There was a knife attack in London. Did the country's gun laws prevent that attack from being much worse?

  • The responses every time this question is raised astound me.

    Sadly, they don't surprise me. Of *course* the NRA and all its supporters have it right, and nearly every other civilised country has it wrong. That's why the gun death rate in the US is *40 times* higher per capita than in the UK. Stupid Brits, what would they know? I feel overwhelmingly sad for what appears to be the somewhat less than half of the citizens of the States who actually get it.

  • Yes, the fact that people are not allowed to carry guns in the United Kingdom prevented the knife attack that occurred in London from being much worse

    Yes, the fact that people are not allowed to carry guns in the United Kingdom prevented the knife attack that occurred in London from being much worse. If the person that attacked people with a knife in London had a gun he could have killed more people. Thus, anti-gun laws worked.

  • Yes, they did

    Some guy with a knife goes around killing people. It really is terrible, but if you give the same guy a gun, he kills even more people. If you give everyone guns, more people will have guns, and more people will be able to go around killing people with guns. There's a reason the homicide rate here in the UK is much lower than in the USA.

  • So obvious you do wonder how ignorant one has to be not to see it.

    Reading from the other side I do wonder. Statements such as, 'a knife can be just as deadly. Can openers in the wrong hands. And other assorted asides do not recognise the destructive capability of firearms. Gun laws restrict guns from public hands. Without the easy access to guns the attacker used a knife. If the attacker had had a gun the impact would have been far greater.
    If your logic don't get you to that conclusion, or you toss in non sequiturs like granades to dilute the obvious its time to shit or get off the pan.

  • People with guns kill quicker

    If the attacker was able to obtain a gun, especially an automatic weapon, then he would have been able to kill more people, in a shorter amount of time, then he would have if he didn't have a gun. He would have been able to do so before 1st responders could have arrived on the location. I don't agree with British gun laws currently, I think they need to loosen their laws and allow people to have firearms( with extensive procedures), but this attack could have been much worse if he had used a gun.

  • Yes, they did

    First of all, a gun will do a lot more damage than a knife. If a knife was deadlier than a lot more attacks would be with knives.
    The attackers intentions were clear. If they had easy access to guns the attack would most likely be with a gun, which would do more damage. If guns are easy to obtain for a normal citizen then they are easily obtained by the wrong hands. If British citizens had gun rules similar to the United States than they would be in a lot more danger.

  • How would it?

    Here is a lesson in logic:
    If you disarm the citizens, this will have ZERO effect on criminals because they don't care, it is already illegal for felons to own guns in the US, so they can get guns just as easily. Now you have a armed criminal population, a disarmed civilian population, and you've created a whole new black market for firearms.

    Now let's assume that you somehow prevented criminals from getting guns, which has nothing to do with a gun ban, you can shut down the illegal arms trade without a gun ban, and if you did you would have the exact opposite situation as the first. Either way this makes criminals and civilians on equal footing.

    So the criminal can just bring a knife to a public area and commit an atrocity, but if someone had 1 gun, he would have been dead.

  • No they did not.

    How many terrorists have been stopped mid attack in the U.S. by guns? I wonder how many heads were saved in Oklahoma when the lunatic muslim who was beheading coworkers got ventilated by an ARMED coworker. How many members of parliament in Canada were spared when the Sergeant at arms went back to his office and stopped the shooter with his handgun? How many of the roughly dozen people I have personally seen dead, beaten with hammers, would have survived had they met the hammer with a firearm?

  • Did it stop them in Paris?

    No it did not stop the attack from being any worse. Look at Paris, did their gun laws stop those attacks? No, they didn't. Criminals will always get guns. Criminals do not care about laws that's why they are Criminals. The only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

  • No it didnt prevent a worse attack.

    The attack in London was always suppose to be a knife attack. Criminals in todays world know there ways around all the laws and if they wanted guns to carry out an attack they very well of possessed them. The black market is home to anything and laws only go so far in preventing attacks.

  • No, not at all.

    Gun laws don't prevent fights from getting worse, nor do they prevent the wrong people from getting their hands on guns. All they do is restrict citizens who truly may need to protect themselves. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what weapon a person uses if that person is skilled in using it to harm people. A knife can be just as deadly as a gun is. A can opener can be an instrument of death in the wrong hands for that matter.

  • It is impossible to know for sure

    No, the country's gun laws did not necessarily prevent the knife attack from being worse. A knife attack is just that. If guns had been involved, then the attack would likely have been worse. We just can't tell for sure if the perpetrators would have used guns had they been available.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Dilara says2016-08-09T03:46:46.227
Yes and no. If it was easy for the thug to get a gun the attack could have been worsted. But if the victims were allowed to carry guns they could have defended them selves.