US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Coito ergo sum]

Writing this from Poland on my holiday at the moment,

its a country thats highly nationalistic and religious much like the US, its had 30% of its population exterminated in WW2 , has been wiped of the map on a regular basis unlike Seth knows exactly what real tyrants are and strangely its still not insane enough to allow people to possess or handguns, usual rural shotgun stuff

My favorite person in the world is Polish-ish.

In case you haven't noticed, the US is not Poland. We do things our own way for our own reasons.
We tend to not let other nations tell us what is best for us--we tell you.

Go figure.

Yeah, the US tells other nations what to do....and it usually works out really well.

With all due respect, Brits are in no position to express any scorn about "telling other nations what to do." You blokes made it an art form.

[Clinton Huxley]

Yeah, but we did it with ostrich-plumed hats on. It dont work without a bit of ostrich

[Coito ergo sum]

My dear boy, I've been a tad grumpy in this thread, so apologies. I fully understand your car argument. I disagree with it in practice. I think it is a separate issue. As for gun ownership, I'm not convinced its a good idea and I'm happy that UK law restricts it.

If you had been raised in another country you would be happy that guns aren't restricted. (That's a play on the "my country's god is the real one" meme, btw.)

Further, I admit, I just do personally find people who like guns are a bit weird and the rabidity of the responses from some hoplomaniacs does nothing to change my mind.

Clinton, I got early training in gun safety, as well as theory and practice from a master of the beasts. His grandson now teaches at a certain sniper school some of us have seen on the TV. I wish that motor vehicle operators were given the same level of training before they were put in control of a few tons of hurtling metal.

I'm perfectly happy for you to have a gun, old chap, so long as you stay that side of the Atlantic.

But, British people with guns can stay on your side of the Atlantic? Or, are you suggesting that no British people on your side of the Atlantic ought to have any guns?

It is quite interesting how much attention folks on your side of the pond pay to the rules and practices on our side of the pond. Why not hurl insults at the gun owners in Britain instead?

[Clinton Huxley]

Where's the fun in that, CES? Why deny myself the opportunity to help you get yourself all worked up?

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, but we did it with ostrich-plumed hats on. It dont work without a bit of ostrich

Ostrich plumes from ostriches poached on the 50% of Africa that Blighty stole, raped and pillaged.

[Coito ergo sum]

My dear boy, I've been a tad grumpy in this thread, so apologies. I fully understand your car argument. I disagree with it in practice. I think it is a separate issue. As for gun ownership, I'm not convinced its a good idea and I'm happy that UK law restricts it.

It is restricted here in the US too, just not quite as much as in the UK. So, the argument is not between "unrestricted gun ownership" and "completely restricted gun ownership." The argument is about how much restriction is reasonable. Most Americans can see differing types of regulations and restrictions being reasonable, and hardly anybody argues for completely unregulated firearm ownership for any kind of weapon anywhere anyhow.

Further, I admit, I just do personally find people who like guns are a bit weird and the rabidity of the responses from some hoplomaniacs does nothing to change my mind.

Well, 98% of the American population finds reasonable regulation of guns perfectly acceptable. Far more Americans would favor heavy restrictions on guns than would fall into the category of rabid hoplomaniacs. I'll reiterate to you, that I've lived in 3 distinct metropolitan areas - one in the northeast, one in the midwest and one in the south. During daily life here in the maniacal US, it is exceedingly rare to see a gun, and when one does see a gun it is almost always in the hands of law enforcement. So, a bit of perspective is, perhaps, in order.

[Coito ergo sum]

I presume the statement that "you cant do something about a unless you also do something about b", even if a and b are unconnected is some kind of logical fallacy.

Nice attempt at misrepresentation.

The argument goes as follows:-

The reason for banning guns is because they are dangerous and kill people (irrespective of the initial reasons for their invention).

Your reasons should be applied to all else (e.g. cars) otherwise it becomes an arbitrary and wilful abuse of power.

I’ve been caught by Christians with the same type of argument.
“you must respect other’s beliefs”
“Ok what about the belief that one should stone to death a woman caught in adultery. Must I respect that?”
“Ah well obviously that’s different”

Please don’t keep re-iterating the same arguments as if you’ve suddenly spotted a flaw in my argument. It’s little better than throwing out embarrassingly incorrect failed sarcasm.


Can you also clear up the meaning of your ‘catch-22’ reference?

Are you being wilfully obtuse?

Are you are saying I can't do something about A unless I also do something about B, because A and B have some spurious connection?

Ok.

But C has the same spurious connection.

And D

And E...Z

So,

To confirm, I can't call for something to be done about A unless I contemporaneously call for similar or equivalent things to be done about B...Z?

I wonder how you manage to get out of bed in the morning....

Actually, Clinton, I think it's you who is being willfully obtuse.

He didn't say that doing something about A necessarily required doing something about B, or that there was some nexus between the two. He's saying that the same logic applies to both situations, and therefore if you are rabidly pro-doing-something-about-A, but not at all concerned with doing something about B, then you're logic is flawed.

I don't agree with him, though, because I think it can be rationally argued that the same logic doesn't apply. His opposition can reasonably argue that while there is a higher death toll from cars than guns, the greater utility and necessity in daily life of cars as opposed to guns warrants a public policy that allows cars to be used with less restriction than guns. There is a rational argument for treating those two different things differently.

So, I've managed to make you both wrong. Which gives me a free pass into internet Nirvana after my ultimate demise.

[Clinton Huxley]

Yeah, but we did it with ostrich-plumed hats on. It dont work without a bit of ostrich

Ostrich plumes from ostriches poached on the 50% of Africa that Blighty stole, raped and pillaged.

We would have got round to the other 50% if it hadn't been for those pesky French and Belgians.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeah, but we did it with ostrich-plumed hats on. It dont work without a bit of ostrich

Ostrich plumes from ostriches poached on the 50% of Africa that Blighty stole, raped and pillaged.

We would have got round to the other 50% if it hadn't been for those pesky French and Belgians.

Would 'twere that you'd gotten round to the pesky French and Belgians....

[colubridae]

I don't agree with him, though, because I think it can be rationally argued that the same logic doesn't apply. His opposition can reasonably argue that while there is a higher death toll from cars than guns, the greater utility and necessity in daily life of cars as opposed to guns warrants a public policy that allows cars to be used with less restriction than guns. There is a rational argument for treating those two different things differently.

It’s only rational if you try to assign values to deaths/utility. I don’t see where this can be claimed as ‘rational’. It’s a point of view, certainly, that doesn’t make it right or me wrong.
And the relative values are definitely open to opinion.
How many more deaths are required for cars to be banned?
How fewer deaths are required for the gun ban to be lifted?

Sorry you lose 30 internet points.

Furthermore you missed the part where I mentioned the ‘lesser’ act of ‘reversing the trend of car usage’. Nobody on the thread said “well for the moment the disparity in car/gun deaths is ‘acceptable’, but specifically because their usage is dangerous and often fatal, we really must make an effort to reduce our reliance on cars,”. I raised this point and it was ignored.

You lose another 30 internet points.


There is some justification for the statement that females cause fewer deaths per driven mile. Why not ban men from driving (except where aggressive driving may be required – emergency vehicles).
I realise that it’s a blanket statement and not going to be 100% effective/true. Thus road deaths drop (I would say dramatically) and yet the utility of road transport, though reduced, would still exist.

Why did no-one propose this? All the thread has been about is banning guns. Because some people who happen to carry a temporary lobbying strength wish it. Not for any moral reasons.

I think I should ‘come clean’. I have been a driving instructor for the last 15 years – now retired.

[Clinton Huxley]

More people die from falling down stairs than from being shot, in the UK. So I should probably call for stairs to be banned if I call for guns to be banned.....

[Hermit]

More people die from falling down stairs than from being shot, in the UK. So I should probably call for stairs to be banned if I call for guns to be banned.....

Why not mention alcohol and tobacco? Banning the former was a huge failure. Nobody even tried to ban the latter on account of that failure, even though it's a monumentally bigger killer.

I think you may have shot yourself in the foot.

[Clinton Huxley]

More people die from falling down stairs than from being shot, in the UK. So I should probably call for stairs to be banned if I call for guns to be banned.....

Why not mention alcohol and tobacco? Banning the former was a huge failure. Nobody even tried to ban the latter on account of that failure, even though it's a monumentally bigger killer.

I think you may have shot yourself in the foot.

I think you might have missed my point.

If we should ban cars if we are going to ban guns, then we should also ban stairs, as they are also deadly. Apparently.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't agree with him, though, because I think it can be rationally argued that the same logic doesn't apply. His opposition can reasonably argue that while there is a higher death toll from cars than guns, the greater utility and necessity in daily life of cars as opposed to guns warrants a public policy that allows cars to be used with less restriction than guns. There is a rational argument for treating those two different things differently.

It’s only rational if you try to assign values to deaths/utility.

Well, of course, and that happens all the time with legislation. When we decide when to allow kids to start driving cars, we might be able to see statistically that raising the driving age to 18 will save X lives from car accidents where minors are the drivers. We make a public policy judgment, though, that we'd rather have minors driving than save the X lives that would be saved by not letting them drive.

I don’t see where this can be claimed as ‘rational’.

Because it's based on reason. Most laws are based on utility and cost/benefit analysis. What's the cost of a particular regulation vs. it's benefit? Should we require bridges to be inspected every year? Or every 5 years? Such determinations are based on LIKELIHOODS of potential outcomes and risk/benefit. If it costs $50,000,000,000 a year to inspect all the bridges every year, but only $5,000,000,000 to do it every 5 years, but the risk of bridge collapses go up a little bit with the decrease in frequency of inspections, what should we do?

It’s a point of view, certainly, that doesn’t make it right or me wrong.
And the relative values are definitely open to opinion.
How many more deaths are required for cars to be banned?

How many more indeed? That's the exact point I'm making. It's a public policy decision made by the legislature based on the information they have and their interpretation of it.

We have reams of safety regulations all based on cost benefit examinations. When a new medical device is marketed, for example, they have to file papers with the FDA, but they don't generally need "premarket approval" (which requires inspections and testing, etc.). Premarket approval is much more expensive, but would probably save the public from some additional injuries and deaths. Is it worth it?

How fewer deaths are required for the gun ban to be lifted?

Aspirin and peanuts have killed people. How many deaths are required before they are "banned?" Or, are "warning" labels enough?

Sorry you lose 30 internet points.

I think my point is not only be clear, but obviously correct. Why don't we ban peanuts, since that would inevitably save children's lives? Why do we ban heroin, even though it's a medicine that could very well help a lot of people (and it was legal and sold in the Sears catalog in the past)? Cost benefit analysis, my friend. A legislative judgment is made that peanuts ought not be banned, but that foods containing peanuts should be labeled or the public should be warned. Does that mean that some kids will accidentally ingest peanuts and have a deadly reaction. Absolutely they will. We leave the peanuts on the market anyway, though.

Furthermore you missed the part where I mentioned the ‘lesser’ act of ‘reversing the trend of car usage’. Nobody on the thread said “well for the moment the disparity in car/gun deaths is ‘acceptable’, but specifically because their usage is dangerous and often fatal, we really must make an effort to reduce our reliance on cars,”. I raised this point and it was ignored.

Because most people don't see reversing the trend in car usage as either a beneficial or achievable result, because almost everyone needs a car to get to work and ultimately to feed their family. If 80% of the population lived in rural areas, any talk of banning guns would generate laughter from most of the population. Don't you see? The reason for folks viewing cars differently than guns is because they see cars as NECESSARY and guns as either unnecessary or even detrimental to their lifestyles.

You lose another 30 internet points.

I don't see how. But, if you keep on with such glib douchey blurbs, I'll lose interest in discussing the issue with you.

There is some justification for the statement that females cause fewer deaths per driven mile. Why not ban men from driving (except where aggressive driving may be required – emergency vehicles).

Why not indeed? We obviously think it's acceptable to have men drive even though it would save lives in not letting them drive.

I realise that it’s a blanket statement and not going to be 100% effective/true. Thus road deaths drop (I would say dramatically) and yet the utility of road transport, though reduced, would still exist.

Except half the population wouldn't be able to drive to work.

Why did no-one propose this? All the thread has been about is banning guns. Because some people who happen to carry a temporary lobbying strength wish it. Not for any moral reasons.

I'm not in favor of "banning" most guns. I do think that reasonable regulation is certainly appropriate. We have a 1st Amendment, and there are times and places where you can't exercise it: (1) courtrooms, (2) schools, (3) crowded movie theaters which aren't on fire, (4) city council meetings in session, and the list goes on and on. There are also things you can't express: (1) child pornography, (2) obscenity, (3) threats to life and limb, (4) sexual harassment in the workplace, etc.

The First Amendment Freedom of Speech is the premier "right" embodied in the Bill of Rights - it is one of the broadest rights that we have as citizens, yet even that is subject to some regulation. What I would suggest for gun rights is not banning, but that in certain places we might not have an unfettered right to exercise it: (1) courtrooms, (2) schools, (3) crowded movie theaters which aren't on fire, (4) city council meetings in session, etc., and that certain weapons be limited like: (1) M120's, (2) roof-mounted mini-guns firing 2,000+ rounds per minute, (3) LAWS rockets, (4) rocket-propelled grenades, (5) Stinger missiles capable of downing airplanes and helicopters, (6) fully automatic weapons, except in limited circumstances, etc. I think there is room for State and local permitting of concealed weapons, perhaps background checks on potential gun owners, and maybe even required/mandatory safety and use training for different types of weapons.

I think I should ‘come clean’. I have been a driving instructor for the last 15 years – now retired.[/quote]

[Coito ergo sum]

More people die from falling down stairs than from being shot, in the UK. So I should probably call for stairs to be banned if I call for guns to be banned.....

There is that cost/benefit analysis rearing its ugly head again. It's certainly possible to make all stairs perfectly safe. It would just cost a whole shitload of money. The deaths aren't, apparently, worth the money.

EDIT - here's one - California is banning tanning beds for minors. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ ... DJ20111009 Why are they able to do this, but not ban minors from using stairs or eating peanuts? Because the utility of tanning beds for minors is perceived to be nil, and they are perceived to be nothing but harmful. Stairs allow people to go up and down levels in buildings, and peanuts are food; therefore, the utility of those items is worth the deaths they cause because of the excessive cost in fixing those dangers. Tanning salon banning doesn't cost much (and the only ones losing out on money are the nasty, evil business owners who deserve to be put out of business anyway....) and there is no perceived net benefit to children getting fake tans.

This kind of analysis is done every day. We don't like to phrase it as "acceptable deaths" - but, that's the reality.