I would agree with the original poster that you are better with extra ammo than not enough.
 
We carry guns because it's what we're into. We strategize and agonize and argue over caliber, capacity, reloads, carry methods.... Yada Yada Yada... And it's all good, because we can. This is America. Have at it.

But the example still isn't related to and doesn't support the assumption.
Click to expand...

Well, ok, let's look at this a different way, then, maybe...

If this incident does not support the need for high capacity mags, then what argument would you raise instead to counter the Anti's claims that high capacity mags should be outlawed because they are not needed for self defense?
 
That's a bit of a sweeping statement.
Click to expand...


So was the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which, ironically, did not extend to Northern Ireland where I see you are posting from. This legislation virtually banned all handgun ownership in the UK.
 
If this incident does not support the need for high capacity mags, then what argument would you raise instead to counter the Anti's claims that high capacity mags should be outlawed because they are not needed for self defense?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't.

The 2A does not say a word about self defense. So when you think about it the 2A almost requires larger capacity magazines, similar to what military units carry. I would not limit there however.
 
QUOTE. So was the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which, ironically, did not extend to Northern Ireland where I see you are posting from. This legislation virtually banned all handgun ownership in the UK.

True but you said ___allow our citizenry to own ghastly guns. As i said their are a lot of gun owners in the UK that enjoy shooting. Who would look at the gun laws in the USA with envy rather than looking down their noses at them. PS. Why do you say ironically that handgun ban did not apply to N Ireland. The problem here was never law abiding citizens with firearms but more criminals with illegal firearms.
_______________
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top