US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[mistermack]

This argument about self protection is not borne out by the facts.
Countries that have low gun ownership do not have huge numbers of people being abused by armed criminals. It's bollocks.
Of course people like guns. Most people are pretty dumb, and guns appeal most to the stupid.

The real point is does widespread gun ownership produce a better environment to live in, or does gun prohibition.
There's only one sane answer to that.
Get rid of guns for a better society.

[Wumbologist]

This argument about self protection is not borne out by the facts.

So, it's not possible to protect oneself with a device that launches lead projectiles at high speed?

Countries that have low gun ownership do not have huge numbers of people being abused by armed criminals. It's bollocks.

So then, the UK has an especially low violent crime rate, right?

Of course people like guns. Most people are pretty dumb, and guns appeal most to the stupid.

I own guns, I don't consider myself to be particularly stupid. You might, but that's likely for the simple fact that I own guns. I've met plenty of other gun owners, and while there is as much variation from one to the next as there is in any other group of people, I've met plenty who were very intelligent and rational people.

The real point is does widespread gun ownership produce a better environment to live in, or does gun prohibition.

I don't think either "produces an environment" to live in. There are thousands of factors that contribute to one's environment that have a much larger effect than gun ownership, and one can have a great environment to live in that has guns, a bad one with guns, a great one without guns, and a bad one without guns. The US has a high homicide rate, and high gun ownership. Switzerland has a low homicide rate, and high gun ownership. Japan has a low homicide rate, and virtually no gun ownership. Jamaica has virtually no gun ownership, and has an exorbitant homicide rate.

There's only one sane answer to that.
Get rid of guns for a better society.

Of course you see only one answer if your question is based on one presupposition after another.

[Hermit]

Ah, debating 101 - if the stats are against you, move the goalpost.

Seth has advanced to debating 102: Deny, deny, deny.

Driving cars endangers others. Why aren't cars banned?

That must be the 56th time this line has been trotted out today.

Also, why do you quote me there? Are you under the impression that I have advocated the banning of guns?

[Hermit]

Most people are pretty dumb, and guns appeal most to the stupid.

Group insult! Reported!

No, wait. Wrong forum.

[laklak]

That's bollocks. Hunting usually means putting out bait, and waiting for the bears in a safe platform up a tree.

I'm not a bear hunter, but I've never seen them hunted like that. Matter of fact it's illegal to bait in any state I know of. Bear hunting usually is a group effort, several individuals or groups with dogs and radios. It isn't easy.

[MrJonno]

You or I are far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than we are to be victims of a plane crash. From what I've read of yours on RatSkep, you know this from first-hand experience. Add to that the fact that most people don't fly every day, meaning that they're only subject to that risk on the rare occasion that they travel, whereas becoming a victim of violent crime can happen just about anywhere, at just about any time. But hey, if you wanted to bring a parachute with you every time you flew, I wouldn't judge you for it.

I'm more likely to be involved in a plane crash that I am to ever meet a criminal with a gun, neither of which are that likely.


Oh someone mentioned fire extinguishers which is interesint, I'm the trained fire marshall at work (H&S requires it , mainly paperwork), and its been suggested that having fire extinguishers in a building actually puts more lives at risks than it saves as it encourages untrained/unequiped people to risk their lives to put out fires when they should just be getting out of the building and calling the fire brigade. In other words let the building burn down get yourselves and everyone out ,don't try and be a hero

[colubridae]

You remember that massacre in Todmorden, where that guy ran over those 32 people? No, I don't either.

I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that far fewer deaths occur in Road Traffic Accidents than by guns.
If so you are wrong and your point is hopelessly invalid.
Several orders of magnitude more people are killed per year in RTAs than by guns.
Simple stat. easy to look up.

Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are unimportant.
Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are acceptable.
Only when killed by a gun does it become a moral issue worthy of a thread/rant.

If people are killed in a road accident are you less affected than if they are killed by a gunman?

[Clinton Huxley]

You remember that massacre in Todmorden, where that guy ran over those 32 people? No, I don't either.

I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that far fewer deaths occur in Road Traffic Accidents than by guns.
If so you are wrong and your point is hopelessly invalid.
Several orders of magnitude more people are killed per year in RTAs than by guns.
Simple stat. easy to look up.

Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are unimportant.
Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are acceptable.
Only when killed by a gun does it become a moral issue worthy of a thread/rant.

If people are killed in a road accident are you less affected than if they are killed by a gunman?

You are right, old chap. You don't understand my point.

[Seth]

You or I are far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than we are to be victims of a plane crash. From what I've read of yours on RatSkep, you know this from first-hand experience. Add to that the fact that most people don't fly every day, meaning that they're only subject to that risk on the rare occasion that they travel, whereas becoming a victim of violent crime can happen just about anywhere, at just about any time. But hey, if you wanted to bring a parachute with you every time you flew, I wouldn't judge you for it.

I'm more likely to be involved in a plane crash that I am to ever meet a criminal with a gun, neither of which are that likely.

So what? Again, you're trying to concoct a specious comparison. You cannot defend successfully against a plane crash (airliner) even with a parachute because you cannot use a parachute from an airliner. But you can defend successfully against a criminal attack using a gun.

Oh someone mentioned fire extinguishers which is interesint, I'm the trained fire marshall at work (H&S requires it , mainly paperwork), and its been suggested that having fire extinguishers in a building actually puts more lives at risks than it saves as it encourages untrained/unequiped people to risk their lives to put out fires when they should just be getting out of the building and calling the fire brigade. In other words let the building burn down get yourselves and everyone out ,don't try and be a hero

"it's been suggested?" I'm sure it has, but I don't see any actual evidence that it's more dangerous, and people use fire extinguishers all the time to put out small fires (like a kitchen grease fire) long before the fire brigade can arrive, and long before the fire can spread from the pan to the structure, which means that this "suggestion" is pretty dim-witted. For example, following this suggestion in a grease fire in the kitchen of a flat in a high-rise residential building without a sprinkler system means abandoning the most effective device and time for putting out the fire and allowing the fire to grow and potentially destroy the entire structure, and everyone in it who doesn't have time to escape what would have been a non-event if the resident had properly used an available fire extinguisher.

Certainly one should not try to use a small fire extinguisher against a fully-involved structure fire, but that's just common sense. On the other hand, people who have ACTUALLY been trained in fire extinguisher use can put out a hell of a lot of fire with a single one-pound extinguisher, and an incredible amount of fire with a five-pound extinguisher, which is what I (one of those people who has actually been trained and has actually used them on more than one occasion) carry in my vehicles.

But I can see how that sort of "let the government handle it" socialist attitude permeates the entire UK and the psyche of its people, who are helpless sheeple in more than one way it seems.

[colubridae]

You remember that massacre in Todmorden, where that guy ran over those 32 people? No, I don't either.

I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that far fewer deaths occur in Road Traffic Accidents than by guns.
If so you are wrong and your point is hopelessly invalid.
Several orders of magnitude more people are killed per year in RTAs than by guns.
Simple stat. easy to look up.

Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are unimportant.
Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are acceptable.
Only when killed by a gun does it become a moral issue worthy of a thread/rant.

If people are killed in a road accident are you less affected than if they are killed by a gunman?

You are right, old chap. You don't understand my point.

May I ask you then, is it your point that fewer people are killed in RTAs than by guns?

[charlou]

You remember that massacre in Todmorden, where that guy ran over those 32 people? No, I don't either.

I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that far fewer deaths occur in Road Traffic Accidents than by guns.
If so you are wrong and your point is hopelessly invalid.
Several orders of magnitude more people are killed per year in RTAs than by guns.
Simple stat. easy to look up.

Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are unimportant.
Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are acceptable.
Only when killed by a gun does it become a moral issue worthy of a thread/rant.

If people are killed in a road accident are you less affected than if they are killed by a gunman?

re the bolded bitty: Try deliberate use of a vehicle as a weapon of mass murder.

I suppose it's conceivable ... and a psychopath could be driven ( ) to such a method in Australia.

Actually, there was that time the drunk guy ran down a group at a road crossing ... and another time, a father drove himself and his children off a cliffside road with a heap of containers of fuel in the car, because he was unhappy about the family breaking up (he and, iirc, one child survived).

[Clinton Huxley]

Nope, lots more people are killed in RTAs - at least partly because of gun control laws. Rather, my point is that no-one gets in a car intending to kill someone with it, so the comparison between guns and cars is a little specious.

[Seth]

Nope, lots more people are killed in RTAs - at least partly because of gun control laws. Rather, my point is that no-one gets in a car intending to kill someone with it, so the comparison between guns and cars is a little specious.

Wrong. People do get into cars with the specific intent of using them as deadly weapons all the time. And they also form a specific intent to use them as deadly weapons while driving them. Ever hear of "road rage." And that discounts the "accidental" deaths caused by those who act with gross negligence and callous disregard of the safety of others by driving drunk, which is, and should always be charged as attempted 2nd degree murder or 2nd degree murder, as appropriate.

And people who carry firearms lawfully do not carry them with a specific intent of killing someone with it, they carry it for self defense in the event they are attacked by someone using deadly force.

So no, the comparison is apt, and unanswered.

[colubridae]

You remember that massacre in Todmorden, where that guy ran over those 32 people? No, I don't either.

I don’t understand your point. Are you saying that far fewer deaths occur in Road Traffic Accidents than by guns.
If so you are wrong and your point is hopelessly invalid.
Several orders of magnitude more people are killed per year in RTAs than by guns.
Simple stat. easy to look up.

Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are unimportant.
Or is it your belief that people killed in road deaths are acceptable.
Only when killed by a gun does it become a moral issue worthy of a thread/rant.

If people are killed in a road accident are you less affected than if they are killed by a gunman?

re the bolded bitty: Try deliberate use of a vehicle as a weapon of mass murder.

I suppose it's conceivable ... and a psychopath could be driven ( ) to such a method in Australia.

Actually, there was that time the drunk guy ran down a group at a road crossing ... and another time, a father drove himself and his children off a cliffside road with a heap of containers of fuel in the car, because he was unhappy about the family breaking up (he and, iirc, one child survived).

Mass murder. Ok so if it’s numbers that count. I will ask it another way

If you had a choice, press a magic button to prevent road deaths or gun deaths. Which button do you choose?

Road deaths are an active process. It’s not as if too little is done to fight poverty or disease, people killed on roads are killed actively. Mostly by carelessness (not psycopathy ), but does that make their deaths less morally wrong?
Is that killing by guns is immoral, but killing by car is moral?

Sure often (though, not always) the numbers per incident are small, one here, two there, numbers spread out. But overall the numbers are several orders of magnitude higher than gun deaths (even including so-called combat conditions)

IIRC the WHO quotes road deaths as the third biggest killer.

[colubridae]

Nope, lots more people are killed in RTAs - at least partly because of gun control laws. Rather, my point is that no-one gets in a car intending to kill someone with it, so the comparison between guns and cars is a little specious.

So it's morally outrageous to kill someone by a gun, but perfectly acceptable to kill them through, what 'carelessness', with a car?

edit (I will ignore your point that without gun control more fewer people would be killed in RTAs)