US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Pappa]

Cars are more dangerous than guns or cigarettes. So why doesn’t the rule apply to them.

If people want to ban guns that’s ok. But it sticks in my throat when they claim moral/ethical superiority for such a ban. It’s simply abuse of power.

Please please tell me where I am wrong!

Because cars have a massively significant and important function in our society that counterbalances the harm they also cause. They have become a necessary evil.

That’s not a valid argument. Simply describing the situation is not a valid argument.

If they are a necessary evil, where is the strong protest being made by the anti-car lobby. Why is it not at least as vociferous as the anti-gun lobby?
Why isn’t the anti-gun lobby say “fuck we’ve been fighting the wrong battle, cars are a much more dangerous aspect of modern life!”
Why isn’t everyone standing right beside me saying “wow col! You are right. We’ve posted page after page about how good it is to ban guns, never realising that there was
a much more serious problem right under our noses. Car deaths”

All I’ve received is mostly sarcasm (Clinton) and condescension (psychoserenity).

At least you tried to reason, it’s been wrong, but at least you tried.

Why is there not a strong lobby saying “wow! cars are really dangerous, and we seem to be tied up with them in modern life. It’s time we really reversed this trend and started convincing people not to use cars. And boy this is an urgent problem, because car deaths exceed, by a huge amount, even gun deaths”

I know I’m saying the same things over, that’s because I’m getting the same faulty arguments over and over.

The reasons anyone gives for banning guns applies to banning cars. I will keep saying this until someone comes up a with a valid reason for banning guns that can’t be applied elsewhere, be it cars or cigarettes.

Until then all the anti-gun lobby has is its bullying abuse of power.

If you are happy to go along with such an abuse of power fine, I'm not.

You seem to be making the assumption that people are rational beings and laws and government polices come about for rational reasons. They don't.

[Wumbologist]

Devil's Advocate: People don't use pools and cigarettes on purpose to kill other people, and we have a greater interest in protecting individuals from intentional harm, than in protecting them from themselves or accidents.

Very true. On the other hand, the firearm is far from the only tool people use to intentionally kill other people, and there is no way to ban them all. Even banning guns is a hit or miss proposition, while it might work well in some countries (The UK to some extent), it is less likely to be successful in other countries with larger borders for easier smuggling, with large swaths of rural land where clandestine manufacturing operations could hide, and large numbers of firearms already in circulation. Obviously enough I disagree with banning firearms in the US on principle, but from a practical standpoint it is extremely unlikely to have any chance of succeeding. If banning guns doesn't reduce the number of people killing other people, and DOES reduce the number of people successfully defending themselves from other people trying to kill them, it is a net negative effect.

[colubridae]

I'm not arguing against guns here, as I said earlier in the thread, I think the decision to ban them or not is a risk/benefit judgement that each country takes independently. Whether or not a society perceives guns to have a massively significant and important function or not will obviously affect their decision about whether or not they want easy access to them.

I think that’s what I’m bitching about. The risk/benefit judgement you talk of is skewed. The anti-gun lobby make their pitch on their own terms, which they then blithely ignore for other more serious problems. Look how skewed it is on ratz.

Look how much posting there’s been on the topic of gun deaths. Yet all I got for daring to compare the risk/benefit judgments used for guns against cars was varying shades of abuse.

People are afraid of guns, I get that, but why don’t they recognise that they should be more afraid of cars? Or even better recognise that their fear of guns has nothing to do with reality, but their own miss-conceptions.

How about a poll? (or a pole)

who thinks they are more likely to be killed by a car than a gun?

If you are more fearful of being killed by a gun, yet you know you are more likely to be killed by a car, how do you reconcile this?

Does anyone think being killed by a car will be less/more traumatic (during the dying process) than being shot to death?

[colubridae]

You seem to be making the assumption that people are rational beings and laws and government polices come about for rational reasons. They don't.

Is that an acknowlegement that the anti-gun lobby is flawed?

[Coito ergo sum]

I reject the notion that cars are "evil' in the least. They are cars. Rocks aren't necessary evils, and knives aren't necessary evils. This has nothing to do with good vs evil, and guns aren't evil either (whether or not they are necessary or unnecessary). Guns are. Things in and of themselves are not "evil." It all depends on what one does with them. If one runs over another person with car, or shoots them with a gun, that would generally be an evil/bad thing, unless there was some good reason for what was done. People die in airplanes, but that doesn't make them "necessary evils."

The phrase "necessary evil" has nothing at all to do with "evil" in the sense of good vs. evil.

Well, to me it means that a thing is not a good thing, but it is a necessary thing, because things would be worse without it.

Like - government is a necessary evil. We don't like it, because it tells us what to do, inhibits liberty and oppresses people, and many horrible things have been done by governments. However, it's a necessary evil, because without it we pretty much have anarchy and survival of the strongest.

With respect to cars - a car is neither bad nor good. It's not a necessary evil because it isn't an "evil" at all. It's not a bad thing. It's not anything other than a thing.

[Pappa]

You seem to be making the assumption that people are rational beings and laws and government polices come about for rational reasons. They don't.

Is that an acknowlegement that the anti-gun lobby is flawed?

Not really... just a comment that almost all risk/benefit judgements in politics seem to be flawed.

[mozg]

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.

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.

There are eighty million people like me in the United States who lawfully own firearms. If even one percent of us were likely to run for a gun because we got pissed off over something tiny, we would have 800,000 shootings a year.

But we don't. Not even close. And of those that we do have, most are related in some way to drug trafficking or gangs. We have more and more states relaxing their laws, making it easier for the law abiding to carry firearms, more people owning firearms, more firearms out there, and the rate of shooting deaths isn't going up. Despite all the cries of the anti-gun folks, the blood is not running in the streets.

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?

Most people who have mental illness are no danger to themselves or anyone else. Only those who have been adjudicated mentally defective or involuntarily committed to mental institution (under US laws meaning a judge was convinced they are a danger to self or others) have their right denied. But what we don't do is randomly deny people their rights because some day in the future they might be dangerous.

[Cunt]

Not so much flawed (it is quite effective in some places) but irrational. :0

[Coito ergo sum]

[

People are afraid of guns, I get that, but why don’t they recognise that they should be more afraid of cars? Or even better recognise that their fear of guns has nothing to do with reality, but their own miss-conceptions.

Because cars aren't generally used as weapons to intentionally shoot people or animals. So, a car is viewed more benignly. Also most people grew up with cars around, and riding in cars and are used to them. When people grow up around guns, they also aren't afraid of guns.

How about a poll? (or a pole)

who thinks they are more likely to be killed by a car than a gun?

I'm more likely to get killed by a car, mainly because I am on the road every day, and encounter cars by the thousands. I hardly ever see a gun that isn't holstered to a police officer, and I'm not afraid of police officers (although I generally think they're dicks).

If you are more fearful of being killed by a gun, yet you know you are more likely to be killed by a car, how do you reconcile this?

I think people don't recognize that they are more likely to be killed by a car than a gun. I think they also make a distinction, whether consciously or subconsciously, between being in an accident and being intentionally hurt. Most people take the latter more seriously, which is why people are more concerned about terrorism than the flu.

Does anyone think being killed by a car will be less/more traumatic (during the dying process) than being shot to death?

I think that depends on the situation.

[amok]

Over the years, the population has elected and confirmed governments that obeyed the majority support for certain gun controls.

Sheeple voting to let the wolves eat whomever they want to eat.

No, people voting in elections for policies they agree with.

(It went off the rails in recent years with a long-gun registry that turned into a major bureaucratic boondoggle, but that's being undone, again at the order of the people to the politicians.) Our police carry guns. Some of our criminals do, too, but they seem to mostly shoot each other. I don't cower.

I bet you do when one of those criminals points a gun at you. Or a knife.

I'll take that bet.

Re: Islamic theocracies, yes. That would fall under the same category of an extreme not making sense.

But if that's what the people (sheeple) want, why is that not sensible? You just got finished arguing that Canada "had elected and confirmed governments that obeyed the majority support for certain..." theocratic practices.

Get the point?

I don't think I said that. Perhaps I wasn't particularly clear in my statement. I think theocracy doesn't make sense because (I consider it) extreme. I also think a total ban on firearms doesn't make sense, again because I think it's extreme. I also don't believe that I'd be in grave danger if our system was more like the one in the U.S. Perhaps a slightly higher risk of being harmed by an errant bullet fired by someone using a gun in self-defence, but probably not significant enough to worry about. Partial bans and/or restrictions aren't (in my opinion) extreme, and they also don't prevent me from not only feeling safe, but being safe.

[Wumbologist]

I don't think I said that. Perhaps I wasn't particularly clear in my statement. I think theocracy doesn't make sense because (I consider it) extreme. I also think a total ban on firearms doesn't make sense, again because I think it's extreme. I also don't believe that I'd be in grave danger if our system was more like the one in the U.S. Perhaps a slightly higher risk of being harmed by an errant bullet fired by someone using a gun in self-defence, but probably not significant enough to worry about. Partial bans and/or restrictions aren't (in my opinion) extreme, and they also don't prevent me from not only feeling safe, but being safe.

So, you don't take issue with sane, responsibe law-abiding citizens carrying concealed?

As far as the partial bans or restrictions, what specifically are you referring to? Bear in mind that in the US, previous legislation like the federal Assault Weapons Ban has been more about banning guns that look scary or military-esque, than banning any specific functional abilities.

[amok]

I don't think I said that. Perhaps I wasn't particularly clear in my statement. I think theocracy doesn't make sense because (I consider it) extreme. I also think a total ban on firearms doesn't make sense, again because I think it's extreme. I also don't believe that I'd be in grave danger if our system was more like the one in the U.S. Perhaps a slightly higher risk of being harmed by an errant bullet fired by someone using a gun in self-defence, but probably not significant enough to worry about. Partial bans and/or restrictions aren't (in my opinion) extreme, and they also don't prevent me from not only feeling safe, but being safe.

So, you don't take issue with sane, responsibe law-abiding citizens carrying concealed?

As far as the partial bans or restrictions, what specifically are you referring to? Bear in mind that in the US, previous legislation like the federal Assault Weapons Ban has been more about banning guns that look scary or military-esque, than banning any specific functional abilities.

No, I don't. Not in the way of some people, who suggest everyone who either does (or is OK with others doing so) are nuts. But I also think people who believe they're safer than those of us who live in places where the ARE such bans are incorrect. I'm safe. Wolves aren't willy-nilly using guns against unarmed citizens. I also don't think people have the correct idea about our population being bossed around on this issue by some sort of "masters." We're bossing the politicians around, with our votes.

In terms of bans and restrictions, I'm thinking of those kinds of weapons from which dozens of bullets can be shot in a few seconds. I can't fathom how that would be a reasonable self-defence strategy, other than in a war zone. It just seems too dangerous to allow in crowded places, in the rare case of someone going nuts, with no prior history. Perhaps allowing them on private property, but banning them from populated public spaces would be an acceptable compromise?

[Wumbologist]

No, I don't. Not in the way of some people, who suggest everyone who either does (or is OK with others doing so) are nuts. But I also think people who believe they're safer than those of us who live in places where the ARE such bans are incorrect. I'm safe. Wolves aren't willy-nilly using guns against unarmed citizens. I also don't think people have the correct idea about our population being bossed around on this issue by some sort of "masters." We're bossing the politicians around, with our votes.

Right, it is situationally dependent. If I lived in a country with significantly less violent crime, I might still prefer that I be legally permitted to carry a concealed firearm if I chose, but I might not feel it as necessary. And I don't take issue with other nations that don't constitutionally protect firearms ownership democratically choosing not to have them, provided that the political discussion that leads up to it is honest and reasoned. I don't think that was the case in the UK, for example, where hysteria in the wake of a tragedy brought it about.

In terms of bans and restrictions, I'm thinking of those kinds of weapons were dozens of bullets can be shot in a few seconds. I can't fathom how that would be a reasonable self-defence strategy, other than in a war zone. It just seems too dangerous to allow in crowded places, in the rare case of someone going nuts, with no prior history. Perhaps allowing them on private property, but banning them from populated public spaces would be an acceptable compromise?

If we're talking about fully automatic weapons, those are already extremely heavily regulated in the US. The registry for full-auto firearms has been closed since 1986, and no new full-auto guns can be sold to civilians. The pre-86 firearms are extremely expensive (think tens of thousands for anything worthwhile), and a full-on background investigation is required for the license to own one, as compared to the reasonable and relatively unobtrusive background check that goes into a semi-automatic. Semi-automatics play an obvious role in defensive situations.

Beyond that the only other thing I can think of would be high-capacity magazines. I think that concerns about high-capacity magazines are misguided at best, and feel that they could be used as gradual stepping stones to go beyond what many might consider to be "reasonable", at worst. The fear is that a high-capacity magazine means more killing in less time. However, there isn't a very significant difference in 10 rounds - reload - 10 rounds - reload - 10 rounds, compared to 30 rounds. Magazines are quick and easy to reload with, and I think anyone with nefarious intent will manage just as well without high caps. One might claim that they're "unnecessary", but I would counter that they aren't unreasonable for range use, shooting competitions, or even the admittedly unlikely scenario of facing multiple assailants. The perceived danger isn't realistic enough to ban them.

[Cunt]

I file and a bit of illegally spent time and a common semi-auto can be made into a full-auto. I feel quite safe with my neighbours knowing that.

[JimC]

Point taken. I sincerely apologise. I assumed by ‘propaganda’ you meant the car/gun comparison, not the phobia slight.
I have been insulted several times during this thread, so my insult-scanner is on an hair trigger at the moment.

I will rephrase (again).

All I point out is that a gun ban perforce demands a plethora of more restrictive bans against machines that cause death, otherwise it’s just an anti-X lobby forcing their agenda/desires/views onto others.

Have you a point to make concerning:-

Banning guns will end gun deaths (practical absurdities aside)
Banning cars will end car deaths.
Where is the difference?

So far no-one has successfully refuted this.

"Banning guns" is an absolutist statement which is purely rhetorical. In all societies, there is a spectrum of restrictions on gun ownership. The question might be better phrased:
"In a given society, will an intelligently applied increase in restrictions on gun ownership and carrying (particularly hand guns and semi-automatic rifles) lead to a reduction in deaths or injuries involving guns?"
Earlier, Seraph gave some convincing statistics that an increase in the restrictions in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre indeed lead to such a reduction.

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. When you have a situation with so many guns in circulation, and such a tradition, it is pragmatically unlikely that any major reduction is likely to succeed, whatever the possible long-term gains. Sometimes, it is not possible to get from A to B... There could well be some tidying up around the edges, perhaps a stronger effort to keep them out of the hands of looneys...

2. I may be able to comment on the US situation from the periphery, but deep down, the issue is one for Americans to exercise their democratic rights on, not those of us from other places.

As a corollary to that, I am extremely happy to be living in a society with severe restrictions on gun ownership (and that from the point of view of someone who loved rifle shooting and hunting), and I don't appreciate sniping about Oz or UK rules from from a minority of US posters ranting on about "sheeple" and the rest of the libertarian crap. Save it for within your own borders... (not directed at you, Col... )

As for the car analogy, I simply think it is apples and oranges. Cars are never going to be "banned"; they are currently subject to a variety of legal restrictions, and arguments will continue as to the wisdom of altering or extending those. Still totally separate from the gun issue...