US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Wumbologist]

Yeh, and you super confidently diagnosed an irrational fear, even though you've shown that you're no better than anybody else at knowing what people are thinking.
YOU think it's irrational. YOU claim to know that they mean exactly what they say.
I think that it's rational. If you don't like guns, and don't trust gun owners, and want to be polite, just say you're scared of guns, period.
I wouldn't knowingly go to houses of gun owners. I don't WANT to have the conversation you had, that the guns are out of harms way etc etc etc. I still wouldn't want to be around them, or their owners.
Because talk to ANY gun owner, they will ALWAYS says that THEIR guns are safe, and probably believe it.

MY mind reading skills tell me that people are just being polite, and you brow-beat them, rather than convinced them.

If you're going to continue to simply ignore what I've said and continue on with your rant regardless of the actual facts of it, I won't bother continuing to discuss this with you.

[mistermack]

If you're going to continue to simply ignore disagree with what I've said and continue on with your rant regardless of the actual facts of it, I won't bother continuing to discuss this with you.

[PsychoSerenity]

Compare to the likely effects of, in a country that has them, guns being banned. - There would probably be a small temporary rise in gun crime as those who refuse to surrender their weapons take advantage of the situation, which would gradually reduce to lower levels than before, as guns become very much harder to acquire. There wouldn't necessarily even be an increase in gun deaths, as, knowing that their victims are unarmed, criminals would have no reason to shoot first.

I think that explains why cars and guns are not equal.

No offense, but it drives me nuts when people refer to "gun crime" in threads like this, as if it's something special compared to other types of crime. Sure, gun crime might go down if there are less guns, but what we really need to know is whether the total rate of violent crime is affected. Does the number of murders, or forcible rapes, or assaults, or robberies decline? Or are there just as many done with other tools? The answer I've seen has been that violent crime is generally not reduced when a nation bans guns.

I know, but that wasn't really my point - I was merely answering the comparison of guns to cars.

Although if it were possible to measure, and all other things being equal, I suspect there would be a slight reduction - due to the speed, efficiency, and range of guns, compared to other possible weapons - particularly in cases of mass murders, and particularly with high powered and automatic guns with large magazines.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've known people who wouldn't knowingly step into a house with guns, not necessarily because of the gun owners, but literally because they're afraid the guns might somehow go off by themselves and they'd be in the line of fire and die. That's not a rational fear.

More likely just politeness.
They don't want to say " I don't trust you and your guns, I think you're a bit of a loony ".
So they feign a phobia. I would probably do the same, if it was someone I didn't want to offend.

That seems really crazy to me (thinking someone who owns guns must be a "loony"). It sounds childish, really.

There is no reason to expect that someone owning a gun is a loony. Maybe they're a hunter, or a police officer.

Here are a couple of loonies, I guess... What country do you think they are from?

[Wumbologist]

If you're going to continue to simply ignore disagree with what I've said and continue on with your rant regardless of the actual facts of it, I won't bother continuing to discuss this with you.

No, you've repeatedly ignored the fact that I am, for the most part, not even talking about people dealing with my own personal gun ownership. Let's run through this one more time, really slow, and see if you can understand it.

I was anti-gun for a long time. During that time I occassionally had conversations about gun control with other anti-gun people. I agreed with them, they agreed with me. Many of them claimed they would not want to knowingly go into a house with guns, and their reasoning is that the guns could "go off" by themselves and they could be killed.

I am now pro-gun and own guns. Not everybody around me knows this. In discussions about gun control where I had not revealed my opinions or personal gun ownership, many people claimed they would not want to knowingly go into a house with guns, and their reasoning is that the guns could "go off" by themselves and they could be killed.

There has been only 1 (one) incident in which my gun ownership became an issue for someone planning on coming to my house. A friend of my girlfriend's had been planning on coming to our house, and her boyfriend mentioned that I had guns, which she was afraid of. She called my girlfriend to cancel her plans and explained why. My girlfriend asked me to speak to her about it, and I politely explained to her that the guns would all be locked up in my safe, out of sight, unloaded and with ammunition stored completely separately from them. Her response was "Oh, ok. I guess that's not a big deal then". She came over, we all had a few drinks and some food and a good time.


Now, please explain to me how ANY of that is at all relevant to what you've been saying.

[Gallstones]

Jonesville ? Bit worse than a few drunken women ?

Dammit mistermack, you know how to put a punch behind your posts.

Emotive manipulation is kind of in poor form don't you think?

The evidence speaks for itself.

I know our (Australian) gun laws are tighter by comparison, but I don't know the current status of gun laws in the US ... do they vary significantly from state to state? Is there any attempt to restrict who has access to guns?

What is the connection between Jonestown (Guyana, South America) and guns in the US?
Pictures of a bunch of people who died from self administered poison has nothing to do with this topic.


Regulations do vary from state to state.
Montana is quite liberal, we don't have to register handguns and there is no waiting period to purchase, we can own assault-style weapons (AR15) and we can open carry no permit needed. California is far more restrictive.

We can wear spurs without a permit too.

[Wumbologist]

Here are a couple of loonies, I guess... What country do you think they are from?

They're obviously 'Murrkins on their way to the semi-annual State Murder Fair. Their H2 Hummers must be in the shop.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think we are.
If someone said to me that they didn't want to visit, because of the guns in the house, I think I would know what they meant, even if they said it wasn't ME that they were worried about.

And I've already explained that you didn't understand what I was saying in the first place. I've talked to people who have expressed such opinions about guns in homes who didn't know I owned guns, hell, before I owned guns in the first place. The ONE issue I've ever had with this personally, was quickly resolved after explaining that the guns aren't loaded and are safely locked away. If you want to pretend I've been talking about anything else, you go right ahead.

Yeh, and you super confidently diagnosed an irrational fear, even though you've shown that you're no better than anybody else at knowing what people are thinking.
YOU think it's irrational. YOU claim to know that they mean exactly what they say.

Well, if we can't evaluate what someone is thinking, generally speaking, by what they're saying, then all discussion is pointless. Whether someone has an irrational fear has to be judged based on their objective actions and their words. I'm not sure how else you'd suggest someone evaluate anyone, at least until such time as a mind-reading device is invented.

I think that it's rational. If you don't like guns, and don't trust gun owners, and want to be polite, just say you're scared of guns, period.

Whether someone "likes" guns may or may not be rational. Generally, such preferences are not based on reason, but based on feelings. I don't like the color orange. Is that rational? Not really. I don't like guns because they're scary looking? Doesn't sound particularly rational. "I don't trust gun owners" is plainly irrational, because gun ownership has not been shown to correlate to dishonesty. So, if one simply doesn't trust "gun owners" it would be like saying one doesn't trust "dog owners." Neither one is rational. Maybe you don't like dogs, but not trusting dog owners isn't rational.

And, being "scared of guns" is like saying you're scared of terrorism. I mean - a gun sitting in a case is not posing a threat, so why be "scared" of them. It's like being scared of a shark when one is standing outside looking into an aquarium or seeing one on television. It is irrational to be scared of sharks while watching Jaws or walking around at Sea World.

I wouldn't knowingly go to houses of gun owners.

Certainly that's your right, but it's not rational.

I don't WANT to have the conversation you had, that the guns are out of harms way etc etc etc. I still wouldn't want to be around them, or their owners.
Because talk to ANY gun owner, they will ALWAYS says that THEIR guns are safe, and probably believe it.

Sounds like paranoia from here....

[MrJonno]

I guessing they are Israeli hardly a model country for anyone to want to emulate

[Wumbologist]

I guessing they are Israeli hardly a model country for anyone to want to emulate

1st wrong answer! Unless my sarcasm counts.

[Coito ergo sum]

Compare to the likely effects of, in a country that has them, guns being banned. - There would probably be a small temporary rise in gun crime as those who refuse to surrender their weapons take advantage of the situation, which would gradually reduce to lower levels than before, as guns become very much harder to acquire. There wouldn't necessarily even be an increase in gun deaths, as, knowing that their victims are unarmed, criminals would have no reason to shoot first.

I think that explains why cars and guns are not equal.

No offense, but it drives me nuts when people refer to "gun crime" in threads like this, as if it's something special compared to other types of crime. Sure, gun crime might go down if there are less guns, but what we really need to know is whether the total rate of violent crime is affected. Does the number of murders, or forcible rapes, or assaults, or robberies decline? Or are there just as many done with other tools? The answer I've seen has been that violent crime is generally not reduced when a nation bans guns.

If one compares the whole of Europe to the whole of the US, then the rates of total homicides are about equal.

What Europeans do is take about 4 or 5 of the western European countries that have the lowest homicide rates and compare them to the entirety of the US, and say "see! Gotcha!" However, if we're only taking a few tiny countries in Europe, then we ought to limit the comparison to a few of our lower crime states, like Vermont and the like, which are comparable to the safest European countries.

[Wumbologist]

What Europeans do is take about 4 or 5 of the western European countries that have the lowest homicide rates and compare them to the entirety of the US, and say "see! Gotcha!" However, if we're only taking a few tiny countries in Europe, then we ought to limit the comparison to a few of our lower crime states, like Vermont and the like, which are comparable to the safest European countries.

Vermont also has particularly liberalized gun laws. About the only thing banned on a state level that isn't federally is suppressors. Concealed carry doesn't require a permit, I think they allow permitless open carry as well. And they have a pretty high rate of gun ownership. Neighboring New Hampshire has the lowest homicide rate in the country, and is very similar.

[Svartalf]

Here are a couple of loonies, I guess... What country do you think they are from?

They're obviously 'Murrkins on their way to the semi-annual State Murder Fair. Their H2 Hummers must be in the shop.

Actually, they are Swiss on a Zürich Gnome hunting trip.
and yeah, hunting imaginary creatures with assault rifles qualifies you as insane last time I checked.

[MrJonno]

Ah there is a clue in the file name Swiss.jpg

Switzerland actually have pretty strict gun laws compared to any state, carrying a loaded weapon outside firing range is illegal. In fact carrying any weapon openly in many cases can be illegal. Work in a Swiss city (which I have done) and you are about as likely to see a handgun on a civilian as you are in London. There gun laws are lax compared to the rest of Europe but any American gun nut would freak living with their restrictions

I'm guessing they are actually military

[Coito ergo sum]

So, by your logic, it's o.k. to kill the animals for food, as long as nobody enjoys the sport of it?

I would go with that a neccessary evil to kill for food, once we have vat grown meat which is going to happen in the not so near future I would think any sort of killing animals for food would be pretty morally unacceptable.

Morally? Morality is purely subjective, so it's not a useful concept. What source of morals are you using? Aesops Fables? Your gut?

Perhaps "unjustified due to the suffering caused, as compared to the lack of need..." would be a better way to put it, and you might be right at that time. However, other arguments can be made from a wildlife conservation and management perspective, that culling herds of deer and whatnot serve a significant beneficial purpose.

Taking any sort of please in killing is pretty scary stuff, in the same I have no problems in killing lab animals for medical research but I wouldnt want to see scientists have a competition to see who could snuff the most rats in an hour

Oh, I don't know. Catching a nice fish and bringing it home for supper can be pretty fun. I don't that that implies a prurient, Jeffrey Dahmer like "pleasure" in hurting something. I don't think hunters want to see the animals suffer. Generally, they want to take the animal quickly, and harvest the meat and other material from the animal, much the same as a farmer kills a pig.

People take great "pleasure" in eating animals. Are they sick and twisted? Ought they simply choke down their steaks with tears in their eyes, feeling the appropriate guilt that they are performing an evil? Or, is it o.k. for people to savor the succulence of a nice cut of meat, and alternate bites of medium rare filet mignon with a good Cabernet Sauvignon, relishing the pleasure of every bite? After all, the diner at a restaurant effectively kills the animal. It's that demand that causes the farmer to do what he does. We're not less guilty.