And THIS is why high capacity magazines are needed!

[FrontSight]

That is actually a good point, MTT TL.

But I've found that sometimes it helps to point out real life cases in countering arguments, rather than the principles that you, I, and others who support the 2nd understand the constitution to have been founded upon...

Then again, no amount of logic or real life examples ever seems to get through to the anti's...

 

[Skadoosh]

True but you said ___allow our citizenry to own ghastly guns.

Ummm...no. I never said that. I was quoting one of my English uncles, who said those very words, verbatim. My other adult English relatives have all said virtually the same as well.

There is no denying the fact that most citizens in the UK can not legally own or keep a handgun at home or legally carry a firearm for self protection. Owning a handgun that must be locked up at an authorized shooting range is NOT, in my opinion, true gun ownership.

 

[MTT TL]

Then again, no amount of logic or real life examples ever seems to get through to the anti's...

Exactly. The lights are on but no one is home is what I see too often.

The problem here was never law abiding citizens with firearms but more criminals with illegal firearms.

Same here.

 

[Scouse]

Skadoosh - Yep, gun laws in the UK are extremely tight and illiberal and the opposite end of the scale from those in the USA. I think we can all agree on that. However, to imply that just because your uncle etc here in England looks down his nose at Americans because of the different ways our societies approach firearms, all British people do, most definitely is 'a bit of a sweeping statement'.

Personally, I feel like the two often peoples miss one another a bit here. British people are often uncomfortable with the American relationship with guns (I for one, am not, but that is because I am a shooter and 'get' guns), because it is completely alien to our own. Some Americans then assume this is some sort of superiority complex and that all British people are ignorant sheeple who think they are better than everyone else while actually living in a little bubble in which they take no personal responsibility for their own personal safety. Guns just have never been ubiquitous in British society, and when legally held firearms were more common, they did not serve as a societal symbol of freedom and responsible individuality and all the things they do for many people in the USA, beyond just being tools.

Our real problem is our insane self defence laws . . . they are quite mad. When it comes down to it, sit down with your average British person and ask how they feel about protecting the people who are important to them and you are going to get the same answers, broadly, as if you are talking to an American. Guns may feature less in the conversation because for better or worse, they are just not a normal thing in British society. We really are not that different.

Sorry, went off on one a bit there and haven't been anywhere near to trying to contribute to the question . . . Tragic gang attacks happen, unfortunately. In any society where it is possible for people to carry guns to protect themselves, it is possible for those 20 scumbag thugs to carry too . . . the outcome might be different, but it might not. Maybe another half a dozen patrons in the pub would have been hit in the crossfire.

I get the argument that that doesn't matter, regardless people should have the chance to protect themselves (because yes, maybe being armed would have saved them).

Still, high cap mags ain't going to save you if you get attacked by a gang who wants to kill you, either they are motivated to do it and fight and kill you anyway, or they flee when you shoot back. I feel that will happen whatever you are armed with (within reason) . . . if they are prepared to do what it takes you die whether you are armed with the j-frame or the glock with the 33rd mag . . . likewise if they are not prepared to do what it takes, either can save your life. You can't argue with numbers, 20 vs 2 is what it is.

 

[HALLAUSTIN]

I dont think anyone, bar none could walk away from 20vs2 without some scars. Its sad ro hear that things like this happen. But you cant drink and carry either though... Still makes you think. I know I wouldnt have been able to squeeze off 20 rounds before being taken down.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

I do find it interesting how when a strategy is used effectively against us by others, we downgrade the users with a derogatory personality trait classification, but when our folks employ similar strategies, they are considered to be smart strategies used by brave people.

It is not cowardice that to attack a target in a manner for which the target doesn't have much chance to respond effectively. That is why groups like SWAT wear full body armor, carry what they expect to be superior fire power, come with vastly superior numbers, and use tactics such as surprise, speed, violence of action, and even the cover of darkness to conduct their operations. There is a very good reason why a SWAT team isn't a single person in spandex bike shorts and a neon shirt armed with a warrant, badge, and a gun.

Risk reduction is a strategy applied successfully across human cultures and the animal kingdom. There is a very good reason top tier carnivores don't primarily prey on each other. The risk is too high. Risk can be reduced by methods such as using superior numbers, better armor, picking weaker targets, using surprise, speed, violence of action, and sometimes using the cover of darkness.

We can call the bad guys cowards because we don't like it that their tactics do work with an amount of success that causes us discomfort to consider, but the fact remains that the tactics and strategies are ones that work, that we used ourselves, and that are designed to reduce risk such that even if you aren't successful, then at least chance of injury is reduced.

 

[dayman]

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...

I think most of us prepare for what might happen, we just all draw different lines. Not many of us - outside of law enforcement - wear body armor every day, and not many of us carry a long gun.
Average Americans are far more likely to be killed by our vices, our cars, or our diets than be murdered.
I carry a gun. Depending on my outfit sometimes I even carry a gun that might even be considered "high capacity", but I don't want to live my life worried about and preparing for being attacked by a knife wielding mob. .
I absolutely agree that, as a rule, more rounds at your disposal is better than fewer, but talking about what might have happened if things had been different is just conjecture. What if the mobbers had gotten involved with sports instead of gang violence? What if all pubs had security doors? What if everyone at the pub had brought their doberman to watch the game? What if guns were legal in England, and as popular as they are here, then the victim was one of the 90% who don't carry anyway?
More than anything, this story is proof that sometimes really bad stuff happens for no reason.

 

[Skadoosh]

However, to imply that just because your uncle etc here in England looks down his nose at Americans because of the different ways our societies approach firearms, all British people do, most definitely is 'a bit of a sweeping statement'.

Are you saying that I am in fact wrong in my supposition that an overwhelming majority of British citizens are in fact not in favor of private handgun ownership? Do British citizen not support their extremely strict gun control laws?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Enough [too much] jabbering at each other.