Like this?
Posted on 08/15/2008 8:50:59 AM PDT by marktwain
PHILADELPHIA -- Police were investigating a shooting in South Philadelphia Thursday.
An 18-year-old man was shot in the head on the 1500 block of Federal Street. He was listed in critical condition, officials said.
Officials said the man was shot when he tried to rob a locksmith.
The owner of the locksmith store shot the man, who was armed with a gun, officials said.
Police said they recovered the gun from the scene.
Are you allowed to own a gun in Philadelphia?
The MSM inadvertantly puts good news in public view.
That's a shame.....he should of been killed instantly.
When I think of South Philly, I think of Little Italia, where just about everyone is packing heat. The perp may not be vomitted from the gene pool, but he just learned a big lesson in life.
Proably only illegally.
In fact the letters G, U, and N are not allowed to be used in the same word at any time within the city limits.
Legislation is pending to abolish them from the alphabet entirely.
Even locksmiths know: Sometimes you need something more effective than a lock and key, which is all libs want us to rely upon.
One has to admire such brilliant reporting! If the word "gun" wasn't used, I would have guessed he shot the perp a pea shooter.
They dont say whose gun, so I'm assuming it was the locksmith's. Murder charges are sure to follow
Pennsylvania has some of the best carry laws of any state, including state preemption. The mayor of Philly tried his own gun ban and got smacked down by the state.
Philly used to have a ban, also PA carry permits weren’t valid. This was overturned some years ago. No doubt our present gov., who was mayor of Philthadelphia, has tried to have it reinstated.
He was listed in critical condition, officials said.
That’s a shame.....he should of been killed instantly.
Thats a shame.... the locksmith needs a bigger gun.
I grew up there...long time ago - no need to carry.
Ping
Like this?
The Gun is Civilization
by Marko Kloos of the
Munchkin Wrangler blog
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
BUMP!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.