US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Hermit]

I must admit I took a couple of my guns to the buyback program, a Ruger .22 semi and an old M1...

I had bought them second hand years earlier, but my failing eyesight meant it was time for them to go...

Made $50 bucks profit on the deal, too!

As I understand it, the buyback was mainly of semi-automatic weapons, or anyway concentrated on multi-shot weapons. And the motive was to reduce the chances of someone going mental and taking dozens or hundreds of lives very quickly.
That still leaves loads of guns out there.
Was there by any chance a huge spike in the numbers of defenceless unarmed citizens mowed down by armed criminals, as we are constantly told that there would be?

Look here. It seems that the buyback neither increased nor decreased homicide rates.

[Coito ergo sum]

Once again, the statistical argument is bogus and immoral because it reduces every single potential victim of a violent crime who might thwart the crime or defend their life or safety by using a firearm to the status of an "acceptable casualty."

Perfectly morally acceptable if a person or government takes an action to save 10 lives but someone dies because of it there isnt a moral philosopher or sane person in the world who wouldnt think that was a good thing or at least a less evil thing to do.

The Devil is in the details, however. Does the action save 10 lives, but cost only one? Comparing the entire continent of Europe with the US (roughly the same size population-wise), we see that the homicide rates are about the same (Europe overall is slightly higher than the US as a whole, but slightly lower than North America as a whole, due to Mexico being basically a free fire zone). Also, many US states that are very free with gun ownership have as low homicide rates as even the best European countries in that regard. In short, there may be precious little evidence that the trade-off you assert actually takes place.

Sheeple that word was created to describe generally right wing people brainwashed by a consumer society not to think, ie the tea party.

I thought it was created to refer to anyone who just follows the metaphorical shepherd, and anyone who doesn't think for himself or herself (opting merely to follow instructions or propaganda). Could be teabaggers and could be leftists or liberals who don't think about the talking points they parrot.

Anyway won't be on much currently on holiday touring central/eastern Europe hopefully won't get shot in the Czech republic which seems to like their guns a bit too much

I'm shocked you'd go there, then. Aren't they all psychos and paranoids?

[Coito ergo sum]

when Australia's total population was 18 million. One would have expected a fairly immediate effect if the scheme was working at all. Both, suicides and homicides by firearms pretty much halved, but the overall rate remained the same in the period I mentioned. That suggests the government wasted a billion dollars.

Of course it did because prohibition NEVER WORKS, and they bought back guns that criminals only rarely use to commit crime and that suicidal people rarely use to commit suicide.

Gun buybacks are just a "government option" in the gun market. People who have an extra gun would often want to sell it. If they can get more from the buyback program than the open market, then they'll do that. Sometimes they'll take a little less to avoid the hassle of marketing the gun.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yup. There's a whole buttload of space between the two extremes. Not all people who support legal firearm ownership also support total, unfettered access. I sure don't want to see a return to the "Wild West."

And, the wild west wasn't even "The Wild West" of modern folklore....

[Clinton Huxley]

Yup. There's a whole buttload of space between the two extremes. Not all people who support legal firearm ownership also support total, unfettered access. I sure don't want to see a return to the "Wild West."

And, the wild west wasn't even "The Wild West" of modern folklore....

I bet it was much more camp than the movies would have you believe.

[Coito ergo sum]

In the case of the US, I concede 2 things:
1. They have a strong history and tradition of gun ownership, and a high proportion of people that do not want to see significant reductions on gun ownership.

A history of civil unrest and war, and struggle to achieve the values many, if not most, seem to hold important ... yes, I understand it. I also have had reservations about government restrictions on gun ownership from the perspective of knowing that a disarmed populace is closer to apathy and/or impotence than one who is ready to acknowledge a struggle for values may become necessary if/when oppression sets in, or law and order breaks down. I can see all sorts of possibilities there, both historically precedented, and projection based on realities of survival difficulties and human nature.

If one starts with the proposition that people are basically good, by and large, and that people are, by and large, individual moral actors charged with searching for and determining right and wrong behavior individually, while at the same time sharing the same real estate with other basically good, individual moral actors, then I believe one is inevitably left with tension requiring compromise. Good, individual moral actors join together in a society and when they do so, in whatever rhetoric one wants to use, "governments are instituted among men," the purpose of which is to protect the lives, liberties and property of the good, individual moral actors, and to provide for the common defense. As such, laws are devised which should have as their overarching goals the protection of the people and the protection of the lives, liberties and property of citizens. Those are basic anglo-saxon, English, and American concepts.

They are concepts that evolved over time, and an early example was the British "Magna Carta." Magna Carta means - The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest. Magna Carta, despite being reviled by some around here, is still on the books in England and Wales - it's a statute that has been in force for going on 800 years. Magna Carta is an early contract with the Crown that limited the Crown (the government) in what it was supposed to be able to do. Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot."

The ideals of the American revolution are often scorned by many Brits around here, but when colonies broke away from Britain they weren't fighting for anything new. They were fighting to preserve liberties and rights that they believed were already enshrined in the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights, but which they believed King George was denying them. They were fighting for their rights as Englishmen.

The right to bear arms is one of the constitutional rights that was traditionally enshrined in the English constitution, and it never meant "unfettered" right. The US Constitution embodied this same concept, which implied "regulation" of the right to bear arms. It never meant that one could carry a gun everywhere, anyhow, anytime, no matter what, and of whatever sort. it's important, I think, to recognize that history and those concepts, and to understand that we don't have to make this conversation about gun nuts, and anti-gun nuts. There is a reasoned approach to be taken.

[Coito ergo sum]

Far too much polarization in this debate, from the "people who own guns are twisted morons" end to the "countries who restrict gun ownership are leftist dens of iniquity"

I like where this is going.

Perhaps we should compromise and bring together some twisted folks in a den of iniquity and see what develops?

[Coito ergo sum]

Yup. There's a whole buttload of space between the two extremes. Not all people who support legal firearm ownership also support total, unfettered access. I sure don't want to see a return to the "Wild West."

And, the wild west wasn't even "The Wild West" of modern folklore....

I bet it was much more camp than the movies would have you believe.

The most accurate representation is the documentary, "Blazing Saddles."

[Wumbologist]

The most accurate representation is the documentary, "Blazing Saddles."

You're ok in my book.

[Clinton Huxley]

If one starts with the proposition that people are basically good.

That's where you are going wrong.

BTW - a half-arsed ten seconds googling intimated that althought mental health checks are supposed to be done (don't know if this is in all States) before someone can purchase a gun, the database of prohibited loonies is incomplete. Some States are...tardy....at passing on the info.

[Seth]

Yup. There's a whole buttload of space between the two extremes. Not all people who support legal firearm ownership also support total, unfettered access. I sure don't want to see a return to the "Wild West."

And, the wild west wasn't even "The Wild West" of modern folklore....

Indeed. With notable exceptions like Deadwood and a few other frontier towns, and some conflicts with the Indians, the "Wild West" was really quite a peaceful and friendly...and polite place precisely BECAUSE many people were OPENLY armed.

Colorado's Constitution says "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

This means that Colorado is an "open carry" state where it is perfectly lawful to walk around with a gun in an exposed holster. Historically this was the norm, and concealed carry was deemed the province of criminals because only they would be afraid to openly display their arms. However, few people do this today because of the panic it causes in hoplophobes, and because of constant police harassment of law-abiding citizens who do open-carry, which is why Colorado passed a strong "shall issue" concealed carry regulation and a statewide firearms law preemption law that, with one exception (the City and County of Denver) prevents local municipalities from passing laws regarding firearms more restrictive than state law.

[Wumbologist]

BTW - a half-arsed ten seconds googling intimated that althought mental health checks are supposed to be done (don't know if this is in all States) before someone can purchase a gun, the database of prohibited loonies is incomplete. Some States are...tardy....at passing on the info.

I've said many times in the past that the best thing we could do in the US as far as gun control goes is to simply enforce the laws that are already on the books.

[Coito ergo sum]

If one starts with the proposition that people are basically good.

That's where you are going wrong.

Quite possibly. If we start with the opposite assumption, then a lot of what follows is not very nice. Nevertheless, I have found that a person's view of humanity in general is often a reflection of themselves.

BTW - a half-arsed ten seconds googling intimated that althought mental health checks are supposed to be done (don't know if this is in all States) before someone can purchase a gun, the database of prohibited loonies is incomplete. Some States are...tardy....at passing on the info.

A government agency or department is inefficient and incompetent, you say? How odd.

[Clinton Huxley]

If one starts with the proposition that people are basically good.

That's where you are going wrong.

Quite possibly. If we start with the opposite assumption, then a lot of what follows is not very nice. Nevertheless, I have found that a person's view of humanity in general is often a reflection of themselves.

BTW - a half-arsed ten seconds googling intimated that althought mental health checks are supposed to be done (don't know if this is in all States) before someone can purchase a gun, the database of prohibited loonies is incomplete. Some States are...tardy....at passing on the info.

A government agency or department is inefficient and incompetent, you say? How odd.

I've met at least a dozen people in real life and they were all awful, old chap.

Re govt agency incompetence - it's incompetence that kills.

Anyway, aren't the mentally ill allowed to defend their homes?

[Seth]

If one starts with the proposition that people are basically good.

That's where you are going wrong.

BTW - a half-arsed ten seconds googling intimated that althought mental health checks are supposed to be done (don't know if this is in all States) before someone can purchase a gun, the database of prohibited loonies is incomplete. Some States are...tardy....at passing on the info.

No, many states have simply refused to comply with the federal request to provide information on people who have been "adjudicated mentally defective" or "involuntarily committed" to a mental institution or is incompetent to handle their own affairs. In part this is due to the fact that many states simply do not keep records of such individuals at the state level, and the NICS (National Instant Check System) law does not require the states to do so (nor could it, due to separation of powers and state sovereignty issues), so such records are "incomplete" at the FBI.