US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Clinton Huxley]

I don't think you've factored in ho

Is that you being obtuse?

No, that's me being cack-handed.

[mistermack]

Colubridae, even I, who is about as anti-gun as you can get, would not suggest banning guns if the standard of living and economic well-being of the people relied on them.

I would have to say that all of the problems with guns were a price that had to be paid.

[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.)

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.

[Seth]

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

Exactly. You're a slave who is not allowed to even carry a brick, or a cricket bat, as a defensive weapon. You're not even allowed to carry OC spray or Mace, which are both non-lethal defensive tools. You're a deliberate victim of your government, which not only forbids you from carrying ANYTHING with the intent to use it to defend yourself, your masters constantly tell you not to resist the criminals and thugs who carry knives and guns because resisting them might "escalate" the situation and cause more injury.

You have a government that is in knowing collusion with the criminals and is actually cooperating with them to create a pool of helpless cowards they can rob with impunity, so it's o wonder that violent crime in the UK is so out of control, and it's no wonder that in a desperate attempt to do something about it you now live in a surveillance culture where your every move is watched and recorded, your face is automatically recorded and identified by facial recognition software, and you have no freedom or privacy at all. You have surrendered all your liberty for an illusion of temporary safety, and as Ben Franklin said, you are now deserving of neither.

[MrJonno]

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

[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?

[colubridae]

I don't dislike your view, I just think the car/gun comparison is fatuous and unhelpful. I think you've blithely ignored the issue of purpose and intention.

No I haven’t it was raised in earlier posts.
The reason why a machine kills should have no bearing on it being banned if it is dangerous and kills. Otherwise the moral/ethical reasons become screwed. I mentioned the smoking ban. No-one smokes with the intention of killing, the purpose of smoking is not to kill. It does kill and that is one of the major reasons for banning it (in public places). Purpose and intention belong to the user/inventor. The gun is a machine just like a car. Stop making category errors.

I suppose we could turn the argument around and say lets allow EVERYTHING, as long as it kills fewer people than cars.

You’ve just accused me of being fatuous and unhelpful. Ok but drop the fewer, if it’s dangerous and kills it should be banned.
My point still stands If it’s valid for guns, It should be valid for everything else. Otherwise a ban is just an arbitrary and wilful use power.

As for the weird idea that there are no accidents.....do you work for Claims Direct?
.

Calling road deaths an accident is fatuous and unhelpful. I cannot stress that point strongly enough. All road deaths in the UK are now investigated as crimes. Causing death by careless driving/recklessness is a criminal offence. Difficult to prove sure, but that’s beside the point.
I presume that you would accept the point of view that an accidental gun death should not be used as a reason for the gun ban?

You still have not said anything valid to refute my argument.

I don’t dislike your view, I just think banning guns for specific reasons and not applying those reasons to other machines such as cars is an arbitrary and wilful use of power.

[MrJonno]

Your government constantly tells you NOT TO RESIST criminals, and to just cower in fear and give them what they want

And then the professionals ie the police arrest them and insurance covers your loses. The government doesnt say not to resist criminals it says never put yourself in more danger than can be avoided which any sane person would think was pretty sensible.

If someone put a knife at your throat and says hand over your wallet you arent brave saying no you're an idiot

[Pappa]

Col, I think you missed my post above because it was posted a few moments before one of your posts.

Oh and MrJonno, the only circumstance you could be arrested for possessing a brick in the uk is if you used it, or could be shown to have the intention of using it, as a deadly weapon or in a robbery. The same applies to bananas or wooden spoons. The only item you're not allowed to carry without a valid reason is a knife/blade (excluding sub 3" folders).

[Seth]

It's all about you isn't it. If you're so fucking perfect, obviously nobody else will go mental with legally held guns.
Any fool can see that.

We ought not rush to make laws that restrict the vast majority when the goal is to restrict the nutters.

Well, there's your answer then. Just make it illegal for anyone who might be a nutter to own guns.
Problem solved.

You can't own guns if you've been adjudicated mentally defective.

25% of the population will have a mental illness at some point in their lives, do these 25% have the right to carry deadly weapons withdrawn?

If they demonstrate to a physician and a judge that they are incompetent to possess a deadly weapon, their right to possess them IS withdrawn. Merely being "involuntarily committed to a mental health facility" or "adjudicated in a court of law to be insane" is sufficient. Judges have wide latitude to ban sociopaths from possessing guns, and they can also ban individuals who have misused their firearms (by so much as "waving a gun around" without lawful authority) from possessing guns. All felons and all misdemeanants who have a conviction for domestic violence-related crimes (so much as grabbing, shoving or slapping your "intimate domestic partner") are forbidden by federal law from possessing firearms or so much as a single round of ammunition.

But the key is that the individual has to DO SOMETHING to demonstrate that they are unqualified to keep and bear arms. It's an individualized prohibition that applies ONLY to those who it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a physician, judge and/or jury present a clear and present danger to themselves or others if allowed to exercise that right.

Until then, our individual right to keep and bear arms supersedes your fearfulness.

You see, we here make the rational and demonstrably correct presumption that in general, law-abiding citizens are NOT inherently borderline psychotics or murderers who will be driven to insanity merely by touching a firearm, so we allow people to exercise their rights until the prove by a preponderance of the evidence, in an exercise of both substantive and procedural due process, that they are unqualified to do so. You and your countrymen, on the other hand, in your pants-pissing paranoid state presume that everyone around you is out to kill you and must be restrained from keeping and bearing arms because you cannot bear the thought of your neighbors having the capacity to kill you. That would be enough to disqualify you from possessing a firearm over here I think, as clinical paranoia is a disqualifying factor, so it's probably a good thing you can't carry a gun.

[MrJonno]

Col, I think you missed my post above because it was posted a few moments before one of your posts.

Oh and MrJonno, the only circumstance you could be arrested for possessing a brick in the uk is if you used it, or could be shown to have the intention of using it, as a deadly weapon or in a robbery. The same applies to bananas or wooden spoons. The only item you're not allowed to carry without a valid reason is a knife/blade (excluding sub 3" folders).

Definition of an offensive weapon is

The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use

Carry a brick where you have no justification for carrying one like a demonstration (unless its a brick layers one I guess) and you definitely could face arrest, not sure if having a brick on a demonstration counts as intent but I certainly wouldnt want to be the defendant. For the purposes of arrest the police only need to suspect you anyway of having that intent

[mistermack]

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?

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?
Is the world divided up into rational and irrational?
It's perfectly normal to like some things, and people, and dislike others. It's not rational to call people irrational, for not liking something.
Anyway, most people who say they don't like being around guns don't really mean the gun, they mean the people/gun combination. Personally, I think that if you want a gun, and own one, you are someone to avoid.

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 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?

[Seth]

Your government constantly tells you NOT TO RESIST criminals, and to just cower in fear and give them what they want

And then the professionals ie the police arrest them and insurance covers your loses. The government doesnt say not to resist criminals it says never put yourself in more danger than can be avoided which any sane person would think was pretty sensible.

I'm sure your bereaved loved ones will find that very comforting. You too might find it comforting as you roll around in your new wheelchair after having had your spine severed. On the other hand, you might regret it as people recoil in shock and horror for the rest of your life as the horrific scars on your face, inflicted by the thug who wanted more than just your wallet.

Me, I prefer to plant the thug and keep my wallet.

If someone put a knife at your throat and says hand over your wallet you arent brave saying no you're an idiot

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

[MrJonno]

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

Typical London day

londonpiccy.jpg (76.35 KiB) Viewed 346 times

[Seth]

Col, I think you missed my post above because it was posted a few moments before one of your posts.

Oh and MrJonno, the only circumstance you could be arrested for possessing a brick in the uk is if you used it, or could be shown to have the intention of using it, as a deadly weapon or in a robbery. The same applies to bananas or wooden spoons. The only item you're not allowed to carry without a valid reason is a knife/blade (excluding sub 3" folders).

Definition of an offensive weapon is

The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use

Carry a brick where you have no justification for carrying one like a demonstration (unless its a brick layers one I guess) and you definitely could face arrest, not sure if having a brick on a demonstration counts as intent but I certainly wouldnt want to be the defendant.

He (and even I'm amazed at this) is actually mostly right. I can tell you that as a former cop, if I want to arrest you for carrying a brick, I can. Now, whether you will get CONVICTED for doing so is another matter entirely, but many common, ordinary, every-day objects and tools are in fact "deadly weapons" that give the police probable cause to arrest (and disarm) you if they deem it necessary or desirable to do so. Now, over here, there is generally some "mens rea" requirement that the circumstances indicate some intent or threat that the object can be used as a deadly weapon, but the bar is not high. When I approach a suspect in ANY crime, no matter how petty, and he's carrying a brick or a hammer, I'm going to tell him to drop it, and if he doesn't, I'm going to act defensively and I'm going to arrest him for carrying a deadly weapon. But the charge will likely be dropped by the DA if it isn't obvious that he intended to use it UNLAWFULLY as such.

You see, if he had the brick because it was the only weapon at hand with which to bash the brains out of an armed criminal, then he's not going to be charged or arrested, because it's not per se illegal to possess a deadly weapon. If it were, there would be no bricklayers and no carpenters.

For the purposes of arrest the police only need to suspect you anyway of having that intent

Wrong. It must be a "reasonable, articulable suspicion that the individual is, has been, or is about to be involved in the commission of a crime."