Several Officers Injured By Suspect Firing In Shooting In Philadelphia;

[anotheoldgit]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-firing-officers-ongoing-shooting-incident-philadelphia-police/story?id=64977503

[Canary42]

An occasional repetition isn't particularly amiss. I for one didn't know Naomi owned a gun.

Anyway I would rather see a handful of posts from her on this topic than thousands of posts from another poster repeating his hatred of Muslims.

[naomi24]

AH, //are you seriously telling me that they are advised that this [targets] is all they [soldiers] are ever going to shoot at? //

Wow! You needed such a GREAT BIG 'sooooo' there! I said nothing of the sort. We're talking about privately owned guns - not the military - but I think you know that. Sooo - not even a good try.

[ludwig]

I'm not sure what the question is, but if it's just something to hang a discussion about gun control on, we all know the situation in America is never going to change.

We just need to be thankful we don't have the same situation here, and concentrate on tackling our own knife crime problem.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // AH, //are you seriously telling me that they are advised that this [targets] is all they [soldiers] are ever going to shoot at? //

Wow! You needed such a GREAT BIG 'sooooo' there! I said nothing of the sort. We're talking about privately owned guns - not the military - but I think you know that. Sooo - not even a good try. //

You are moving the goal posts now.

I said guns are designed to shoot people, you replied that guns are designed to shoot at targets, now you are narrowing the field into guns in private ownership, which is not what I said.

I am of course aware that certain specific guns are used for target shooting, but that does not negate the point I am making - guns are designed to shoot people.

When I next visit London and stop an armed officer and ask him if he is carrying his gun on the city streets because he might fancy a bit of target practice on his tea break, what do you think his reply might be?

"Yes sir, I always carry my gun away from the target range, I'm really not sure why to be honest … "

or

"Actually sir, I am trained to shoot this gun at an individual or individuals as part of remit to protect life and property - that's why I am an armed officer and that is why I am carrying a gun that is loaded, and that I know how to use because in training, I shoot at life-size targets shaped like people, because that is what my gun is for - shooting at people."

[naomi24]

AH, I haven't moved the goalposts or narrowed the field. This is about private gun ownership - not military warfare which is something you've introduced to the thread.

I'll leave this conversation with you at that before you lead us further around the houses.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // AH, I haven't moved the goalposts or narrowed the field. This is about private gun ownership - not military warfare which is something you've introduced to the thread.

I'll leave this conversation with you at that before you lead us further around the houses. //

You are backing out because the flaw in your premise is exposed.

You stated that guns are designed to be shot at targets, I did not say that - you did.

I am happy to concede that target shooting is a legitimate side-path to gun use, but it does not detract from the simple fact that guns are designed to shoot people.

Check out the wording of the Second Amendment - do you think they Founding Fathers wanted the good citizens to be able to defend themselves against a government's 'targets', or its militia?

Your argument is destroyed, and as usual, you are walking away - we are just missing one of your 'Oh dears' and we're done.

[retrocop]

You, A-H, obviously haven't a clue on the certain specifications and amounts of money that target shooters invest in custom built rifles that are specifically designed with appropriate sights and other ancillary equipment. They are totally impractical for military use and would be rejected by the military becuause of the purpose for which they are designed. Target shooting only. Post Hungerford/Dunblane the regulations have changed in applying for a licence to possess.Once ,having justified your possession of a firearm /s, you must satisfy the FEO what type of rifle/shotgun you wish to possess and of the suitability you require it for. After an inquisition the Spanish would be proud then everybody that needs to know is informed who possesses firearms. My GP is quizzed with regard my general and mental health. Her PC is flagged I am a gun owner,DVLA have flagged me for police stops on my vehicle. I am limited on the amount and type of ammunition I possess and purchase. Every year I have to submit my expediture of ammunition to my club secretary.The club secretary also decides after a probationary period if I am safe and competent to use a firearm amongst other members. No cert of competence from him, no Firearms certificate from the police and no firearms.If it is considered I dont use some of my rifles enough times over the year I can have some forfeited as surplus to requirements.
Our rules and regulations are lengthy and stringent. Target rifles cannot be compared with military assault rifles and are not available, in any case, to a legal sports shooter in this country.
Unfortunately legitimate target shooters suffer the brunt of pig ignorance and the sins of others mainly across the other side of the ditch.Unfortuanately we have the likes of Abbot sitting on Government committees legislating on guns. All of the gun crime, nowdays, is committed by illegally imported military hardware where the market is black yardie gangs killing each other off.I and my fellow sports shooters get heartily fed up with the ignorance and knee jerk comments every time something happens elsewhere and the legislation there is totally incomparable to ours.

[naomi24]

AH, I'll reiterate ve's words when he very sensibly left you to your bizarre ramblings. Have a 'Jesus wept' instead.

[retrocop]

//"Actually sir, I am trained to shoot this gun at an individual or individuals as part of remit to protect life and property - that's why I am an armed officer and that is why I am carrying a gun that is loaded, and that I know how to use because in training, I shoot at life-size targets shaped like people, because that is what my gun is for - shooting at people."//

Well I was one of those police officers armed and in London. Save yourself the bother of finding yourself going there.
I carried a 9mm Glock self loading pistol and a 9mm Heckler and Koch MP5 (A) carbine with two 20 round magazines. Some would describe it as a machine gun but such is the ignorance of those who would not know the blunt end to the sharp.
I was trained to shoot to kill people who endangered the principal I was charged to protect.
We were trained to kill people by using targets as we lacked volunteers to make it realistic.
The point you make is absolutely worthless in this debate. The guns that were carried by your bobby in London and elsewhere are not available to members of the public . Even though the MP5(A) is adapted hence A and it is not a burst fire machine gun it will only be issued to police and military. If it finds its way on the streets in the hands of a civilian it is illegal in the UK. Not so in the USA

[andy-hughes]

retrocop - Cathartic as I am sure it is yet again to reel off the stringent requirements for gun ownership in this country, it does not address the point I am making in any way shape or form.

I made this point at 14:34 - // Guns however, fulfil their exact designed purpose when they kill and maim people - that is what they are supposed to do. //

Naomi replied at 14:44 with this - // AH, my gun has never killed or maimed anyone, but then neither has my car, carving knife, hammer, bleach, or screwdriver. //

Somewhat baffling, responding not at all to what I said, but never mind.

Naomi posted this at 14:51 - // //the purpose of guns is to kill people//

No it isn't.

A disagreement with my view – no problem – let’s discuss – me at 15.09 –
// Naomi - // /the purpose of guns is to kill people//

No it isn't. //

Then what do you think is the purpose of a gun? //

Naomi at 15:15 - // AH at 15:09, to shoot.

Why do you keep saying the purpose of a gun is to shoot 'people'? You've done it again at 15.10. That isn't its purpose. //

That’s rather like saying a plane’s purpose is to fly – it actually has to fly from somewhere to somewhere, it doesn’t just ‘fly’ any more than guns just ‘shoot’.

I reiterated and expanded my point at 15:26 –

naomi - // AH at 15:09, to shoot.

Why do you keep saying the purpose of a gun is to shoot 'people'? You've done it again at 15.10. That isn't its purpose. //

If you don't believe that the purpose of a gun is to shoot people - and I am talking the basic premise of a gun's design and deployment here - then what do you believe it to be?

Saying it is 'to shoot' is not an answer

Yes guns are designed to shoot - at people - that is what they are designed to do.

Cars are designed to carry passengers on the road.

People race them on race tracks, but the fundamental design and purpose of a car is to carry people on roads.

Guns are designed to shoot people.

People use them to shoot animals, birds, targets, but the fundamental design and purpose of a gun is to shoot people. //

naomi at 15:35 - //AH, //Yes guns are designed to shoot - at people - that is what they are designed to do. //

This is ridiculous. Guns are designed to be fired at targets. Of the many millions of privately owned guns in the world - and that includes the millions in the USA - very few have been used to shoot at a human being. Guns don't kill people - people kill people. //

I tried again at 15:40 –

// Naomi - // This is ridiculous. Guns are designed to be fired at targets. //

Look at any soldier in any army in any country in the world, since the gun has been in existence.

Yes, he or she will have been taught to use their gun by shooting at targets, but are you seriously telling me that they are advised that this is all they are ever going to shoot at?

Take a rough guess at the number of guns every army in the world has used in combat, and then deduct the amount of target shooting used in training, and I think, by any stretch of the imagination, you will find that the majority of guns have been deployed to shoot human beings, because that is why soldiers are given guns, because that is what guns are designed to do.

Guns are designed to shoot people - I cannot understand why you will not simply accept that for the fact it is. //

Now you will see from my posts that I have confined my argument to guns per se – not specific instances, such as target shooting, privately owned guns, and so on, simply the concept of gun as an entity. Which is why I am confused when Naomi shifts the perameters thus at 15:45–

// AH, //are you seriously telling me that they are advised that this [targets] is all they [soldiers] are ever going to shoot at? //

Wow! You needed such a GREAT BIG 'sooooo' there! I said nothing of the sort. We're talking about privately owned guns - not the military - but I think you know that. Sooo - not even a good try.

No, I at least am not talking about privately owned guns at all, I am ta

[andy-hughes]

… continued -

No, I at least am not talking about privately owned guns at all, I am talking about guns and what they are designed to do, not the other uses to which they can be put for non-lethal enjoyment.

I then attempted, yet again, to explain why police officers carry loaded guns in public – and it’s clearly not for target practice! Me at 15:50 –

// Naomi - // AH, //are you seriously telling me that they are advised that this [targets] is all they [soldiers] are ever going to shoot at? //

Wow! You needed such a GREAT BIG 'sooooo' there! I said nothing of the sort. We're talking about privately owned guns - not the military - but I think you know that. Sooo - not even a good try. //

You are moving the goal posts now.

I said guns are designed to shoot people, you replied that guns are designed to shoot at targets, now you are narrowing the field into guns in private ownership, which is not what I said.

I am of course aware that certain specific guns are used for target shooting, but that does not negate the point I am making - guns are designed to shoot people.

When I next visit London and stop an armed officer and ask him if he is carrying his gun on the city streets because he might fancy a bit of target practice on his tea break, what do you think his reply might be?

"Yes sir, I always carry my gun away from the target range, I'm really not sure why to be honest … "

or

"Actually sir, I am trained to shoot this gun at an individual or individuals as part of remit to protect life and property - that's why I am an armed officer and that is why I am carrying a gun that is loaded, and that I know how to use because in training, I shoot at life-size targets shaped like people, because that is what my gun is for - shooting at people." //

Naomi then decided to walk away without acknowledging that her point is nothing to do with my point at all – at 16:00 –

// AH, I haven't moved the goalposts or narrowed the field. This is about private gun ownership - not military warfare which is something you've introduced to the thread.

I'll leave this conversation with you at that before you lead us further around the houses. //

As I have said, my point is nothing to do with private ownership, it is to do with the primary object of a gun, which is to shoot people.

I tried yet again to illustrate my argument – me at 16:04 –
// Naomi - // AH, I haven't moved the goalposts or narrowed the field. This is about private gun ownership - not military warfare which is something you've introduced to the thread.

I'll leave this conversation with you at that before you lead us further around the houses. //

You are backing out because the flaw in your premise is exposed.

You stated that guns are designed to be shot at targets, I did not say that - you did.

I am happy to concede that target shooting is a legitimate side-path to gun use, but it does not detract from the simple fact that guns are designed to shoot people.

Check out the wording of the Second Amendment - do you think they Founding Fathers wanted the good citizens to be able to defend themselves against a government's 'targets', or its militia?

Your argument is destroyed, and as usual, you are walking away - we are just missing one of your 'Oh dears' and we're done. //

You then – although I am sure you didn’t mean to – actually added weight to my argument from your personal experience – yourself at 16:30 –

// I was trained to shoot to kill people who endangered the principal I was charged to protect.
We were trained to kill people by using targets as we lacked volunteers to make it realistic. //

Which entirely backs up my point – you carried a loaded gun in public because you were trained to use it to shoot people, and would have done so if necessary – and I am happy to say it again – guns are designed to shoot people, that is what they are designed to do.

You did drift off about the difference in types of guns, which again has nothing whatsoever

[andy-hughes]

Continued …

You did drift off about the difference in types of guns, which again has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I am making, so I won’t bother quoting it.

This leads me to a very simple conclusion –

I state that guns are designed to shoot people, that is their purpose.

Naomi disagreed, and said they are designed to shoot targets, which some are, but that is not the original premise of the gun’s creation.

You then agreed with me – albeit as part of a long diatribe about other things entirely unconnected with my point, but hopefully you at least understand the point I am making.

I think you must – you have agreed with me.

[naomi24]

Retrocop, I've never belonged to a club.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - Retrocop, I've never belonged to a club. //

I am interested - I would have thought that with the exception of farmers, who have guns for use to protect livestock etc., that private citizens would have to belong to a club in order to obtain a licence to hold firearms.

I accept that this is something I know nothing about, so if you are interested in explaining, I would be interested to hear about it.

[agchristie]

Retrocop (p2) //People can be battered to death with a cricket bat and they don't ban them humph'//

That would depend if it was made in Notts by Gunn & Moore! ;-)

[retrocop]

//Retrocop, I've never belonged to a club.//

Ok. I will explain another reason for possession of a firearm without membership of a shooting club. 'Vermin control'. As a Sec 1 and 5 certificate holder I think I can think on my feet and experience to give that out. I doubt Mr Hughes would possess that knowledge.Have I missed another reason for possession?. I believe you could find one I missed if there was. Mr Hughes ? I have my doubts.

[Spicerack]

A lot of the comments on this thread are, as spath would say, moot.
This bloke wasn't allowed to carry a gun. He was banned from owning a gun.

[andy-hughes]

retrocop - // k. I will explain another reason for possession of a firearm without membership of a shooting club. 'Vermin control'. As a Sec 1 and 5 certificate holder I think I can think on my feet and experience to give that out. I doubt Mr Hughes would possess that knowledge.Have I missed another reason for possession?. I believe you could find one I missed if there was. Mr Hughes ? I have my doubts. //

Thanks for the information, but I could as always have done without the sarcasm.

I am perfectly willing to admit that I know nothing about firearms or their licenses, and if you were as keen to read everything I post, instead of always looking for something you can latch onto and moan about forevermore, you would not have missed this, which I posted at 17:32 -

// I accept that this is something I know nothing about, so if you are interested in explaining, I would be interested to hear about it. //

But hey, why let a simple request for knowledge get in the way of you being nasty? That would be totally against type, wouldn't it.

[andy-hughes]

Spicerack - // A lot of the comments on this thread are, as spath would say, moot. //

My observation that the raison d'etre of a gun is to shoot people is certainly not 'moot' as I have gone to considerable trouble to explain - please see my posts beginning at 17:14.

[KARL]

I saw an aerial photo of the crossroads adjacent to the scene of this shooting and counted 39 police vehicles plus a further three which were either police, fire brigade or ambulance. There was one man with an assault rifle and presumably at least 80 policemen. Interesting figures.

Like any gun, an assault rifle is for shooting at a target - in their case the intended target is most definitely a human being (perhaps a member of the military, perhaps not, depending on where the bearer is sent and which instructions he/she is given and the independent decisions he/she makes).

A nuclear bomb is designed to make a big bang, the bang is intended to occur in close proximity to a chosen target - maybe buildings or infrastructure, maybe people.

Neither guns or nuclear bombs kill people, it's the people in charge of them - only one authority has used nuclear bombs to kill people and they still have lots of them. Others have them too but have not used them. What does that tell us, if anything ? Those who have used them take extreme steps to demonise those they accuse of intending to acquire nuclear bombs but themselves are currently conspicuously scrapping deals they made on curbing methods of using them.

People without guns or nuclear bombs do not shoot people or blow them up with a nuclear blast. But that simple fact does not suit some people's agenda.