US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

For what it's worth, I doubt banning firearms does much towards reducing violent crime. The nutters are the problem, not the guns.
Banning guns in a bid to stop violent crime seems to me to be the same logic as banning dessert spoons to cure obesity.

[MrJonno]

For what it's worth, I doubt banning firearms does much towards reducing violent crime. The nutters are the problem, not the guns.
Banning guns in a bid to stop violent crime seems to me to be the same logic as banning dessert spoons to cure obesity.

It certainly won't stop people fighting each other but it does have a major effect in the result of such a fight, ie a typical British hospital on a Friday night is filled wtih people with black eyes ,cut and bruises from pub fights but very rarely bodies

[Clinton Huxley]

A cursory examination reveals that you are more likely, in the US, to die after falling over than in a firearm related incident. I hope "y'all" are wearing crash helmets and knee pads and so on...or maybe just not standing up in the first place...

[Hermit]

For what it's worth, I doubt banning firearms does much towards reducing violent crime. The nutters are the problem, not the guns.
Banning guns in a bid to stop violent crime seems to me to be the same logic as banning dessert spoons to cure obesity.

I looked statistics on homicide in Australia up. Yes, after our Prime Minister effectively banned firearms, the percentage of homicides using firearms decreased drastically, but the growth rate of homicides on a per capita basis in the three following years was the same as in the three preceding ones. On the other hand, violent crimes did not increase on the grounds that the criminals had no armed lawful citizen to fear either. So, basically, the ban probably made no difference either way.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/29246128/detail.html

[FBM]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/29246128/detail.html

Mossberg makes a nice shotgun.

Being able to reproduce doesn't make nice parents, though.

[Seth]

For what it's worth, I doubt banning firearms does much towards reducing violent crime. The nutters are the problem, not the guns.
Banning guns in a bid to stop violent crime seems to me to be the same logic as banning dessert spoons to cure obesity.

The facts show exactly the opposite in fact. Fewer guns, more violent crime...as in the UK.

[Seth]

I'm sure if everyone took a personal parachute evey time they flew an airliner there would be a 1 in million chance it might save their lives but a far higher chance it would get themselves or others killed. Luckily sane countries don't give people that choice

How much higher a chance, exactly. Please show your work and your data sets. And how, exactly, would they get anyone killed simply by possessing a parachute?

[mistermack]

The point about guns isn't just the figures of deaths by gunshot.
I would not like the thought that if I got into an argument, or was harangued by a loony, that that person might have a gun on him, or might nip home and get one.

Or if you get involved in road rage, that someone might pull out a gun. Guns turn complete wankers into serious threats. You will never eliminate wankers, but you can eliminate the wanker-with-a-gun threat.

Basically, your freedom is restricted by the fact that the guns are out there.

[Seth]

I wonder if there is some skewed perception of risk going on here. These, let's call them gun-nuts, are preparing themselves for a very unlikely scenarion (at least, they think they are) but are they prepared for other scenarios, just as or even more likely, for which a gun is not a solution? (If a gun-nut could envisage such a scenario)

Quite the opposite. One of the things that carrying a gun does is make you more aware of what's going on around you, which makes you less likely to be involved in a critical situation in the first place. Being willing to go to the not inconsiderable trouble of getting trained, obtaining a permit and actually carrying a firearm, which is anything but easy and convenient...it can be literally a pain in the ass...means that you are the sort of person who pays attention to things like risk assessment and tactics.

Those who carry concealed firearms are, in my professional estimation, far more likely to be prepared for other emergencies than your average "condition white" brain-dead person stumbling through life so wrapped up in their own heads that it's obvious to criminals that they are oblivious to what's going on around them, which MAKES them targets for crime.

Are they using fear of crime as a post-hoc excuse for doing what they really want to do, own a lovely, shiny gun, oil it, stroke it and have out-dated militiaman fantasies about it?

Doubtful, since one does not have to have an excuse over here to own a gun, and in fact most people who own guns do not carry them concealed. There are roughly 265 million privately owned guns in the US, in more than 115 million households, but on average, between five and eight percent of citizens who are able to get a CCW permit actually do so.

Carrying a gun daily is certainly not for everyone precisely because it requires awareness and care at all times. You don't get to be careless with a concealed handgun. You don't get to inadvertently "flash" it in public, you don't get to leave it behind like you might leave your purse or wallet, and you have to pay attention and keep track of it every second that it's not locked in a gun safe.

But the burden of carrying is something each person gets to decide on, and be ultimately responsible for, not something that government can ban merely because someone might misuse a gun. The facts are very clear. If you're going to use risk to society as a basis for banning concealed carry or guns in general, then before you can do that you have to ban cars and all manner of other objects and activities first, because factually speaking, firearms are very, very rarely used to harm anyone unlawfully, and when they are, it's almost always at the hands of violent criminals who wouldn't obey a law banning them from having guns anyway.

[Seth]

The point about guns isn't just the figures of deaths by gunshot.
I would not like the thought that if I got into an argument, or was harangued by a loony, that that person might have a gun on him, or might nip home and get one.

Sounds like a good reason not to get into arguments with random strangers. Robert Heinlein said "an armed society is a polite society." The same applies to "loonies" you might encounter. They might be less likely to be confrontational if they knew, or thought, that the object of their harangue was armed. That's certainly the fact when it comes to violent criminals in the US. Since the number of people lawfully carrying concealed has risen dramatically, in every jurisdiction where it's legal, the violent crime rate had dropped substantially, some 8 to 15 percent, and continues to drop. Violent crime is, according to story I read yesterday, down to a 45 year low.

Or if you get involved in road rage, that someone might pull out a gun. Guns turn complete wankers into serious threats. You will never eliminate wankers, but you can eliminate the wanker-with-a-gun threat.

See, this is the idiocy of the anti-gun set. They simply cannot fathom the fact that wankers who are likely to pull a gun on someone during a road rage incident are the sort of people who will have a gun whether the law allows it or not. And when someone pulls a gun on you in a road-rage situation, your best defense is your vehicle, if you know what to do with it. But your second line of defense is justifiably your own handgun.

The only people who obey gun bans are the law-abiding victims of criminals.

Basically, your freedom is restricted by the fact that the guns are out there.

Indeed. But it's not the guns, they are inanimate objects, it's the criminals that are the problem. And since we cannot eliminate either criminals or guns, the only way to preserve our freedom is to be armed ourselves, so that we can protect ourselves from criminals with guns. The notion of disarming only the law-abiding, thereby making them into unarmed and helpless victims, is pure idiocy and does more harm to freedom than anything else.

[Seth]

For what it's worth, I doubt banning firearms does much towards reducing violent crime. The nutters are the problem, not the guns.
Banning guns in a bid to stop violent crime seems to me to be the same logic as banning dessert spoons to cure obesity.

I looked statistics on homicide in Australia up. Yes, after our Prime Minister effectively banned firearms, the percentage of homicides using firearms decreased drastically, but the growth rate of homicides on a per capita basis in the three following years was the same as in the three preceding ones. On the other hand, violent crimes did not increase on the grounds that the criminals had no armed lawful citizen to fear either. So, basically, the ban probably made no difference either way.

Actually, it made a substantial difference. It disarmed innumerable people who might have been able to use their lawfully-owned firearms to prevent their murder.

And that's the point, not abstract statistical arguments. The statistical argument is completely fallacious and immoral because it disrespects the INDIVIDUAL right not to be murdered and the INDIVIDUAL right to be armed for self defense, and it reduces those who might have been armed, but weren't because their own government disarmed them, to the status of an "acceptable casualty" statistic so that the police and politicians can point to reductions in gun violence.

But to the poor sod who was killed because he didn't have a defensive firearm when he needed one, the government's pandering to hoplophobes for votes cost him his life. That makes any scheme to disarm law-abiding citizens utterly immoral and unethical, period.

[Gallstones]

I wonder if there is some skewed perception of risk going on here. These, let's call them gun-nuts, are preparing themselves for a very unlikely scenarion (at least, they think they are) but are they prepared for other scenarios, just as or even more likely, for which a gun is not a solution? (If a gun-nut could envisage such a scenario)

Are they using fear of crime as a post-hoc excuse for doing what they really want to do, own a lovely, shiny gun, oil it, stroke it and have out-dated militiaman fantasies about it?

Whew, at least you aren't talking about me.

[MrJonno]

I keep on wanting to click on Gallstones spoiler not sure what this makes me

[Gallstones]

I keep on wanting to click on Gallstones spoiler not sure what this makes me

A convert.