US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[MrJonno]

Yes, suicide is the most essential and important exercise of one's natural, unalienable rights and the law should respect this

Luckily there is no such thing as natural / unalienable rights and we can concentrate on actually have a civilized society that looks out for those who are vulnerable

Should suicides be prevented?
If so, how?

If someone is mentally well no, however by default until shown overwise society should assume someone is ill until proven otherwise and put them in a hospital (against their will which legally they don't actually have) for their own protection.

If someone before hand has shown themselves to legally competent before hand then I don't think the state should prevent them

[MrJonno]

what is absolutely true is that every person who was murdered in Australia or the UK died unnecessarily because their government disarmed everyone

...which convincingly explains why the homicide rate ten years before the gun control legislation stood at 2.0 per 100,000 and 1.3 after it.

The homicide rate doesn't matter when considering the rights of EACH INDIVIDUAL who is attacked to carry effective self-defense tools. Only THEIR LIVES matter, and anyone who disarms another person in order to achieve some social engineering goal is directly responsible for all deaths and victimizations that might even possibly have been avoided or averted through the lawful possession of such self-defense tools.

Individuals are not statistics. They cannot be reduced to statistics in any moral or ethical fashion. All that matters is that their government disarmed them and they were victimized, and might not have been victimized had they been allowed to lawfully carry defensive arms.

Wrong civilised society is about looking after everyone not just individuals, if your actions which you think may protect yourself endanger others (as decided by society not you) then that must be prevented.

If you want to be the sole master of your own destiny don't live in a country, find a desert island

[Hermit]

Ah, debating 101 - if the stats are against you, move the goalpost.

Seth has advanced to debating 102: Deny, deny, deny.

[Clinton Huxley]

Ah, debating 101 - if the stats are against you, move the goalpost.

Seth has advanced to debating 102: Deny, deny, deny.

Quick learner. Be on to advanced handwaving next.

[charlou]

what is absolutely true is that every person who was murdered in Australia or the UK died unnecessarily because their government disarmed everyone

...which convincingly explains why the homicide rate ten years before the gun control legislation stood at 2.0 per 100,000 and 1.3 after it.

The homicide rate doesn't matter when considering the rights of EACH INDIVIDUAL who is attacked to carry effective self-defense tools. Only THEIR LIVES matter, and anyone who disarms another person in order to achieve some social engineering goal is directly responsible for all deaths and victimizations that might even possibly have been avoided or averted through the lawful possession of such self-defense tools.

Even before the mass shooting at Port Arthur triggered (so to speak) the change in gun laws in Australia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... nsequences ), people didn't go around self defensively carrying guns just in case some flipper might go on a spree .. as evidenced by the what happened that day.

Tightening gun control has reduced not just the number of people who can "bear arms", but the number of unstable people who can access guns.

[MrJonno]

We actually had a discussion whether police should be armed after the Cumbria massacre last year when unarmed policed shadowed but couldnt stop the gunmen when in this case it would obviously have saved lives BUT it was decided due to the inevietable arms race between police and criminals if this had happened more people would have died.

Public policy has to be on the basis of the most good its not about what is best in every single case

[Hermit]

Ah, debating 101 - if the stats are against you, move the goalpost.

Seth has advanced to debating 102: Deny, deny, deny.

Quick learner. Be on to advanced handwaving next.

It appears to me he has mastered that one already: "The statistical argument is completely fallacious and immoral because it disrespects the INDIVIDUAL right not to be murdered and the INDIVIDUAL right to be armed for self defense"

[colubridae]

Ah, debating 101 - if the stats are against you, move the goalpost.

Seth has advanced to debating 102: Deny, deny, deny.

Driving cars endangers others. Why aren't cars banned?

same logic.

Do you drive? If so why? Even if you know how to safely use a car, others don't. So the logic is inescapable. Ban cars.
Cars kill in the wrong hands - therefore ban them.

(please ignore any split infinitives)

[Clinton Huxley]

You remember that massacre in Todmorden, where that guy ran over those 32 people? No, I don't either.

[Wumbologist]

Yay! A gun thread! I just went to my first ever gun show last weekend, got myself a nice little Ruger LC9.

Uh, I mean... GUNS ER BAD BAN THEM ALL

[Seth]

what is absolutely true is that every person who was murdered in Australia or the UK died unnecessarily because their government disarmed everyone

...which convincingly explains why the homicide rate ten years before the gun control legislation stood at 2.0 per 100,000 and 1.3 after it.

The homicide rate doesn't matter when considering the rights of EACH INDIVIDUAL who is attacked to carry effective self-defense tools. Only THEIR LIVES matter, and anyone who disarms another person in order to achieve some social engineering goal is directly responsible for all deaths and victimizations that might even possibly have been avoided or averted through the lawful possession of such self-defense tools.

Individuals are not statistics. They cannot be reduced to statistics in any moral or ethical fashion. All that matters is that their government disarmed them and they were victimized, and might not have been victimized had they been allowed to lawfully carry defensive arms.

Wrong civilised society is about looking after everyone not just individuals, if your actions which you think may protect yourself endanger others (as decided by society not you) then that must be prevented.

If you want to be the sole master of your own destiny don't live in a country, find a desert island

Sorry, but that's the hallmark of despotism and tyranny, when a society decides that the safety of the individual can be disregarded to suit the paranoid perceptions of the majority.

First, society has to DEMONSTRATE that MY actions endanger others. It may not infringe on my fundamental rights because it THINKS that my actions MIGHT endanger others. That's called "prior restraint." Liberty requires that individuals be given the freedom to conform their lives as they will unless and UNTIL they demonstrate to society that they cannot be trusted with that freedom. What you suggest is the paternalistic tyranny of the All-Mother government that dictates to everyone every aspect of how their lives are to be lived. That's not liberty, that's slavery to bureaucrats who have their own agenda that has nothing whatever to do with respecting individual liberty and everything to do with increasing and consolidating their power over you.

The United States has demonstrated that law abiding citizens can be trusted with guns, and can be trusted to carry them concealed in public without the typical hysterical pronouncements of hoplophobes that blood will run in the gutters if citizens are allowed arms.

What this 25 year experiment means is that your arguments are invalid because they are based on a false premise; that government can accurately determine what all citizens will do based on what a very small number of citizens actually do.

Until I demonstrate that I am unfit to keep and bear arms by truly endangering society, my right to effective armed self defense outweighs the generalized fear of the public and the desire of the government to control me.

[MrJonno]

Governments don't need to demonstrate anything to anyone they need to be elected and are judged on their results

[Coito ergo sum]

Fantastic a mugging turns into a shoot out and thats considered a success!!

Did you rtfa or watch the video before responding with a knee-jerk PC response? The "mugger" shot the student first, making him an attempted murderer, rather than a simple mugger. Wtf was the student supposed to do? Lie down and passively accept death? I think the evolutionary advantage would go to those who, you know, resist being removed forcibly from the gene pool...I hope you'll forgive me if I choose that option...

Come on, FBN. You know that the only reason they are attacking us is because we won't leave them alone...

[Wumbologist]

Fantastic a mugging turns into a shoot out and thats considered a success!!

Did you rtfa or watch the video before responding with a knee-jerk PC response? The "mugger" shot the student first, making him an attempted murderer, rather than a simple mugger. Wtf was the student supposed to do? Lie down and passively accept death? I think the evolutionary advantage would go to those who, you know, resist being removed forcibly from the gene pool...I hope you'll forgive me if I choose that option...

Come on, FBN. You know that the only reason they are attacking us is because we won't leave them alone...

Besides, the robber probably had a tough, disadvantaged life, which means he pretty much deserved to have the other guy's wallet and phone.

[Wumbologist]

I wonder if there is some skewed perception of risk going on here. These, let's call them gun-nuts, are preparing themselves for a very unlikely scenarion (at least, they think they are) but are they prepared for other scenarios, just as or even more likely, for which a gun is not a solution? (If a gun-nut could envisage such a scenario)

I prepare myself for plenty of other unlikely, but potentially deadly situations. It's unlikely for me to get into an accident severe enough to throw me from my car, but I wear my seatbelt every time I drive, just in case. I'm unlikely to burn down my kitchen making Kraft Mac & Cheese, but I keep a fire extinguisher and smoke alarms at the ready, just in case. I also have plenty of food, water, and especially beer at the ready in case of a natural disaster/zombie apocalypse, along with various other supplies.

Are they using fear of crime as a post-hoc excuse for doing what they really want to do, own a lovely, shiny gun, oil it, stroke it and have out-dated militiaman fantasies about it?

I do like having and shooting guns. I don't particularly fear crime, any more than the next guy. I have no militiaman fantasies. But, I don't see much in the way of disadvantages for owning and carrying a gun, so why not?

I'm sure if everyone took a personal parachute evey time they flew an airliner there would be a 1 in million chance it might save their lives but a far higher chance it would get themselves or others killed. Luckily sane countries don't give people that choice

You or I are far more likely to be a victim of violent crime than we are to be victims of a plane crash. From what I've read of yours on RatSkep, you know this from first-hand experience. Add to that the fact that most people don't fly every day, meaning that they're only subject to that risk on the rare occasion that they travel, whereas becoming a victim of violent crime can happen just about anywhere, at just about any time. But hey, if you wanted to bring a parachute with you every time you flew, I wouldn't judge you for it.