US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Seth]

Only an idiot sheeple lets them get that close before punching a .45 caliber hole through their heart.

I hope you have a lot of ammo, typical day in London

londonpiccy.jpg

So, you're saying that all those people are armed criminal thugs intent on robbing someone at knifepoint?



I only need one to three rounds per actual knife-wielding thug at any particular moment in time.

[MrJonno]

So, you're saying that all those people are armed criminal thugs intent on robbing someone at knifepoint?

I'm saying if they ever become so we are all dead, whatever you are carrying or not carrying

[Seth]

Feel pretty safe myself knowing there arent people wandering around with guns, the day my neighbour gets hold of one is the day I move

Of course, the stupidity of this statement should be clear: Factually speaking you DO NOT know that "there arent (sic) any people wandering around with guns" and you DO NOT know that your neighbour doesn't have a gun, even in the UK. And that's the whole point.

That's why they are called "concealed weapons."

Criminals, you see, don't openly advertise that they are illegally carrying a weapon (be it a gun or a knife or a brick), they CONCEAL them and only use them when they think they can get away clean. They don't obey your fucked-up little laws, or had that fact escaped you? (Don't bother answering that rhetorical question, I already know the answer...)

So, piss your pants in fear and move all you want, because you will NEVER know if the person sitting next to you on the subway or walking behind you in the crowd, or sitting behind you in the theater is carrying a gun, or a knife, or a brick and intends to kill you with it...until he does so.

[colubridae]

Sorry pappa I did miss your post.

If your statements were not any advocation to do with the argument then I retract my statement that they are ‘lame’.

They are only ‘lame’ as a refutation for my proposition.

In case you’ve missed my reasoning, I will say it again. I don’t want or think that cars should be banned.
What I stand by is that any arguments for banning guns should be applied to every other machine e.g. cars.
Otherwise it’s just an arbitrary and wilful, bullying, abuse of power.
No-one has yet refuted this argument.
They’ve said stuff which is either irrelevant or wrong.

No I don’t have a link to the stats you describe.

My view is as follows as an example.

If you make a right turn and collide with an oncoming vehicle, because you’ve misjudged his speed, that is not human error. It is carelessness.
Calling it human error is a cover up. If you make a right turn you must be absolutely sure that you are not endangering life. Now it’s quite easy to do that. You wait until there is no chance of a collision with such an oncoming vehicle, otherwise you are well within the definition of carelessness.
(Nb left turn in the US.). Driving a car is an actively dangerous process. Not exercising proper judgement is a crime That it is practically impossible to prove, is irrelevant.


Whether you call it accidental or carelessness/recklessness is irrelevant to the argument anyway.
One of the major claims against ‘lawful’ use of guns on this forum has been accidental deaths.

[Seth]

So, you're saying that all those people are armed criminal thugs intent on robbing someone at knifepoint?

I'm saying if they ever become so we are all dead, whatever you are carrying or not carrying

And what does making that particularly idiotic and nonsensical non sequitur statement have to do with anything at all other than to demonstrate a high degree of irrationality?

[Seth]

Mental illnesses including "adjustment disorders," of course, which occur after car accidents and sometimes after riding roller coasters if one gets really scared. So, yes, many of them ought to have the right to carry deadly weapons. Nobody is questioning their right to have knives, are they? (speaking of deadly weapons).

Knives are in the same bracket as cars. They are something people need day-to-day.
In the UK, it's a serious crime to carry a knife, for the healthy and the mentally ill.

With cars, billions are spent to make them safer. The same should be done with knives.
It should be illegal to sell knives that are clearly designed as weapons.

And other knives should be made as safe as possible. Just like cars.

Um...how do you design a knife that is "as safe as possible" and still allow it to function for its intended purpose of cutting and piercing? You do understand the concept behind the knife, right?

I've heard of the asswipe British politician who is stumping to make "pointed kitchen knives" illegal, but he's a worse idiot than most, because the most deadly aspect of any knife is not its point, it's the edge. Anyone who knows anything about knife fighting knows you don't STAB people because you risk having your knife blade getting stuck, you SLASH them in vulnerable places, like the neck, or under the arm (brachial artery) or you simply spill their guts (seen that one) with a torso slash. And you can do immense and permanent damage by slashing less deadly but equally vulnerable places like tendons, muscles and nerves.

As for stabbing, penetrating injuries, how do you propose to prevent a thug from sharpening a piece of steel rod to a point and embedding the other end in a piece of wood? It's called "an ice pick."

Don't be dense, it's impossible to design every product so that it cannot be used to kill, which means that the only rational thing to do is to give the potential victims better, more effective weapons that they can use for self-defense.

[Coito ergo sum]

Mental illnesses including "adjustment disorders," of course, which occur after car accidents and sometimes after riding roller coasters if one gets really scared. So, yes, many of them ought to have the right to carry deadly weapons. Nobody is questioning their right to have knives, are they? (speaking of deadly weapons).

Knives are in the same bracket as cars. They are something people need day-to-day.

...something people who live like you live don't need guns day to day. Not everyone lives like you do, and others may have a different assessment of what you need. I am sure there are many things you have that I would think you don't need.

In the UK, it's a serious crime to carry a knife, for the healthy and the mentally ill.

Must be difficult getting them home from the store.

[

With cars, billions are spent to make them safer. The same should be done with knives.

Air bags on the knife blade, or something?

WTF? When the hell was your generation born? Make KNIVES safer? How? Dull them up? Sticky grips on the handle? WTF?

[

It should be illegal to sell knives that are clearly designed as weapons.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahah! Ban the scary looking ones!!!!

Emeril gets his meat cleaver, but what? What knife is "clearly designed as weapons?"

[
And other knives should be made as safe as possible. Just like cars.

I love this paternalistic, nanny nonsense.

[amok]

I'm asking honest questions and putting forth my honest confusion about certain attitudes here, by the way, not trying to insult anyone. I truly just don't understand the emotions that erupt when talking about guns. And that also includes some people who post on the "con" side, just to make myself clear.

You truly don't understand how people who own and use guns responsibly might get a tad peeved when people call them "psychotic," "paranoid," "loonies," and otherwise crazy/insane/extremists, and that what people who own guns are doing is insanely trying to protect themselves from "ghosts and ghouls?" That, to you, doesn't seem like any reason to become emotional about a topic?

No, sir, I do understand that. Very much so. Similar to to why some people get peeved about statements about those of us who live in places where guns are much more strictly controlled being cowering sheeple and whatnot. (I doesn't upset me, personally, because I know it's not true, but I understand how it could rile some individuals.)

But you ARE cowering sheeple. That's obvious from your political policies that utterly disarm the average citizen, prohibiting even the perfectly non-lethal and highly useful chemical defense sprays like Mace and OC spray. Your government constantly tells you NOT TO RESIST criminals, and to just cower in fear and give them what they want. It's perfectly self-evident that you are cowering sheeple who have abandoned any semblance of individual liberty or privacy and are now living in a police state that can't even police the state, given the crime rate there. How could it be otherwise.

On the other hand, even you will admit that merely possessing a firearm does not turn one into a psychotic or a psychopath because even your own police are resorting to the carrying of firearms on an ever-increasing basis, with calls from some quarters to arm all policemen as is the case in the US. Those who characterize licensed concealed carry gun owners in the US don't really believe what they are saying, they are just vainly attempting to return what they perceive as an insult. But it's not an insult, it's a warning and a plea to the citizens of the UK to retake their country from criminals by retaking their liberty from an oppressive and tyrannical system of government that FORCES them to be cowering sheeple. That's intolerable, and in fact, some 230 years ago, caused us to overthrow that very same oppressive and tyrannical government and constitute a new one that acknowledges that liberty is more important than the illusion of safety. I'm merely suggesting that you do the same.

I wasn't so much talking about the interactions on this thread as much overall stuff in the wider world. That includes passionate beliefs that guns themselves are really good or really bad, or that any particular system of gun ownership is actually so-called morally superior to another. Maybe it's my middle-of-the-road personality at play, but to me neither extreme makes much sense. What does make sense to me is accepting that different groups/nations WILL make different choices about that, without it painting a picture about the character and intelligence of its members.

Do you apply the same logic to Islamic theocracies? If not, why not?

I don't live in the U.K. I live in Canada. Firearms are regulated (not much different than some American states, as far I I can tell from these discussions). Over the years, the population has elected and confirmed governments that obeyed the majority support for certain gun controls. (It went off the rails in recent years with a long-gun registry that turned into a major bureaucratic boondoggle, but that's being undone, again at the order of the people to the politicians.) Our police carry guns. Some of our criminals do, too, but they seem to mostly shoot each other. I don't cower.

Re: Islamic theocracies, yes. That would fall under the same category of an extreme not making sense.

[MrJonno]

Posessing a kitchen knife isnt a crime, carrying one out of its packaging without a very good reason is almost certainly going to get you into a lot of trouble. I need to protect myself from the evil goverment does not count as a good reason.

Can't say I've heard of any unreasonable prosecutions in recent times

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, if we can't evaluate what someone is thinking, generally speaking, by what they're saying, then all discussion is pointless.

All discussion is pointless. If I didn't like you ,and you invited me round, I wouldn't say "No thanks, I don't like you". People are ALWAYS saying things they don't mean. Don't you know any women?

What does that have to do with anything? We are still left only with people's words, actions and expressions to figure out what they mean. Sometimes we know when others other saying something that isn't true "to be polite" or whatnot. Sometimes we can't tell. We still evaluate what others are thinking by their words, actions and expressions. We have no other choice.

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.

Nope. Liking something IS a feeling, ain't it?

It can be. It can also be rational. I like sex because it feels good. Very logical and rational. Liking something just because is a mere feeling, and therefore not rational.

Is the world divided up into rational and irrational?

Not all of it. Things, like rocks, can't be rational or irrational. They just are. Arguments and assertions are rational or irrational.

It's perfectly normal to like some things, and people, and dislike others.

Who said it wasn't normal?

It's not rational to call people irrational, for not liking something.

It is perfectly rational if they advance irrational reasons for it. Or, if they just don't like something "because."

Anyway, most people who say they don't like being around guns don't really mean the gun, they mean the people/gun combination.

Evidence? I have run into lots of people who don't like the guns, or images of guns or fake guns, or cap guns, or bb guns, or water pistols, or little plastic soldiers holding pieces of plastic shaped vaguely like a gun.... That's fucking dopey, and it's very common.

Personally, I think that if you want a gun, and own one, you are someone to avoid.

I think people who think that the mere fact of ownership of a gun means the owner is someone to avoid, are people to avoid. Wide berth. They're probably assholes.

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.

Guns are NEVER there in isolation. Somewhere near you will find a gun-owner. Good enough reason to avoid them both.

I'd prefer to avoid do-gooder, paternalistic, moralizers who think they know what everyone "needs" and what is good for everyone else.

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

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

It's rational, if you believe as I do that the vast majority of gun owners are inadequate people with gunfighter fantasies.
Of course they don't admit it. Why would they?

Well, sure, point taken. If you start with a completely ludicrous premise, you can then proceed perfectly logically to a completely erroneous conclusion. Well done.

[MrJonno]

I'd prefer to avoid do-gooder, paternalistic, moralizers who think they know what everyone "needs" and what is good for everyone else

Better than I'm an rugged individual master of my own destiny bullshit

We are part of a collection of people (is collective really meant to be an insult?) and if it doesnt work together most of us die

[Seth]

I'm asking honest questions and putting forth my honest confusion about certain attitudes here, by the way, not trying to insult anyone. I truly just don't understand the emotions that erupt when talking about guns. And that also includes some people who post on the "con" side, just to make myself clear.

You truly don't understand how people who own and use guns responsibly might get a tad peeved when people call them "psychotic," "paranoid," "loonies," and otherwise crazy/insane/extremists, and that what people who own guns are doing is insanely trying to protect themselves from "ghosts and ghouls?" That, to you, doesn't seem like any reason to become emotional about a topic?

No, sir, I do understand that. Very much so. Similar to to why some people get peeved about statements about those of us who live in places where guns are much more strictly controlled being cowering sheeple and whatnot. (I doesn't upset me, personally, because I know it's not true, but I understand how it could rile some individuals.)

But you ARE cowering sheeple. That's obvious from your political policies that utterly disarm the average citizen, prohibiting even the perfectly non-lethal and highly useful chemical defense sprays like Mace and OC spray. Your government constantly tells you NOT TO RESIST criminals, and to just cower in fear and give them what they want. It's perfectly self-evident that you are cowering sheeple who have abandoned any semblance of individual liberty or privacy and are now living in a police state that can't even police the state, given the crime rate there. How could it be otherwise.

On the other hand, even you will admit that merely possessing a firearm does not turn one into a psychotic or a psychopath because even your own police are resorting to the carrying of firearms on an ever-increasing basis, with calls from some quarters to arm all policemen as is the case in the US. Those who characterize licensed concealed carry gun owners in the US don't really believe what they are saying, they are just vainly attempting to return what they perceive as an insult. But it's not an insult, it's a warning and a plea to the citizens of the UK to retake their country from criminals by retaking their liberty from an oppressive and tyrannical system of government that FORCES them to be cowering sheeple. That's intolerable, and in fact, some 230 years ago, caused us to overthrow that very same oppressive and tyrannical government and constitute a new one that acknowledges that liberty is more important than the illusion of safety. I'm merely suggesting that you do the same.

I wasn't so much talking about the interactions on this thread as much overall stuff in the wider world. That includes passionate beliefs that guns themselves are really good or really bad, or that any particular system of gun ownership is actually so-called morally superior to another. Maybe it's my middle-of-the-road personality at play, but to me neither extreme makes much sense. What does make sense to me is accepting that different groups/nations WILL make different choices about that, without it painting a picture about the character and intelligence of its members.

Do you apply the same logic to Islamic theocracies? If not, why not?

I don't live in the U.K. I live in Canada.

Ah, well, thanks for clarifying that, but, small difference only.

Firearms are regulated (not much different than some American states, as far I I can tell from these discussions).

Actually, it's far different. Every state must acknowledge the federal civil right to keep and bear arms, and the ones that still ban the carrying of concealed firearms pursuant to a permit are in the strong minority right now, while 40 states have "shall issue" concealed carry laws. Furthermore, NO ONE in Canada is allowed to carry a firearm primarily for the purpose of personal defense unless they are a cop or a licensed security guard. To transport a firearm in Canada in any vehicle it has to be unloaded and locked up in a case not accessible to the occupants.

Over the years, the population has elected and confirmed governments that obeyed the majority support for certain gun controls.

Sheeple voting to let the wolves eat whomever they want to eat.

(It went off the rails in recent years with a long-gun registry that turned into a major bureaucratic boondoggle, but that's being undone, again at the order of the people to the politicians.) Our police carry guns. Some of our criminals do, too, but they seem to mostly shoot each other. I don't cower.

I bet you do when one of those criminals points a gun at you. Or a knife.

Re: Islamic theocracies, yes. That would fall under the same category of an extreme not making sense.

But if that's what the people (sheeple) want, why is that not sensible? You just got finished arguing that Canada "had elected and confirmed governments that obeyed the majority support for certain..." theocratic practices.

Get the point?

That's why we have founding documents that don't allow the tyrannical majority to vote away the fundamental, natural and unalienable rights of the individual, like the right to keep and bear arms, away.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'd prefer to avoid do-gooder, paternalistic, moralizers who think they know what everyone "needs" and what is good for everyone else

Better than I'm an rugged individual master of my own destiny bullshit

In at least one respect, absolutely not.

The paternalistic do-gooder fucks with everyone else and sticks his fat nose in everyone else's business. The rugged individual master of his own destiny, like the true hippie, minds his own fucking business and does his own thing.

We are part of a collection of people (is collective really meant to be an insult?) and if it doesnt work together most of us die

So what? What does that tell us about a specific issue? That any issue must always be up for a vote? I don't think you need a car, I think you can make due with a bicycle - therefore - you ought not have a car?

This trend is very disturbing: it's the "whatever feels right to me and works in my life is what everyone else should do." Whatever happened to either rugged individualism, or the "do your own thing" people. I don't give a fuck whether someone chooses to smoke weed. It should be legal. For some, however, if they don't see a "need" for it, then people who do it are psychos and freaks to be avoided. That's the generation that we've somehow raised. FFS.

[Seth]

I'd prefer to avoid do-gooder, paternalistic, moralizers who think they know what everyone "needs" and what is good for everyone else

Better than I'm an rugged individual master of my own destiny bullshit

We are part of a collection of people (is collective really meant to be an insult?) and if it doesnt work together most of us die

Nah, just the weak ones. The rest of us will get along very nicely being rugged individuals willing to work together without trying to control one another in every paternalistic detail.

And we don't need the weak ones anyway, they just debase the gene pool.

Survival of the fittest, adapt or die.

[Cunt]

mistermack presumably only wants police and military to have guns. I think the world he lives in is quite a dangerous one. That old saw about absolute power and corruption...

Guns are a tool. Anyone who knows tools knows that with my welding machine, some scrap steel and a bit of ingenuity, I can kill FAR more effectively than with any gun.

Same goes for my truck, hands, rocks...the ONLY dangerous weapon is one which walks on two legs and is capable of deceit.

if it doesn't work together most of us die

if the person who wrote this believes it, private gun ownership must be working very well indeed. Here in Canada, most people don't die because of guns. In the US, most people die of causes other than guns.