US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[MrJonno]

That's something a lot of Europeans refuse to acknowledge too - that in the US, municipalities regulate where folks can go with guns. You can't just go around hunting near residential areas...ffs.... do Europeans get their information about the US from Spaghetti Westerns?

Hunting isnt illegal in the UK not that many people do it as the UK is mostly urban, its the carry a gun for protection from ghosts ghouls, your neighbour or the gubbermint that is

[Rum]

And quite strange fire a gun anywhere near a city and you could end getting arrested for noise pollution (its a crime in many parts of Switzerland to use your washing machine at night), never mind firearm laws.

Uh... that's the case here too. Unless you've got a pretty damn good reason to be firing a gun, you'll find yourself in trouble for it if you're in a populated area. You don't get to drive around shooting wildly into the air.

That's something a lot of Europeans refuse to acknowledge too - that in the US, municipalities regulate where folks can go with guns. You can't just go around hunting near residential areas...ffs.... do Europeans get their information about the US from Spaghetti Westerns?

No - from the statistics regarding murder rates in good part.

[Wumbologist]

That's something a lot of Europeans refuse to acknowledge too - that in the US, municipalities regulate where folks can go with guns. You can't just go around hunting near residential areas...ffs.... do Europeans get their information about the US from Spaghetti Westerns?

Hunting isnt illegal in the UK not that many people do it as the UK is mostly urban, its the carry a gun for protection from ghosts ghouls, your neighbour or the gubbermint that is

That's just stupid. Guns don't protect you from ghosts and ghouls. You need a Proton Pack for them.

[Gallstones]

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.

Gun restrictions do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
They remove them from the law abiding citizen, and place the law abiding citizen in a vulnerable position giving criminals an even greater advantage.
That is unconscionably wrong of any government to do.
The logic of that is as perverse as it gets.
The perversity and wrongness of this "solution" is what gets some gun advocates justifiably outraged.

[Svartalf]

Galsstones, have I already told you I love you?
(and is that a pistol in your pocket or are you just happy.... oops, you're a girl, so I'll just walk away very cautiously)

[MrJonno]

Gun restrictions do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals

They do if you impose them become they become common and just as importantly it means you can clearly identify who the criminals are.

When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

[Wumbologist]

Gun restrictions do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals

They do if you impose them become they become common and just as importantly it means you can clearly identify who the criminals are.

When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

Criminals usually conceal their guns, the same as law-abiding concealed carry holders. How do the police know they're carrying in the first place?

[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.

Gun restrictions do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
They remove them from the law abiding citizen, and place the law abiding citizen in a vulnerable position giving criminals an even greater advantage.
That is unconscionably wrong of any government to do.
The logic of that is as perverse as it gets.
The perversity and wrongness of this "solution" is what gets some gun advocates justifiably outraged.

Firstly, "Gun restrictions do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals" - I never said they do, but you'd have a hard job to show that they wouldn't at least restrict the availability.

Secondly, that it is "unconscionably wrong of any government to do", is your personal moral judgement, which you haven't backed up with any moral reasoning, so there isn't even anything for anyone to dispute.

Thirdly, I fail to see how anything you've written here in anyway links to what I've written. I haven't argued for gun restrictions in this thread and I don't intend to, so I don't understand why you're quoting me.

[MrJonno]

Criminals usually conceal their guns, the same as law-abiding concealed carry holders. How do the police know they're carrying in the first place?

You're looking suspicious or being black without a license, someone matching your description was reported as being naughty. I'm going to search you No gun : you live to mug someone again
Gun : mandatory 5 years

As you don't need a gun to mug someone no one carries one and takes the risk of getting 5 years.

While I'm quite prepared to say that most Americans are generally on a day to day are not Seth psychopaths anyone who carries one in the UK knowing the penalty most definitely are going to be up to something very criminal in other areas

[Wumbologist]

You're looking suspicious or being black without a license, someone matching your description was reported as being naughty. I'm going to search you No gun : you live to mug someone again
Gun : mandatory 5 years

So, what's the problem for legal concealed carry holders if they've got their permit on them whenever they carry, like they're supposed to?

As you don't need a gun to mug someone no one carries one and takes the risk of getting 5 years.

You don't need a gun to mug someone here either, even in the more gun-friendly states there's a takeup rate of less than 5% for concealed carry permits, and not all of those carry all the time. Of course, on the off-chance that you pick the wrong mugging victim, you're in trouble. Criminals here fear running into an armed citizen more than they fear the police, and personally, I like it that way. They should be afraid.

While I'm quite prepared to say that most Americans are generally on a day to day are not Seth psychopaths

Progress!

anyone who carries one in the UK knowing the penalty most definitely are going to be up to something very criminal in other areas

Well, yeah. It's not legal there, so that's sort of a no-brainer. As for the US, those who LEGALLY carry, having gone through the process to obtain a license to carry and what not, are statistically very safe and trustworthy people.

[MrJonno]

You don't need a gun to mug someone here either, even in the more gun-friendly states there's a takeup rate of less than 5% for concealed carry permits, and not all of those carry all the time. Of course, on the off-chance that you pick the wrong mugging victim, you're in trouble. Criminals here fear running into an armed citizen more than they fear the police, and personally, I like it that way. They should be afraid.

Considering the number of people in the US in jail they don't look that afraid (or the death penalty for that matter).


Got a question would you kill someone to protect your wallet?, me personally I would be less traumatised by losing my wallet than I would be with have to live with the fact I had killed someone even if they were a nasty criminal

[Gallstones]

And quite strange fire a gun anywhere near a city and you could end getting arrested for noise pollution (its a crime in many parts of Switzerland to use your washing machine at night), never mind firearm laws.

Uh... that's the case here too. Unless you've got a pretty damn good reason to be firing a gun, you'll find yourself in trouble for it if you're in a populated area. You don't get to drive around shooting wildly into the air.

That's something a lot of Europeans refuse to acknowledge too - that in the US, municipalities regulate where folks can go with guns. You can't just go around hunting near residential areas...ffs.... do Europeans get their information about the US from Spaghetti Westerns?

YouTube apparently.

[Gallstones]

Gun restrictions do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals

They do if you impose them become they become common and just as importantly it means you can clearly identify who the criminals are.

When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

OMFG

[Gallstones]

Galsstones, have I already told you I love you?
(and is that a pistol in your pocket or are you just happy.... oops, you're a girl, so I'll just walk away very cautiously)

No, you haven't.
Let me show you my big guns.

[Gallstones]

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.

Gun restrictions do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
They remove them from the law abiding citizen, and place the law abiding citizen in a vulnerable position giving criminals an even greater advantage.
That is unconscionably wrong of any government to do.
The logic of that is as perverse as it gets.
The perversity and wrongness of this "solution" is what gets some gun advocates justifiably outraged.

Firstly, "Gun restrictions do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals" - I never said they do, but you'd have a hard job to show that they wouldn't at least restrict the availability.

Secondly, that it is "unconscionably wrong of any government to do", is your personal moral judgement, which you haven't backed up with any moral reasoning, so there isn't even anything for anyone to dispute.

Thirdly, I fail to see how anything you've written here in anyway links to what I've written. I haven't argued for gun restrictions in this thread and I don't intend to, so I don't understand why you're quoting me.

The sentence--of yours, in the quote of you--I highlighted so obviously, isn't a clue?

You know, marijuana is illegal in most states and yet it is a billion + dollar industry.
How is that possible for something that is illegal to produce, purchase, use and have?

Remember prohibition? Now that was successful as no one in the US ever produces, purchases, uses and has alcohol.