US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[JimC]

I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

I think it's sad, not silly, but, well...there it is.

On the day that a naked virgin carrying two bags of gold coins can walk unmolested from one end of the planet to the other, I'll agree to ban guns.

On that day I'll stop supporting the death penalty. But she really should put on some clothes.

Prude! Spoilsport!

(as long as she is covered in sunscreen, don't want her to get skin cancer...)

[colubridae]

@CES

You are correct, regarding behaviour. Please accept my apology, again. It was unreasonable of me to call you rude and ill-mannered.
I feel quite strongly about ‘banning issues’ in general.
For that I apologise.

Please keep in mind my central issue:-

Banning item X (guns) for reason A (they are dangerous and kill)
Requires that you must ban item Y (cars) for reason A (they are dangerous and kill)

If that logic is not followed, then the banning of item X is simply an arbitrary and wilful abuse of power.

I am not advocating the banning of item Y. I am simply pointing out the arbitrary abuse of power by banning X, whilst not applying the same criteria to Y.

For the points in discussion you quoted “cars and trucks” If I implied trucks or other forms of transportation I apologise unreservedly. My issue has been with cars. If I have inadvertently mentioned trucks I should not have done so, please accept it as an oversight. You also used “internal combustion engine” as a substitute for cars. This was also never my intention.

Your objection to item Y being banned rests on an ‘overriding factor’ Q (necessity).
Were this true, I would accept it. You simply haven’t demonstrated the truth of the necessity.


This why I believe that to be the case:-

Your claim is that risk/benefit tables show that because human life ‘requires cars as a necessity’ then the deaths are an acceptable price to pay.

That such tables exist I have not denied. That they are ‘used’ I don’t deny. That they are valid is completely untrue. They compare values which cannot be compared. That means that they are invalid. That such comparisons are made as you quoted is neither here nor there. It does not make them valid.


Your implication is that car drivers everywhere carefully study these tables and then make a rational decision to drive. This is nonsense, plain and simple. If you agree that it’s nonsense then it is ‘unreasonable’ to introduce tables as a supporting argument.




That people ‘may’ make the comparison (I doubt they do) implied in such tables is irrelevant. That it is done is simply cognitive dissonance. On the lines of, There is no evidence for god but prayers to him are made regularly. It’s stupid and irrational.

And any claim of ‘rational’ use is false. Rational thinking would be to look at such tables and say “fuck me! This is insane. We kill 3000 people per year just for the convenience of cars in our modern life. Jesus fuck, something must be done as soon as possible to undo this tragic loss of life”. That would be rational. I see no evidence for this when (or even if) people study your tables or make your comparisons.

These tables also pre-suppose that cars are necessary for ‘modern’ human life.
I know many people who live their lives quite happily without the use of cars. Maybe with less convenience than car users, but they don’t find cars a necessity.

For the sake of argument I will accept the phrase ‘become reliant upon’, since ‘necessary’ implies unable to change and absoluteness as for, say, oxygen.
This is now a further, major fault in your tables, they pre-suppose and lock-in the ‘necessity/reliance’ of cars.

If I concede that humans recognize that ‘we have become reliant upon cars, therefore we pay-up the lives that must be paid’, where is the overriding impulse to change this reliance/necessity. If what you claim is true, that people wisely and sagely contemplate such comparisons (this is your implication, if not then why quote such comparisons in your argument?), then there would be huge swaths of evidence that a reversal of such reliance/necessity was wise, contemplated or underway. There is virtually none.

You also accidentally ducked the issue of carelessness/recklessness. The risk/benefit analysis you claim that car drivers make, ignores the question of responsibility. This is also an unacceptable part of such an analysis. Cars kill people, not as a consequence of fate/risk/benefit but as a consequence of bad behaviour – carelessness/recklessness. I’m guessing that when drivers make this risk/benefit assessment they don’t include responsibility in the equation. If they did, then it ought to change their assessment.

My whole point has been to underline the absurdity of a gun ban.

I have demonstrated that cars are definitely not a necessity, simply a convenience. Therefore your objection to a car ban now becomes one of convenience.

Certainly an immediate ban of cars would produce widespread misery, but that’s not the point! If I’ve implied an immediate ban on cars I apologise. I shouldn’t have done.

A controlled reduction to the point of removal – ‘phased ban’, would certainly be valid and given the a ban on guns the same reasons should apply.



If you wish to change the parameters to:-

Banning item X (guns) for reason A (they are dangerous and kill)
Requires that you must ban item Y (internal combustion engines) for reason A (they are dangerous and kill)

If that logic is not followed, then the banning of item X is simply an arbitrary and wilful abuse of power.

Your objection to item Y being banned rests on an ‘overriding factor’ Q (necessity).

That is a different discussion and I would concede a lot more of your points. Except that the reliance on IC engines looks likely to change anyway.



In the spirit of friendship between us (if possible), please explain where anything I’ve said is incorrect, other than you don’t agree.

I think most people find me tiresome.
If you are interested I am willing to continue the discussion via e-mail (since you have PMing switched off).
If so I am willinging to sawp e-mails via pappa.

[MrJonno]

Tyrannical wrote:I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

Sod that just execute anyone who isnt a licensed to carry policeman who is seen carrying a gun = the current penalty is a mandatory 5 years but the reality get caught and there is a good chance wont live to see a court room.

Been tried and works extremely well in most of the civilized world

[Coito ergo sum]

@CES

You are correct, regarding behaviour. Please accept my apology, again. It was unreasonable of me to call you rude and ill-mannered.
I feel quite strongly about ‘banning issues’ in general.
For that I apologise.

Fair enough.

Please keep in mind my central issue:-

Banning item X (guns) for reason A (they are dangerous and kill)
Requires that you must ban item Y (cars) for reason A (they are dangerous and kill)

That is the argument I reject for the reason that you make a false equivalency.

X is different than Y, because they have different purposes, uses, benefits, costs, and utility, etc.

A and A are not equal in your scenario. Yes, they are both dangerous and kill, but they are not the same dangers. It should be banning X for reason A1 (they are dangerous and kill in certain ways), does not require that you must ban item Y for reason A2 (they are dangerous and kill in other ways).

The reason my logic holds and yours fails can be illustrated with the following example:

Banning item P (atomic bombs) for reason B1 (they are dangerous and kill millions of people with tremendous explosions and radiation leveling cities....), does not require that we ban item Q (swimming pools) for reason B2 (they are dangerous and kill because people accidentally and intentionally drown in them).

See what I mean? We are more willing to ban an atomic bomb than a swimming pool even though they are both dangerous. Why? Because there is very little utility/benefit in private ownership of atomic bombs, and a whole lot of detriment/cost/risk, etc., and there is a good deal of utility/benefit in the private ownership of swimming pools, despite the dangers and the deaths.

Now, that's my point. Banning a gun because it is dangerous and kills does not require that we ban everything else that is dangerous and kills. And, that doesn't just apply to guns. We ban heroin, but not water, even though both are dangerous and kill.

If that logic is not followed, then the banning of item X is simply an arbitrary and wilful abuse of power.

Not correct, for the reason I illustrated.

I am not advocating the banning of item Y. I am simply pointing out the arbitrary abuse of power by banning X, whilst not applying the same criteria to Y.

By the logic you have advanced, either society bans almost everything, or nothing can be banned. To ban the private ownership of nuclear weapons would require that we ban the private ownership of water, swimming pools, high rise buildings, airplanes, boats, trucks, tampons, breast implants, sexual intercourse, circuses, gymnastics, skiing and skis, snowboards, hockey skates, inline skates, and golf balls.

For the points in discussion you quoted “cars and trucks” If I implied trucks or other forms of transportation I apologise unreservedly. My issue has been with cars.

Either your logic applies to trucks too, or it makes no sense at all. You picked cars because they are dangerous and kill. You're saying if you ban guns because they are dangerous and kill, you must ban anything else that is dangerous and kills, right? Trucks and cars are both dangerous and kill.

If I have inadvertently mentioned trucks I should not have done so, please accept it as an oversight. You also used “internal combustion engine” as a substitute for cars. This was also never my intention.

What is special about cars that they are the only "dangerous and deadly" thing that you will use as a comparison?

Your objection to item Y being banned rests on an ‘overriding factor’ Q (necessity).

And benefit/utility, not necessarily just necessity, as compared to the level of risk/cost.

Were this true, I would accept it. You simply haven’t demonstrated the truth of the necessity.

I absolutely have. Cars are necessary for our society to function as it does today. If you made cars illegal tomorrow, then most people who went to work today would not be able to do so tomorrow. That alone would cause most businesses to fail, and the entire economy to collapse. So, to that extent, cars serve a tremendous need in our modern society, and are of tremendous benefit, and have tremendous utility.

This why I believe that to be the case:-

Your claim is that risk/benefit tables show that because human life ‘requires cars as a necessity’ then the deaths are an acceptable price to pay.

I never used the word "tables." I said that the reason people accept limitations on gun ownership rather than car ownership is because of the perceived benefit/utility/need of owning cars and guns respectively, relative to the perceived dangers/costs/damage/injury caused by each. That is why the people that are usually in favor of outright bans are people who (a) don't need them or see no use/benefit to having them, and (b) see them as causing far more injury than any alleged benefit of them. Whereas, the people that are in favor of having guns (a) need them and use them and (b) see them as useful and helpful, and even potentially life saving.

That such tables exist I have not denied. That they are ‘used’ I don’t deny. That they are valid is completely untrue. They compare values which cannot be compared. That means that they are invalid. That such comparisons are made as you quoted is neither here nor there. It does not make them valid.

Risk/benefit is at the heart of much of human decision making. Absolutely, humans base many decisions on imperfect information, but that doesn't make the decisions based on risk/benefit "invalid." Take any activity we may engage in in life. When you walk out your front door, and get in your car to go to work or school, you know full well that there is a risk that you may die on the roadway through no fault of your own (or through fault of your own). Yet, you go anyway? Why? Because the risk you perceive is not high enough to warrant you avoiding the behavior. You are pretty sure you'll make - nearly certain. So you go. Although you know that some people on the road today will die. Similarly, airplanes. You have to go on a business trip. You know that the plane may crash - there is some degree of possibility. Yet you go anyway. Why? Because you need to drive to work and you need to get to the business meeting and the car/plane benefits you by getting you there. The risk of dying a horrible death is very small. So you go.

Your implication is that car drivers everywhere carefully study these tables and then make a rational decision to drive. This is nonsense, plain and simple. If you agree that it’s nonsense then it is ‘unreasonable’ to introduce tables as a supporting argument.

I made no such implication. And, I've never mentioned any tables. Stop saying I have. That's your thing. I was talking about perceptions, and that's not based on studying tables. It's based on perceptions of risks and benefits.

If the danger of going out on the road was such that something on the order of 10% of drivers died on the way to work, people would likely stop driving. That risk would be too high. I'm not saying that there is a "table" somewhere - I'm talking about the perception. As the perceived risk goes up, people would be more and more concerned about it.

That people ‘may’ make the comparison (I doubt they do) implied in such tables is irrelevant. That it is done is simply cognitive dissonance. On the lines of, There is no evidence for god but prayers to him are made regularly. It’s stupid and irrational.

Stop saying I referred to any tables. I didn't.

And any claim of ‘rational’ use is false. Rational thinking would be to look at such tables and say “fuck me! This is insane. We kill 3000 people per year just for the convenience of cars in our modern life. Jesus fuck, something must be done as soon as possible to undo this tragic loss of life”. That would be rational. I see no evidence for this when (or even if) people study your tables or make your comparisons.

Americans take 1.1 billion trips per day by vehicle: http://www.bts.gov/programs/national_ho ... ravel.html - if your figure of 3,000 is correct, then 0.00027% of trips result in death. Those are pretty good odds. It's why people rationally expect to get where they are going, and aren't alarmed by 3,000 deaths a year.

These tables also pre-suppose that cars are necessary for ‘modern’ human life.
I know many people who live their lives quite happily without the use of cars. Maybe with less convenience than car users, but they don’t find cars a necessity.

This is what is frustrating about dealing with you. You don't appear to understand that if you eliminated all the cars today, that our modern society could not function in the way it does today, and that millions of people would die. What is so hard to grasp about that? Yes, of course human life would still survive, as it did in the 19th century, but when 91% of all commuters can't get to work tomorrow because they can't travel the distance to work on foot, then hardly anything is going to get done at work, and that is pretty big pillar of our modern society. Do you really not get that?

For the sake of argument I will accept the phrase ‘become reliant upon’, since ‘necessary’ implies unable to change and absoluteness as for, say, oxygen.

No it doesn't imply that. Necessary does not only refer to what is necessary to live. Wings are necessary to fly, but birds can live without wings. But, if you eliminated wings, avian life as we know it would cease. Understand? Cars are necessary for our modern society to exist as it does, and millions of people's lives have come to depend on them. That doesn't mean that humans would go extinct without cars, nor is the word "necessary" only applicable to things without which human life could not exist at all.

This is now a further, major fault in your tables, they pre-suppose and lock-in the ‘necessity/reliance’ of cars.

What "tables?"

And, cars are, in fact, necessary for the functioning of our modern society. 91% of Americans commute to work by car. The average commute is too far to get to on foot. So eliminate cars, and the entire American economy would collapse. That's what cars are necessary for.

If I concede that humans recognize that ‘we have become reliant upon cars, therefore we pay-up the lives that must be paid’, where is the overriding impulse to change this reliance/necessity. If what you claim is true, that people wisely and sagely contemplate such comparisons (this is your implication, if not then why quote such comparisons in your argument?), then there would be huge swaths of evidence that a reversal of such reliance/necessity was wise, contemplated or underway. There is virtually none.

I never said anything about wisely and sagely. All I said was that people perceive a need/benefit/utility of having a car, and using them is worth the perceived risk to them. That's why people like cars. Even though there is danger in using them, they use them because they are willing to take the risk. Everyone knows that if they get on the roadway, they may be in an accident and die. But, the need/benefit/utility of cars is such that people proceed in the face of that risk.

You also accidentally ducked the issue of carelessness/recklessness. The risk/benefit analysis you claim that car drivers make, ignores the question of responsibility. This is also an unacceptable part of such an analysis. Cars kill people, not as a consequence of fate/risk/benefit but as a consequence of bad behaviour – carelessness/recklessness.

Not necessarily, but quite often, yes.

I’m guessing that when drivers make this risk/benefit assessment they don’t include responsibility in the equation. If they did, then it ought to change their assessment.

Everyone knows that when they go out on the roadway, there is a chance that the guy next to them in the adjacent lane may negligently swerve over and drive them off the road into a firey crash. We drive anyway, in the face of that risk. If there was no need/utility/benefit to driving, people would not do it, and the needless danger would be something people would be more apt to want regulated or restricted.

My whole point has been to underline the absurdity of a gun ban.

You haven't illustrated that with your example. You've created a fallacious false equivalence, and said that A1 and A2 are equal when they are not.

I have demonstrated that cars are definitely not a necessity, simply a convenience. Therefore your objection to a car ban now becomes one of convenience.

Cars are a necessity for the maintenance of our modern society. If you eliminated cars tomorrow, our entire economy would collapse, for obvious reasons, and millions of people would die and we would simply not be able to maintain this modern society at all. Therefore, cars are necessary for that purpose. 91% of people who work need their cars to get there. If those people don't show up to work, the stores could not open, the power companies would soon fail because nobody would be able to get to work to fix problems, the banks would not open and people would not be able to get their money, and the factories would close, and the dealerships would close, and the malls would close. If you won't call that "necessity" in the sense of keeping us from descending into chaos, then I don't know how else to explain it to you. You're just refusing to acknowledge reality.

Certainly an immediate ban of cars would produce widespread misery,

millions of deaths. The collapse of the entire economy of the US and as a result the world economy, the demise of the banking system and all industry in the country, at least until such time as alternative means of transportation is created, if ever.

but that’s not the point! If I’ve implied an immediate ban on cars I apologise. I shouldn’t have done.

It is the point. Let me try to state this another way: People don't favor banning cars, because people think they need/get utility from/benefit from cars quite a bit; cars have functional utility and benefits that people want/need. People do favor banning guns (some people, that is) because they don't see the need/benefit/utility of guns, and therefore think they are a pointless danger! Is that really so hard to grasp?

That's why you get people in Wyoming being far more gun friendly than people in London. In Wyoming, people can easily tell you what they need a gun for. In London, as we can see from the reaction of many of our Brit friends, they don't see any need or benefit or utility of having a gun at all. That's why they are able to conclude in their own minds that people who want to own guns must be nut jobs. They think "who would want to own a gun, when there is no point to owning a gun - must be just for testosterone rushes and shits/giggles - firing weapons for morbid, prurient entertainment..." -- so all gun owners are paranoid psychos. Present them with a rancher living on 1,000 acres of land out in the country who needs a gun to hunt, protect his animals, and otherwise use the gun in the wilderness, and you can bet far fewer of those gun banner folks would be quite so judgmental.

Do you see what I mean, yet?

If you wish to change the parameters to:-

Banning item X (guns) for reason A (they are dangerous and kill)
Requires that you must ban item Y (internal combustion engines) for reason A (they are dangerous and kill)

If that logic is not followed, then the banning of item X is simply an arbitrary and wilful abuse of power.

Your objection to item Y being banned rests on an ‘overriding factor’ Q (necessity).

Not just "necessity." I said - repeatedly - PERCEIVED necessity/benefit/utility, etc. Not JUST necessity.

Banning item X (guns) for reason A1 (they are dangerous and kill in certain ways) does not require that you must ban item Y (internal combustion engines) for reason A2 (that they are dangerous and kill in certain other ways), because the perceived utility/need/benefit associated with item X is not as great as the perceived utility/need/benefit of item Y. The public is willing to accept the risks associated with item Y, because of the perceived utility/need/benefit of item Y, but they would like to do away with item X, because they see it as risk/danger without any substantial perceived need/utility/benefit.

In short: Different things may be treated differently.

That is a different discussion and I would concede a lot more of your points. Except that the reliance on IC engines looks likely to change anyway.

In the spirit of friendship between us (if possible), please explain where anything I’ve said is incorrect, other than you don’t agree.

I think most people find me tiresome.
If you are interested I am willing to continue the discussion via e-mail (since you have PMing switched off).
If so I am willinging to sawp e-mails via pappa.

[/quote][/quote]

I think posting here is fine, and I bear you no ill will. I think I did explain in detail what you said that was wrong.

[MrJonno]

That's why you get people in Wyoming being far more gun friendly than people in London. In Wyoming, people can easily tell you what they need a gun for. In London, as we can see from the reaction of many of our Brit friends, they don't see any need or benefit or utility of having a gun at all. That's why they are able to conclude in their own minds that people who want to own guns must be nut jobs.

I think anyone who carries a gun so they can prepare to other throw a tyrannical government, sees socialists eveywhere and just dreams of the day society collapses so they can shoot a few of the dependent classes is a gun nut and probably would have their guns taken of them even in the US if there posts were traced to them in real life

Everyone else is just unfortunate enough to live in a country that is so dangerous that they feel they need to carry around purpose designed killing machines for personal protection which almost certainly will not help them.

Rural stuff is different I have never met anyone here that said someone shouldnt have a gun for work purposes but thats on a need basis not a right one

You are never going to persuade many Brits when a majority of the police have threatened to resign rather than carry a gun

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, MrJonno, but that's because you think that people who are afraid of a "tyrannical government" and see "socialists everywhere" and just dreams of the day society collapses so they can shoot a few of the dependent classes is a nut. I mean, I think that those people are off the wall too. Anyone who dreams of the day society collapses and dreams of shooting other people with pleasure or are paranoid over "socialists everywhere" are pretty nutty.

But, aren't you creating a fair bit of straw man there?

99.9% of gun owners, in my experience, do not own guns for the purpose of shooting "tyrannical governments," and aren't particularly concerned with socialists, and I've not met a single one who says they "dream" or take any pleasure in shooting people.

[MrJonno]

There is only person I ever spoken to the internet who I considered to be clinically insane and a danger to anyone within sniping distances and its not you or Gallstones

[Gallstones]

I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

I think it's sad, not silly, but, well...there it is.

On the day that a naked virgin carrying two bags of gold coins can walk unmolested from one end of the planet to the other, I'll agree to ban guns.

On that day I'll stop supporting the death penalty. But she really should put on some clothes.

Could she remain naked if she isn't a virgin?

Mr Tyrannical, I don't believe that you believe everything you post.

[Gallstones]

There is only person I ever spoken to the internet who I considered to be clinically insane and a danger to anyone within sniping distances and its not you or Gallstones

• 

Caveat: See the addition to my sig.

[Svartalf]

Sexier than him too.

[Gallstones]

Sexier than him too.

You've seen Seth?
Tell us.

[Svartalf]

He's a guy, you're not, you know the math.

[Seth]

There is only person I ever spoken to the internet who I considered to be clinically insane and a danger to anyone within sniping distances and its not you or Gallstones

Then clearly you need to quit talking to yourself and see a doctor about some anti-psychotic meds and possible commitment to a mental health facility.

[Seth]

Tyrannical wrote:I think it is silly that in this day and age people need to carry guns for personal protection.
It is a sign of the failure of the criminal justice system, because if we regularly executed just a fraction of all the violent felons arrested each year evolution would weed out such anti-social behavior.

Sod that just execute anyone who isnt a licensed to carry policeman who is seen carrying a gun = the current penalty is a mandatory 5 years but the reality get caught and there is a good chance wont live to see a court room.

Been tried and works extremely well in most of the civilized world

Works well at enslaving everyone, it's true. Not my cuppa, thanks.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This all sorted then? Good.