US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Gallstones]

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

Gratuitous personal attack noted and held in contempt.

[MrJonno]

Sorry for offending any psychopaths?

[PsychoSerenity]

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

No, as I already said, neither that sentence, nor the rest of the post it was quoted from, describing the difference between banning cars and banning guns, sheds any light for me on what you are talking about in your reply to it.

I am not arguing for gun restrictions, and I'm well aware that even if guns were banned, some criminals would still be able to get hold of them - which seems to be what you're accusing me of not knowing.

But if you're not going to explain, I don't see where we can go with this.

[Seth]

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

Typical bleeding-heart liberal twaddle from somebody who's never been victimized by a violent criminal. Idiots like that tend to think they know everything, but they actually know nothing, and less than nothing, they actually have factually incorrect negative knowledge.

You aren't allowed to shoot someone here just because they want your wallet, you're allowed to shoot them because they are threatening you with imminent death or serious bodily injury as a way to get your wallet. That's another thing that liberal Netwits are too fucking ignorant to understand, along with the fact that muggers don't always use guns to mug people, but they can kill you just as dead, or do you serious bodily harm with any of a hundred other non-gun weapons, and you, as an innocent citizen have every right everywhere in the world to defend yourself against being viciously and brutally attacked by a mugger wielding anything from a knife (quite common in the UK) to a pint beer glass or a rock. Here in the US, we simply allow law-abiding people to use the most effective anti-mugger defensive weapon there is: a handgun. It's so effective that 60 or more percent of the time it's mere appearance in the hands of the potential victim stops the violent attack in progress instantly and sends the mugger running away dribbling pee down his leg.

Fucking morons aren't even worth talking to except that it's important to debunk their head-up-ass ignorance so that somebody doesn't mistake it for a rational thought.

[amok]

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.

See, this is where I get confused re: America and gun rights. If it's a constitutional right, why are the regulations different from state to state?

And I also can't really grasp why any citizens would think totally unfettered gun ownership is a good thing (and please, I'm asking, not maligning).

Even if we use analogies such as guns/cars, certain restrictions on driving certain vehicles seem to be accepted without it being seen as an affront to general freedom. For example, I don't think there's a jurisdiction anywhere in the western world where people don't think a special driving licence is a positive idea for 18-wheelers. That doesn't mean people are against big rigs; it means people have agreed that those in control of big rigs should have special training, for the common good.

In regard to guns, I'd posit that people wanting to own handguns or assault-style weapons also shouldn't take it as an affront to their "freedom" to have similar kinds of safeguards. After all, people in some states do it, and they're still Americans.

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.

[mozg]

See, this is where I get confused re: America and gun rights. If it's a constitutional right, why are the regulations different from state to state?

Until very, very recently the Second Amendment was not found to be 'incorporated' against the states, thus it only applied to what the federal government could regulate by law. States passed all manner of laws about firearms, some much more restrictive than others. Then came Heller, in which the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) agreed that yes, the Second Amendment really does protect (not grant, protect) an individual right to keep and bear arms, but since this case revolved around Washington DC, they couldn't say that it was binding on the states. A bit later, MacDonald comes along and finds that yes, the Second Amendment does in fact apply to the states and is incorporated.

Both rulings, however, did say that regulation can still exist, and so short of an outright ban being overturned it takes a lot of time, effort, and arguing in court to overturn some of the most restrictive laws. Either that, or a state legislature repealing them.

And I also can't really grasp why any citizens would think totally unfettered gun ownership is a good thing (and please, I'm asking, not maligning).

Same reason that I think there's nothing wrong with totally unfettered hammer ownership. A gun is a tool, and unless someone uses that tool to commit a crime, I see no justification for banning ownership of it.

In regard to guns, I'd posit that people wanting to own handguns or assault-style weapons also shouldn't take it as an affront to their "freedom" to have similar kinds of safeguards. After all, people in some states do it, and they're still Americans.

You do realize that you don't have to have a license to own an 18-wheeler, or to drive it all day long on private property, correct? It's only when people want to take their 18 wheeler out on public roads that any sort of license comes into play. And where I live (Pennsylvania) quite similar for firearms really. No license required to have them at home, but if I want to go into a car with one, or conceal one, or carry a firearm during a state of emergency, I have to have a license, which I do have. Pennsylvania does allow openly carrying a firearm in a holster without a license - provided you do not under any circumstances set foot in a vehicle of any type while carrying.

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.

I don't really see any reason to treat guns differently than knives, hammers, screw drivers, electric drills, rope, bricks or pint glasses. I also don't understand why ownership of firearms and the willingness to use the same to protect myself from death or serious bodily injury makes people think that I'd kill someone over a parking space. I'm human, and I get angry just like everyone else. I've even gotten angry while carrying my gun. I've never even thought about reaching for it because someone pissed me off. Someone cuts me off in traffic, I roll my eyes and think they're an idiot, not reach for my gun. I don't shoot people because I'm angry with them any more than a chef stabs people when he gets angry with them just because there are dozens of knives at his immediate disposal.

[MrJonno]

I don't really see any reason to treat guns differently than knives, hammers, screw drivers, electric drills, rope, bricks or pint glasses

Possessing any of the above could get arrested in the UK in certain circumstances, if you got caught carrying a brick for example without giving a good reason like I'm a builder as opposed to I felt like carrying a brick incase I got attacked you would be arrested

[Coito ergo sum]

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

I never said it was illegal. But, the comments from some folks here about the US suggest that there is some notion out there that Americans walk around with guns at the hip, spurs a jinglin' and a janglin', and hunting bears in suburban neighborhoods.

Further, people in the US don't carry guns for protection from ghosts ghouls. And neighbors and governments are not ghosts and ghouls. I posted earlier that the notion of an individual right to bear arms, including as a defense against tyranny, is a British notion, from British law, with genesis in the Magna Carta and expansion in the English Bill of Rights, as noted in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. To be armed is an "ancient right" of Englishmen. The idea of an armed citizenry has its ancient origins in Anglo-Saxon, pre-Christian, common law.

It isn't something new or Earth-shattering. It is not something uniquely American, either. And, it's not about paranoia and fear of non-existent dangers.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

The murder rates overall in the US are about the same, even slightly less, than in Europe at large. In some states, like Vermont and New Hampshire, for example, the murder rates are as low as in England. If you want to compare one tiny blurb of a country with the entirety of the US, then you'll get skewed results, because some areas of the US are very bad off, like Detroit or LA, with respect to homicides. We need to compare apples to apples.

Let's see your "statistics regarding murder rates." Note, murder does not equal only murders in which guns are use.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sorry for offending any psychopaths?

No offense taken from anxiety-ridden blokes living in constant fear...

[MrJonno]

Quoting 18th century books whether Englsh or American isnt going to have much influence on my opinion the basis that every single person from that era was quite simply an ignorant savage by our standards. Sure some were a bit more enlightened than others but the idea that have anything of worth to say about modern society is absurd.

An ancient law is quite simply a shit law, if it hasnt been reviewed or updated then government/society isnt doing a very good job

[Wumbologist]

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

A lot of those aren't muggers. In fact, a lot of them are there for drug-related violations, a side effect of the war on drugs that is also a major contributing factor to America's homicide rate.

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

If I felt that handing over my wallet would guarantee my safety, no, I would not kill someone to protect it. My credit cards and a few $20 bills aren't worth that. The problem is that one cannot always trust that compliance with a dangerous criminal will result in their safety. If I feel that there is a sufficient threat to my well-being no matter what I do, I'm going to respond accordingly to that threat, at which point my wallet has nothing to do with it.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

See, this is where I get confused re: America and gun rights. If it's a constitutional right, why are the regulations different from state to state?

Because the constitutional right uses the word "well-regulated" in its text. The right is not an absolute one, allowing any hand held projectile firing weapon, or any power or grade of ammo. It is much like the ancient right of Englishmen to be armed - Parliament was always allowed to regulate the matter, but not to deprive the people of their right.

So, whether on state thinks it appropriate to have a waiting period, and other state thinks it's not necessary for its regulatory scheme, is pretty much up to the states.

And I also can't really grasp why any citizens would think totally unfettered gun ownership is a good thing (and please, I'm asking, not maligning).

Hardly anyone thinks "totally unfettered" gun ownership is a good thing. Every state denies convicted felons and folks who are not mentally fit to use guns to have them. Every state has a minimum age. And most municipalities have rules regarding where you can carry and fire your weapons. You can't bring them into courthouses, hunt in residential neighborhoods, brandish them in public, and many other such restrictions.

However, why would any citizen think it's o.k. for an adult of sound mind and clean criminal record to be able to go down to Dick's Sporting Goods and buy a Remington deer rifle? Because there simply isn't a problem to address, and such persons are perfectly capable to obeying the criminal laws while owning a gun.

What I can't grasp is why anyone wets their pants at the idea of an adult of sound mind and clean criminal record owning a rifle. I'm asking, not maligning.

Even if we use analogies such as guns/cars, certain restrictions on driving certain vehicles seem to be accepted without it being seen as an affront to general freedom.

As is the case with guns. I don't know of anyone who advocates completely unrestricted gun ownership, like, allowing 10 year old children to walk into a gun shop and buy an Uzi 9mm.

For example, I don't think there's a jurisdiction anywhere in the western world where people don't think a special driving licence is a positive idea for 18-wheelers. That doesn't mean people are against big rigs; it means people have agreed that those in control of big rigs should have special training, for the common good.

And, gun licensing is not uncommon in the US.

In regard to guns, I'd posit that people wanting to own handguns or assault-style weapons also shouldn't take it as an affront to their "freedom" to have similar kinds of safeguards. After all, people in some states do it, and they're still Americans.

Most folks advocating gun ownership don't object to reasonable regulations. What they object to is banning of rifles and handguns. I don't know if anyone here would say that convicted violent felons shouldn't be deprived of gun ownership, children under a certain age, and mentally handicapped or insane people, etc. Concealed carry permits are common, and most people don't think they're a big deal.

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?

What I truly don't understand are folks who won't let their children play with water pistols because they don't like guns, or folks who won't let their kids play cowboys and Indians with cap guns, or play with little green plastic army men. And, I don't understand idiots who "won't go into a house if I know there is a gun in the house." That kind of puerility is extremely foreign to me.

[Coito ergo sum]

Quoting 18th century books whether Englsh or American isnt going to have much influence on my opinion the basis that every single person from that era was quite simply an ignorant savage by our standards.

18th century people were "ignorant savages" by our standards? LOL. I am aghast that someone purporting to have an ounce of education and/or cognitive functioning would say such a thing.

Savage? The last 100 years weren't at least as savage as the 18th century? You think people are so different mentally than the were in the 18th century? Where do you folks get these ideas? It's as if you don't study history.

Sure some were a bit more enlightened than others but the idea that have anything of worth to say about modern society is absurd.

Understanding the history of something is part and parcel of understanding events and phenomena. And, the history of the right to bear arms and the arguments made by people in favor of that right are reasoned, calm and rational. They aren't the blithering and bleating screeches that you pretend they are.

An ancient law is quite simply a shit law, if it hasnt been reviewed or updated then government/society isnt doing a very good job

Spoken like a teenager.

[MrJonno]

18th century people were "ignorant savages" by our standards? LOL. I am aghast that someone purporting to have an ounce of education and/or cognitive functioning would say such a thing.

Close to universal support or at least acceptance to slavery, racism , sexism, complete ignorance about science. Living short , unhealthy and generally sickly lives.
Yeah loads to learn about modern society from them, of course in the centuries to come people will look back at us in exactly the same way but thats progress for you.

Don't think you need to even go back that far, in many way even people living in the earlier and middle parts of the 20 century were culturally very alien to modern times. Churchill was very good at winning wars using 1940's technology but I put absolutely no value on his views on race relations and buildng a modern country

If you want to worship dinosaurs thats up to you, give me progress anytime