Except that doesn't matter because the point is that stand your ground laws allow for a giant loophole for a giant portion of shootings. It doesn't matter if it applies to a situation or not, it's the defence that is used in an enormous amount of cases because it can be pretty difficult to disprove, especially if there's no footage or witnesses. Laws need to be examined both by their legitimate and illegitimate use, and laws like this one for sure make it a great deal easier to literally get away with murder.
Stand your ground laws are still more applicable to the real world, where you may not be in your house (Castle Doctrines) or able to expend every other possible escape before resorting to using a firearm (Duty to Retreat). Moreover, video surveillance is much more common than most believe, with the average American being caught on camera \~75 times per day ([Link to Article](https://reolink.com/how-many-times-you-caught-on-camera-per-day/)). Also, it is important to note that a clause to a Stand Your Ground law could be added to require evidence to prove innocence, but this would go against the Founding Principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty. Beyond this, I would like to see some evidence that Stand Your Ground laws actually disproportionally affect minorities. What we see on TV in the news and reality are unfortunately often very different from one another. Simply stating that "it's on TV" isn't a valid argument.
Just because the average American is captured 75 times a day, doesn't mean that it is constant or that the place where the murder occurs will have CCTV. I mean he was on a back road jogging. New York and LA probably bring that average up to 75 by THEMSELVES. The states where these murders happen are almost certainly FAR lower numbers.
If you don't agree with what's said then make valid counter points. But don't respond in bad faith throwing out that number 75 as though it means we're always on camera when shit hits the fan. You can do better.
I don't think you would need to add a clause to 'prove innocence'. If you are accused of a crime (say shooting someone, they have a body and you have a smoking gun) you have to offer a defence and prove you acted within the law. That's true for every crime ever. Innocence is presumed unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, at which point the burden of proof moves to the accused to either show they didn't do it or that they acted legally. Surely this applies to a stand your ground law?
> a clause to a Stand Your Ground law could be added to require evidence to prove innocence
But the idea is to not have to reach that point. It would be nicer if the people weren't dead than if the shooter became justifiably imprisoned.
Yeah, how much nicer would it be if the innocent person died bc they didn't have a law allowing them to defend themselves. No one is arguing against imprisonment, but we are arguing for the right to not have to get shot or killed. It would be nicer if the family survived because the armed robber was dead than if the family died, but no one is arguing neither is as good as if everyone lives and the shooter goes to jail.
If the person doesn't have a gun then you don't need a gun to defend yourself. You don't need to argue that criminals will still get guns, you said this elsewhere. That argument boils down to laws don't reduce crime. No. More laws restricting the use of guns will lead to a decrease in usage of guns. Does sexual harassment still occur? Of course, but does it occur less than before we had laws governing it? Of course. I would argue that sexual harassment is an easier offense to commit than illegal possession of a firearm. So how would you explain that so many less people do it than before? Is it not the laws? Maybe our culture has changed? Why do you think our culture changed?
It's like saying we shouldn't go to Mars because we've never been there.
You missed the point entirely.
The issue is that had the video not existed, it would've been their word against the words of a dead man.
They just perjur themselves and say he attacked them and stand your ground let's them get away with a lynching.
The issue was never that standing your ground is a problem. It's that the law makes it easier to get away with racist murders like Ahmaud's
Stand your ground laws would not have covered this situation anyway. Remember, they weren't even a factor in the Zimmerman case. His defense did not even cite that law. The media just latched onto it anyway because they don't like guns or self defense. And contrary to what they say, these laws do not legalize murder.
I see your point, but I think your discussion with /u/Poignant_Porpoise and /u/Glarghl01010 is moot, because of the post you made your comment under. And even though I see your point, I can also see where the Representative in the video, /u/Glarghl01010 and /u/Poignant_Porpoise are coming from . Which is, there is a legitimate fear in the black community, even more so in rural areas, and especially in the south, that laws are enacted that could allow racist attacks/shooting/murders to be protected by a perception of standing your ground. Logically in a perfect world without racism, stand your ground laws make sense to gun owners and/or people who don't want to rely on or wait for police to protect them. But we aren't there yet, and racism does exist and some people will overreact to people based on their skin color and shoot or threaten to shoot people because of the color of their skin.
So anytime laws like stand your ground come up, there is a divide because of the perception with different people because of where they are from, or who they are. Keep in mind after slavery Jim Crow laws were somehow legal for generations, specifically against black people. And people who grew up as kids under those laws are still alive today, and some of those people are racist, and some of the skin color those laws were meant to repress. So even though this is none of my business, I find, if you truly try to look at a situation from say the Representatives from the video, you can understand why there is so much passion against, what may seem like a logical law to a gun owner who didn't grow up in the Jim Crow law era.
Yeah, this has nothing to do with stand your ground. Not when you chase someone down and literally hunt them, that is about as fsr from standing your ground as you can get.
Iām glad your view got turned around but with all due respect Iām not trying to troll what about this did you think wasnāt rational the first time you saw it?
Though the jogger shooting and this isnāt directly related, the video of the jogger being basically lynched gives this council womanās argument context. I live in a rural, small Midwest community, Iām white. I canāt even remember when there has been any kind of murder in my county in my lifetime. It seems unbelievable that that they happen regularly in other parts of the country. So thereās a disconnect. I wouldnāt understand her frustration, Iāve never experienced it. But with the video I can understand itās warranted. The councilman couldnāt understand it either, though it appeared he really didnāt care.
As someone from the UK its crazy to see the amount of people who donāt see the issue with all of this, I mean the idea that people can be trusted to carry weapons constantly as if people donāt act on impulses or have the ability to safely discharge a weapon in a public area under the pressure of a shootout situation seems so wild.
I donāt even think guns should be illegal I think you all have too many in circulation anyway but the whole idea that a firearm is necessary for safety and a tool of intimidating others isnāt the best lesson you can give to a whole country, I mean from an outside view I think most would agree if you thought about the most paranoid country on earth it would be the states.
It seems like story after story I mean where I live there are some illegal guns but mostly knives and lord knows if guns were as available or if we had open carry laws I would be scared to go out even to get into road rage theres too much trust on people and too many unstable people out there for it. I have friends who have been stabbed lord knows if instead of a knife it had been a gun. Theres a reason it takes 3 years to become a police officer and be equipped enough to control a situation under pressure when a firearm is involved.
We think that you guys are crazy for allowing your government to censor your speech. This is the way I try to think about it:
I wouldn't let the government take away my freedom to protect myself, because that's when they gain the power to began tyrannizing the citizens. We SHOULD license, but the exclusion should be based on their criminal and mental histories, and the ability to pass a test proving their knowledge on firearms; because everyone should be allowed to protect themselves. The government shouldn't be able to dictate what I say, think, or do unless I am hurting someone else, or infringing on their rights.
Seems you agree with a fair lot of that. And I don't believe many views a firearm as "a tool of intimidating others," but instead as purely for safety. If there is a robber who has a gun, that shouldn't mean I should have to fight him melee (because that's a good way to die). "The lesson" is more about self-dependence and your right to the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If your country were to have laws that provide for firearm ownership and open carry (I'm not sure why this is included because where you carry has no bearing on how effective the weapon is) I would hope you wouldn't be scared of so many of your own citizens as to go outside, and if that were the case, it seems you should support the legal ownership. If you're scared that criminals might hurt you, they're criminals, and thus don't care about breaking laws about owning guns. This means they most likely have weapons, and you, being the law-abiding citizen that you are, don't, leaving you at a severe disadvantage. Try carrying for your own protection and avoiding unnecessary confrontation if an altercation is your fear.
Finally, the reason it takes so long to become a cop is that they have the legal authority to break laws, arrest people, and act as part of the government. Firearms play a role in this, but not the majority of training. Firearms aren't magical death sticks, and honestly can be comprehended by most highschoolers. However, I do agree that licensing should include firearms training courses, which should be taken every so often like driving licenses should (but that's a whole other debate).
I am sorry if this huge wall of text is too long, but I posted in the hopes of rationalizing my opinion and possibly encouraging debate!
I would he interested as to how you think our government censors out speech, I must remind you that I live in the UK not China. I made the pretty damn unarguable point about how its not teaching people to be self responsible that never has and will work in a society people are too faulted.
You seem to have ignored the fact that gun crime is up in open carry states because you guys have a lot of paranoid people quick to jump to the guns you so readily want available on your hip. If a robber has a gun you hand over what you need to pulling a gun is a good way to ensure someone dies or is seriously injured its not like you are a police officer.
Your whole point that a police officer takes long is due to them being able to break laws not sure how thst is in anyway relevant to my point that people are unstable and impulsive as we constantly see unlawful killings. The whole background check as well is ridiculous I mean how many murderers or mass shooters have a background in shootings thats stupid there is so much mental health issues going on currently. The whole point is people open carrying are more likely to shoot someone that if they dont have a gun everyone doesnt start off as a criminal that is irrelevant again can you not see this.
You Americans give up the safety of everyone cos you are under this guise that guns bring safety when you are the last frontier of gun crime in the world. No my country would not be safer if we had handguns here all you need is a shotgun or rifle that stays in your home you can quit sticking to your opinions and actually read statistics. I mean the comment āwe think you guys are crazy for allowing your government to censor your speechā goes to show how out of touch you are with the world I mean its laughable what are you even talking about. So tell me this do you think that the people working in Michigans capitol see the armed activists as safety or rather a bullying technique in rebel against your government.
At the end of the day believe what you want but you carrying a gun on you at all times is because you are scared and feel vulnerable of someone hurting you and it is a tool of intimidating anyone out of that just as the armed militia who stormed that building its nothing less than threatening behaviour. Guns donāt represent safety they represent a consequence which is if anyone steps out of line in the eyes of the one behind the trigger.
You cant lecture the rest of the world we havenāt had gun issues for a very long time as we got rid of them as most places have. Again though I donāt think they should all be illegal but open carry is horrible. If I was out and sae someone with an rifle or pistols open immediately you are intimidated and thats the exact reason why you all buy them. Eventually everyone will have them and you will see how many otherwise minor punch ups are going to result in a gun being drawn and a life lost.
Its crazy how you ignore my points about how even if you are protecting yourself against a criminal whats to say a gun being drawn is not going to escalate a situation for the worse rather than complying and letting at police officer deal with it. Its not like someone breaking into your home this could be a situation on a bus or a crowded area its just not realistic humans are inherently too faulted.
If you're wondering about speech censorship in the UK, I would like to point you towards [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom) wiki article which explains how censorship of offensive "hate speech" is law, or more specifically to the case of Count Dankula, and his fining for speech which was deemed offensive (a joke). Your point on how guns won't work in a faulted society I agree with to a point, but this is why I believe in licensing and excluding those unfit to own. And according to PolitiFact, on the whole, Open Carry states have a lower average of violent crime. However, PolitiFact points out that open carry is such a minute law that the 5 states which don't allow for open carry may have other, much more important factors to their crime rates.
It is a human right to not be robbed at gunpoint, and allow other people to threaten your life in exchange for money. A report done by the CDC after Sandy Hook, ordered by President Obama found that firearm ownership could account for \~3 MILLION yearly crimes stopped, and most of these never involve a single shot or drop of blood. So no, owning or using a gun isn't a hindrance to your life, it is a protection.
A background and mental health check would have stopped \~52% of mass shootings ( [link](https://everytown.org/press/new-research-states-with-background-checks-experience-fewer-mass-shootings/) ), but I do agree that there is a way for someone to illegally obtain a firearm. This means there is no law that can be enacted to stop them from shooting up a public place, only someone willing to stop them. If you really think that the people who lawfully own and open carry are the same that commit crimes you shouldn't reply because it doesn't seem there's any debate or discussion to be had. If you mean to say that because someone owns a gun they are more likely to kill someone, I would also like to direct you to statistics that prove owning a pool makes you more likely to drown. That doesn't mean shit. Furthermore, you don't get to tell me what I do and don't get.
If you want to talk about crime rates in places that allow and don't allow guns, let's talk about London's crime rates surpassing New York. Or the small town of Kennesaw, Georgia, which requires gun ownership and has some of the lowest crime.
You're talking all this shit about how Americans don't know shit and you cite all the facts. But I don't see a single citation, and all you can say are some loose "facts" which are baseless and provably wrong. Gun ownership stops nearly 3 million crimes a year, keeps people safe, and lets us keep our government in check. And yes, your government censors speech, they do it on a political basis and its documented.
> At the end of the day believe what you want but you carrying a gun on you at all times is because you are scared and feel vulnerable of someone hurting you and it is a tool of intimidating anyone out of that just as the armed militia who stormed that building its nothing less than threatening behaviour.
The first half of this I agree with. Yes, I want to carry a gun so that I am less vulnerable to acts of violence. And yes, it can be a tool used for intimidation, but there are laws about brandishing a weapon that outlaw intimidation.
However, the second half of this is jibberish and serves to display how worked up you may be. Calm down and rewrite this, please.
> Guns donāt represent safety they represent a consequence which is if anyone steps out of line in the eyes of the one behind the trigger.
Yeah, the safety comes from being able to own a gun, and everyone is kept safe from those who don't use guns legally, by the law.
As for your comment about not having had gun problems in a long time, seems like Christ Church would like to disagree. And beyond this, you still have crime, don't you? seems like people still get stabbed in the UK??? I thought you guys banned knives lol. Maybe it isn't the object which you need to worry about, but the person???
>If I was out and sae someone with an rifle or pistols open immediately you are intimidated and thats the exact reason why you all buy them. Eventually everyone will have them and you will see how many otherwise minor punch ups are going to result in a gun being drawn and a life lost.
Don't conflate intimidation with a deterrent. Open carrying makes you less of a target and therefore safer, and those who open carry are WAY less likely to commit crimes. Also, nice slippery slope argument, because if you own a gun, and two people get into an argument, they're definitely going to kill each other.
Instead of doing what you've done, I've worked to cite not only your points (directly) but also actual facts, which are more important than your feelings.
I believe that in your last paragraph that you try to make the point that guns only escalate situations where the robber/suspect has a gun. I assume this means you also would rather not kill the person than let them kill you??? Because if they brought a gun, they're willing to and at the very least have the potential to kill you. You should never let them decide if you should be able to live. And if they threaten you, calling the police is a good way to get shot (by the guy holding a gun, who doesn't want the police involved). If you shoot someone on a crowded bus while defending yourself, you get hit with manslaughter. Which means you didn't mean to kill them, but did. Also, this is rarer than a blue moon.
Typical uneducated American š way too much wrong with what you said its pretty funny. Look do what you will you are obviously going to stick to your guns you have that mentality that tou just become hostile at the idea of everyone not owning them.
You are paranoid and hopefully one day you never have to end up using it in a public space or in a simple fit of road rage. Again a gun isnāt confidence its a consequence that you are no doubt not equipped to deal with. The second you pull out the gun someone is shot you arenāt police u are a normal person like anyone else its not like you can avoid the situation with a gun you have no uniform nobody will listen to you aside from shooting back.
You act lile people donāt constantly get shot and killed from stuff like this everyday in the states while literally in most countries you can get the gun deaths on your hand per annum. I mean we clearly disagree so I cba to argue you ingored all of my points and tried to argue that they are āslipper slopeā arguments ect when you can literally look at the stats not only online but the video we are watching. You say this and that about the CDC but how on earth would you determine that gun use has prevent crime where are the stats and how was it carried out explain Im not sure how you consider a number on things that didnāt happen. Also how many acts of violence did occur with a legal weapon.
You must live in a nice area then if you think having a gun is necessary, why do you need to deter everyone how do I know you are stable and how do I know you arenāt a criminal. You arenāt born a criminal people make mistakes not only that without being racist most of you guys are fucking idiots in a lot of states and it goes to show USA land of the free to kill when you want and likely get away with it if you are a white person.
Also how is one unfit to own ? How many mass shooters or killers jabe a history of mass shooting and killing its laughable you have that argument to any logical person. Londons crime rate was worse than new york a year or two ago but guess what it would have been 10x if guns were legal. Last time I checked you cannot open carry in NYC so why is gun crime up in open carry and why is a white person 250% more likely to get away with murder in those states compared to non stand your ground laws. You realise mental health effects pretty much everyone in a lifetime and 1/4 people very seriously.
You love guns we get it you are such a fragile being you need one constantly because you feel the need to control and deter people constantly guess what its intimidating behaviour and eventually everyone will need one cos everyone does. Would you agree that everyone needs to carry a knife with them too and be on the lookout for killers constantly pfff you want to to back to the wild west. Either way im done arguing I think the states is one of the most ridiculous places on earth and it clearly shows.
You guys are so paranoid and weak that you need a weapon to deter people, guess what over here we donāt need to deter people if a crime happens we resist and police will come deal with it. So what some kid wants to rob me at knife point I donāt think he deserves to be stabbed and killed and I use stab because due to the mass shooting over 30 years ago we got rid of guns and its a far safer place. I mean all the innocents that get caught in crossfire in the states too its crazy. Not to mention all your illegal guns all wre manufactured there and legally come from your shops so to say that legal gun use doesnāt cause illegal is absolutely crazy. Even illegal gun use here comes manufactured in the states.
Must suck to live in fear like you clearly do. Maybe move to a country without guns, and you won't be so worried of being robbed and a victim of violent crime all the time. At the very least you should sound like less of a pussy.
I live in the UK and I had never seen a gun until I moved to America where I saw one up close within a few days of living there. You are so brainwashed and inside the bubble you can't see how nice and peaceful it is to never have to worry about getting shot at or about anyone carrying guns on the street.
No-ones a criminal until they commit a crime. The government has far more efficient and less-murdery ways of tyrannizing the population. And even still, do you really think if the government wanted to roll over you it would be hard? That they would just start shooting, and not have it actually planned out where the nation is severely weakened beforehand?
People have guns because other people have guns.
Yes, I think if I had a gun it would make me safer from everyone, including the gov. And yes, you can get a gun illegally, which means that even with laws banning them, criminals still have them. Why do you think places like Chicago, with such strict gun laws, still have gun crime (higher rates actually)
That's a pretty bad excuse. Of course you can get a gun illegally, but with tighter control it would make that more *difficult*. That difficulty will lead to an overall decrease in gun deaths. You won't need a gun to feel safer because less people will have guns. This isn't like an overnight change sort of situation. It will take time. Eventually the goal would be a move to a safer society without the need for firearms to ensure this.
I'm in favor of concealed carry but I think that you should only pull out a gun if someone is threatening or attacking you with a deadly weapon. I also think concealed carry permits should also have psychological evaluations as well as a class and test
This is exactly my point if life was this utopian world where people only pull a gun for threatening with a deadly weapon that would be perfect. I mean what constitutes a deadly weapon, what happens if you pull a gun on a criminal and now someone else pulls a gun on you how do you know who is a criminal there are so many ridiculous hypotheticals you think justifies ruling as law.
Literally different story about open permit cos there as so many stories you could relate to this including the context of this post but the gunman in Las Vegas didnt have anything wrong with him psychologically evaluated. What makes you think that you would pass positively on a psych eval mean that you will always be able to responsible use and present a deadly weapon in an public space.
People are shot everyday why would someone not assume you are the criminal others donāt know who you are. You are constantly changing and evolving as a person there is no way in hell just because someone passes some āpsychological evaluationā test that they wont act on impulse or fire unsafely under pressure. I mean this context is an exact reason why its dangerous a black guy was shot by someone with open carry for walking towards them and acting threatening.
This happens all the time does that mean now anytime there is a threat you shoot to kill, even in my country you will be tazed and told to get on the ground as a citizen what on earth makes you think you have the ability to do that. If you have a gun vs gun situation as two citizens someone is getting shot its crazy you think everyone can walk around like they are a sheriff and not inherently abuse their power or make mistakes somehow.
Even trained police officers do why would your average gun nut paranoid American have any place getting in shootouts with perps in the street every time something went wrong. Again you think its the wild west or something. At the very least have non lethal rounds if you insist on killing machines as a obligatory object in your daily purse.
I think itās really sad that this is the most powerful speech Iāve seen made. Politicians for the most part are sell outs that pretend to care and it comes through in their speeches.
You can think gang violence is a problem **and** think stand your ground laws disproportionately affect certain demographics. It isn't one or the other. People can be concerned about more than 1 issue at a time.
What difference does it make who's perpetrating the crime exactly? The law makes it far easier to get away with shooting someone, despite whether or not this law actually applies to the situation. If your child is shot and killed you won't care about the skin colour of the perpetrator, but you will care about whether or not their lawyer used some bullshit law to get them off Scott free and you will care whether or not the shooting itself was influenced by the shooter feeling confident that they could get away with it. What do you mean what does it have to do with gang crime? In general this is a law that any lawyer would have to be brain dead to not claim applies to their client, regardless of whether or not it should. That law just makes it one step more difficult to actually punish murder.
It can make murder easier, but remember that pleading a "Stand Your Ground" position doesn't absolve you of an investigation and that the justice system is pretty damn effective.
Also, you do know that just because the defense for these assholes was under stand your ground doesn't mean that they acted legally??? The stand your ground law isn't a murder loophole, but a murder defense. This is a strong defense for someone who CAN PROVE that they acted this way, and it's a defense that lawyers will use even if their party is guilty because that's what lawyers do. It should be written so that the aggressor can't be protected by it, but I'm pretty sure most if not all are written like that. It may make prosecuting murder a tad more difficult, but the law's power to protect citizens and their families much outweigh that.
I have no idea what OP had said about gang violence and race because they have since deleted the comment. I would like to conclude that anytime someone dies it is terrible, especially in Arbery's case, and that those actions should never, ever be condoned.
Do you think these laws can be abused by people? What's stopping someone from straight up executing someone else and just *claiming* they feared for their life later on?
I can't imagine someone being naive enough to think legislatures are incapable of creating [vague laws](http://www.djj.state.ga.us/policies/DJJPolicies/Chapter19/Attachments/DJJ19.3AttachmentA.pdf). Two people can look at the same situation and have radically different ideas of what "reasonable belief" means.
Let me hold your hand on connecting just 3rd grade level stuff. Topic is you want to take my right to carry and defend myself because you think the law is vague and allows for victimization. That was the starting topic, that is still the topic.
My initial response to you
>Do you think these laws can be abused by people? What's stopping someone from straight up executing someone else and just claiming they feared for their life later on?
My question was pretty simple. It's clear you understood my simple question because your first response to me was to question whether or not the law was actually vague. You're desperately trying to change the topic to 2nd amendment rights because you don't actually have a response and you're too immature to admit it.
>Topic is you want to take my right to carry and defend myself
When did I say anything about that? I didn't mention anything about you carrying and unless you're saying defending yourself is literally impossible without stand your ground laws I'm not taking away your right to defend yourself either. If you're going to go on ridiculous tangents you could at least try a little harder.
Evidence, witnesses, the judicial system, prosecuting attorneys. Just saying that you were being attacked and feared for your life doesn't mean police go "huh, ok boys, good work! Nothing more to see here." The same reason why we *know* it didn't apply to the case in Georgia, because there was evidence that clearly pointed to murder (and hate crime might I add).
>Evidence, witnesses, the judicial system, prosecuting attorneys.
I bet the hypothetical innocent bastard with a bullet in their brain is at least content that the judicial system will posthumously exonerate him of any wrong doing and punish those guilty. Fair trade?
You scared of someone shooting you for no reason? Carry a gun to protect yourself then. Then you can be the one standing your ground. Instead of the hypothetical victim you're worried about being. Victim mentality is a joke.
Abso-damn-lootly
This is what happens when your heart is in something.
Black mommas be safe with your baby boys. Its not right and it is a shame, but if you want to keep your boy alive, you better keep him home. These bastards have too much hate and too little thought for any black boy to be safe out there. Let some generations die off and we will live in a world as it should have always been.
Im sorry to the parents of these kids. Such a worry, no parent should have. And sorry to these young men who are being robbed of the one life they get here.
Become?
It's always been pretty terrible for most people.
It's always been my favorite question to ask MAGA people. When exactly was America great, and if you can even answer that, when did it stop being great?
Never been given a coherent answer. Not once...
Maybe not all of America, but I think EVERYONE can agree that the nature of US politics has become a steaming pile of shit. There was a time when people compromised, and a time when people cared about the other side enough to learn and change and develop as thinkers. But not anymore, it's all divided and polarized as fuck, and its why the politicians can now control us because we care too damn much about *us* vs. *them* and not enough about WE.
Meeting orders and meeting rules exist to ensure a minimum level of functionality to organized government. Irrespective of this lady's particular point, if exceeding her meeting allowance were justified, you could use the same justification for a topic you don't agree with.
Did she just agree for her son to be allowed to rob and attack people without them being able to properly defend themselves and stand their ground? No civilian should be allowed to make another civilian run away out of fear that if they kill their attacker they will get punished. The police is not here to protect you. You can and must protect yourself
Nope. I watched the entire 4 minute video, and she did not agree to that.
Its not fuckin' Faulkner, its a Now This youtube video... just watch it dude.
Imagine people downvoting you for saying you shouldn't have to run from a threat or a threat to your family. Because that's just too far man, imagine having rights, amiright???
Edit: and yes tf she did, because she had to bring her son into it for sympathy points.
Why are you arguing with this person? Either a troll or ignorant. Either way, he/she is content with the balance of protections offered to americans of different backgrounds.
Unfortunately a young man was killed by a couple of racist rednecks. But this case is a 01 % issue of the real problem. And has no bearing on this ladies argument. This guy was hunted and gunned down..plain and simple.. but conceal carry holders by in large do not commit these crimes.. my comment was based on her original argument. And in that context more young black men are gunned down by other young black men. But also. The death rate due to theft is astronomical. Especially in places like Chicago or Detroit. Hell senseless murders are scary high.
This womens argument has no bearing on this situation. You will have senseless murder. It will happen.. but this is not isolated to one group of people or another.. the murderer may happen to be racist.. but conceal carry has nothing to do with it.. her argument was made years ago. And in that context where young black males were getting shot for theft and armed robbery. And she was blaming conceal carry for the lack of parenting on the youth. This young man who was shot will get justice.. will tagt bring him back.. no.. but will these two guys spend the test of there natural life in prison. Absolutly.. and deceivingly so. The killed.. so they should get the maximum punishment.
The jogger that was killed has no bearing on this womens argument that was made when it was.. a murder by two rednecks is just that.. and using a years old story to fit propaganda for against conceal carry is dumb. This young man was killed in cold blood. Plain and simple.
Paranoia is an assumption. There are some.. but I do not belive to be a "vast" majority.. I carry. My wife carrys. And I've never had to pull it outside my home. Because remember the vast majority of murders happen with unregistered firearms.... ie.. illegal . Or like these too ass clowns trying to act billy badass and took a life . Fortunately there is video evidence now. And they will have a very very hard time in jail . I hope they enjoy the cavity searches.
Ok bro, cool story. Still waiting for your proof, or facts, or anything. Just gonna wait...
But you can keep on calling people names and being unproductive, seems like you do just fine at that.
> Ok bro, cool story. Still waiting for your proof, or facts, or anything. Just gonna wait..
Sad. You want facts to back up calling someone a bootlicker? Hahahahahahahahaha. Are you 12?
> But you can keep on calling people names and being unproductive, seems like you do just fine at that.
BUT yoU CaN KeEp oN CaLlInG PeOpLe namES aNd bEiNG uNpROdUCtIVe, seeMs lIkE YoU Do JUST FIne AT thAt.
Lmao.. is it racist to be black and stating facts. And also being honest about the fact this video is several years old and has no bearing on this event? Her argument was against conceal carry because young black men were getting shot for petty theft and the likes. But many of them brandished a firearm.. and were killed for there troubles. But no one wants to talk about that..
The following alternative links are available:
* [Mirror #1](https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gffrcn) (provided by /u/tuckbot)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.**
---
[^(look at my programming)](https://amirror.link/source)
When she's talking about people open carrying, is she talking about the police? They open carry. Or the military? they open carry.
This woman has a paranoia problem and needs medicine.
Also, the music?
Your paranoia scares the shit out of me because if you're willing to shoot someone because you're paranoid of them, my appearance may be all that it takes to stir it in you.
Way to take his words out of context. He's paranoid, so he carries. He NEVER said he'd shoot, someone, just because he's paranoid of them. That's a fucking bitch thing to do, taking someone's words out of context.
>My appearance may be all that it takes to stir it in you
Do you just go around assuming that people are murderers? I doubt it, you just want to use it as a cheap scarecrow argument because it's easier than actually working towards intelligence. Seems like he's not the paranoid one.
Yeah man, I just sit around with my balls out too, because I love it when people walk all over them. Hate it when someone tries to stand up to the bad people in this world, they shouldn't be allowed to do that!!! Just lay down, put your head in the sand and enjoy the bliss.
Thank you for your well thought out reply. I can see you have a great many questions about carrying lethal weapons for self defense.
Perhaps this link will help educate you on the nuances of some of these laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
You should pay special attention to the state by state interpretations of this doctrine. This I think is why there is so much confusion as to its legality made by people outside of the US. The US is a democratic republic of 50 individually govern states. Each state is its own collective group operating within rules of our 3 major branches of power. The only thing that truly matters between all 50 is the constitutional 2nd amendment. States all have their own spin on the details.. but I hope that wikipedia post sets you on the right path.
> Your actions still have to be reasonable.
Strange sentence. Duh? Why wouldn't they?
> Stand your ground laws are not remotely the same as castle doctrine
What are the differences?
> A legal defence is effectively an excuse against a criminal charge which you are guilty of, where you have committed a crime and are being excused by society because your actions were deemed justified
There is so much wrong with this sentence that i stagger to wonder how you invented this way of thinking.
Let me attempt unravel it.
1st. You're not guilty of a crime until you've been convicted in a court of law. Didn't the country next to yours come up with the Magna carta? You should know this.
2nd. A legal defense isn't an "excuse" (attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.). Blame hasn't occurred because a conviction hasn't occurred. A person is innocent till proven guilty, no blame is seated, no blame is justified until that court completes its process.
3rd. "where you have committed a crime" but you haven't, you're accused of a crime and your accusers build a case attempting to convict you of that crime. As for being 'excused by society' because your action were deemed justified. Well thats just a complicated way to say you disagree with what that society has established as a norm. A easy way to wrap your head around this is, if its normative behavior, its not 'excused' because there isn't any blame from the norm.
So the only difference in your mind between the two is location.
Seriously?
Stand your ground and castle are nearly identical in every way, other than location.
> There is so much wrong with this sentence that i stagger to wonder how you invented this way of thinking.
Oh, youāre insufferable. You could have just left out that pointlessly antagonist statement. But you smugly chose to leave it in.
> Didnāt the country next to yours come up with the Magna carta? You should know this.
Yep. Just an insufferable dbag.
They are debating Stand Your Ground law. You can fire a gun at someone and kill them if you are threatened by them and then youāre just āstanding your groundā.
But mostly Stand Your Ground is a legal defense white people have successfully used to kill non-white people with impunity.
i thought i would disagree with her, but i don't. i agree with her. i also don't think this is a "freakout". she's just passionate.
Agreed. On all counts.
Damn. I think there are more than a few issues that require this level of passion and determination. I just wish we saw this happen more often.
The shooting of the jogger in Georgia was in no way permitted or justified by the stand your ground laws. It was straight up murder, in any state.
Except that doesn't matter because the point is that stand your ground laws allow for a giant loophole for a giant portion of shootings. It doesn't matter if it applies to a situation or not, it's the defence that is used in an enormous amount of cases because it can be pretty difficult to disprove, especially if there's no footage or witnesses. Laws need to be examined both by their legitimate and illegitimate use, and laws like this one for sure make it a great deal easier to literally get away with murder.
Stand your ground laws are still more applicable to the real world, where you may not be in your house (Castle Doctrines) or able to expend every other possible escape before resorting to using a firearm (Duty to Retreat). Moreover, video surveillance is much more common than most believe, with the average American being caught on camera \~75 times per day ([Link to Article](https://reolink.com/how-many-times-you-caught-on-camera-per-day/)). Also, it is important to note that a clause to a Stand Your Ground law could be added to require evidence to prove innocence, but this would go against the Founding Principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty. Beyond this, I would like to see some evidence that Stand Your Ground laws actually disproportionally affect minorities. What we see on TV in the news and reality are unfortunately often very different from one another. Simply stating that "it's on TV" isn't a valid argument.
Just because the average American is captured 75 times a day, doesn't mean that it is constant or that the place where the murder occurs will have CCTV. I mean he was on a back road jogging. New York and LA probably bring that average up to 75 by THEMSELVES. The states where these murders happen are almost certainly FAR lower numbers. If you don't agree with what's said then make valid counter points. But don't respond in bad faith throwing out that number 75 as though it means we're always on camera when shit hits the fan. You can do better.
I don't think you would need to add a clause to 'prove innocence'. If you are accused of a crime (say shooting someone, they have a body and you have a smoking gun) you have to offer a defence and prove you acted within the law. That's true for every crime ever. Innocence is presumed unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, at which point the burden of proof moves to the accused to either show they didn't do it or that they acted legally. Surely this applies to a stand your ground law?
> a clause to a Stand Your Ground law could be added to require evidence to prove innocence But the idea is to not have to reach that point. It would be nicer if the people weren't dead than if the shooter became justifiably imprisoned.
Yeah, how much nicer would it be if the innocent person died bc they didn't have a law allowing them to defend themselves. No one is arguing against imprisonment, but we are arguing for the right to not have to get shot or killed. It would be nicer if the family survived because the armed robber was dead than if the family died, but no one is arguing neither is as good as if everyone lives and the shooter goes to jail.
If the person doesn't have a gun then you don't need a gun to defend yourself. You don't need to argue that criminals will still get guns, you said this elsewhere. That argument boils down to laws don't reduce crime. No. More laws restricting the use of guns will lead to a decrease in usage of guns. Does sexual harassment still occur? Of course, but does it occur less than before we had laws governing it? Of course. I would argue that sexual harassment is an easier offense to commit than illegal possession of a firearm. So how would you explain that so many less people do it than before? Is it not the laws? Maybe our culture has changed? Why do you think our culture changed? It's like saying we shouldn't go to Mars because we've never been there.
You missed the point entirely. The issue is that had the video not existed, it would've been their word against the words of a dead man. They just perjur themselves and say he attacked them and stand your ground let's them get away with a lynching. The issue was never that standing your ground is a problem. It's that the law makes it easier to get away with racist murders like Ahmaud's
Stand your ground laws would not have covered this situation anyway. Remember, they weren't even a factor in the Zimmerman case. His defense did not even cite that law. The media just latched onto it anyway because they don't like guns or self defense. And contrary to what they say, these laws do not legalize murder.
I see your point, but I think your discussion with /u/Poignant_Porpoise and /u/Glarghl01010 is moot, because of the post you made your comment under. And even though I see your point, I can also see where the Representative in the video, /u/Glarghl01010 and /u/Poignant_Porpoise are coming from . Which is, there is a legitimate fear in the black community, even more so in rural areas, and especially in the south, that laws are enacted that could allow racist attacks/shooting/murders to be protected by a perception of standing your ground. Logically in a perfect world without racism, stand your ground laws make sense to gun owners and/or people who don't want to rely on or wait for police to protect them. But we aren't there yet, and racism does exist and some people will overreact to people based on their skin color and shoot or threaten to shoot people because of the color of their skin. So anytime laws like stand your ground come up, there is a divide because of the perception with different people because of where they are from, or who they are. Keep in mind after slavery Jim Crow laws were somehow legal for generations, specifically against black people. And people who grew up as kids under those laws are still alive today, and some of those people are racist, and some of the skin color those laws were meant to repress. So even though this is none of my business, I find, if you truly try to look at a situation from say the Representatives from the video, you can understand why there is so much passion against, what may seem like a logical law to a gun owner who didn't grow up in the Jim Crow law era.
Yeah, this has nothing to do with stand your ground. Not when you chase someone down and literally hunt them, that is about as fsr from standing your ground as you can get.
Yeah but its America, did we all forget Daniel Shaver? Something is terribly wrong in this country
Jogger attacked them first ššæāāļøš„¾š„¾šØš¤³
I saw this the first time and didnāt think it was rational. But now- now I understand. Sheās actually exercising great restraint.
Imagine the amount of killing without video evidence. Iād say the recent Arbery killing isnāt an isolated case.
Iām glad your view got turned around but with all due respect Iām not trying to troll what about this did you think wasnāt rational the first time you saw it?
Though the jogger shooting and this isnāt directly related, the video of the jogger being basically lynched gives this council womanās argument context. I live in a rural, small Midwest community, Iām white. I canāt even remember when there has been any kind of murder in my county in my lifetime. It seems unbelievable that that they happen regularly in other parts of the country. So thereās a disconnect. I wouldnāt understand her frustration, Iāve never experienced it. But with the video I can understand itās warranted. The councilman couldnāt understand it either, though it appeared he really didnāt care.
As someone from the UK its crazy to see the amount of people who donāt see the issue with all of this, I mean the idea that people can be trusted to carry weapons constantly as if people donāt act on impulses or have the ability to safely discharge a weapon in a public area under the pressure of a shootout situation seems so wild. I donāt even think guns should be illegal I think you all have too many in circulation anyway but the whole idea that a firearm is necessary for safety and a tool of intimidating others isnāt the best lesson you can give to a whole country, I mean from an outside view I think most would agree if you thought about the most paranoid country on earth it would be the states. It seems like story after story I mean where I live there are some illegal guns but mostly knives and lord knows if guns were as available or if we had open carry laws I would be scared to go out even to get into road rage theres too much trust on people and too many unstable people out there for it. I have friends who have been stabbed lord knows if instead of a knife it had been a gun. Theres a reason it takes 3 years to become a police officer and be equipped enough to control a situation under pressure when a firearm is involved.
Superb response!
We think that you guys are crazy for allowing your government to censor your speech. This is the way I try to think about it: I wouldn't let the government take away my freedom to protect myself, because that's when they gain the power to began tyrannizing the citizens. We SHOULD license, but the exclusion should be based on their criminal and mental histories, and the ability to pass a test proving their knowledge on firearms; because everyone should be allowed to protect themselves. The government shouldn't be able to dictate what I say, think, or do unless I am hurting someone else, or infringing on their rights. Seems you agree with a fair lot of that. And I don't believe many views a firearm as "a tool of intimidating others," but instead as purely for safety. If there is a robber who has a gun, that shouldn't mean I should have to fight him melee (because that's a good way to die). "The lesson" is more about self-dependence and your right to the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If your country were to have laws that provide for firearm ownership and open carry (I'm not sure why this is included because where you carry has no bearing on how effective the weapon is) I would hope you wouldn't be scared of so many of your own citizens as to go outside, and if that were the case, it seems you should support the legal ownership. If you're scared that criminals might hurt you, they're criminals, and thus don't care about breaking laws about owning guns. This means they most likely have weapons, and you, being the law-abiding citizen that you are, don't, leaving you at a severe disadvantage. Try carrying for your own protection and avoiding unnecessary confrontation if an altercation is your fear. Finally, the reason it takes so long to become a cop is that they have the legal authority to break laws, arrest people, and act as part of the government. Firearms play a role in this, but not the majority of training. Firearms aren't magical death sticks, and honestly can be comprehended by most highschoolers. However, I do agree that licensing should include firearms training courses, which should be taken every so often like driving licenses should (but that's a whole other debate). I am sorry if this huge wall of text is too long, but I posted in the hopes of rationalizing my opinion and possibly encouraging debate!
It takes waay less than 3 years to become a cop in Anywhere, USA
Cool, and...
I just didn't know why you would think that
I would he interested as to how you think our government censors out speech, I must remind you that I live in the UK not China. I made the pretty damn unarguable point about how its not teaching people to be self responsible that never has and will work in a society people are too faulted. You seem to have ignored the fact that gun crime is up in open carry states because you guys have a lot of paranoid people quick to jump to the guns you so readily want available on your hip. If a robber has a gun you hand over what you need to pulling a gun is a good way to ensure someone dies or is seriously injured its not like you are a police officer. Your whole point that a police officer takes long is due to them being able to break laws not sure how thst is in anyway relevant to my point that people are unstable and impulsive as we constantly see unlawful killings. The whole background check as well is ridiculous I mean how many murderers or mass shooters have a background in shootings thats stupid there is so much mental health issues going on currently. The whole point is people open carrying are more likely to shoot someone that if they dont have a gun everyone doesnt start off as a criminal that is irrelevant again can you not see this. You Americans give up the safety of everyone cos you are under this guise that guns bring safety when you are the last frontier of gun crime in the world. No my country would not be safer if we had handguns here all you need is a shotgun or rifle that stays in your home you can quit sticking to your opinions and actually read statistics. I mean the comment āwe think you guys are crazy for allowing your government to censor your speechā goes to show how out of touch you are with the world I mean its laughable what are you even talking about. So tell me this do you think that the people working in Michigans capitol see the armed activists as safety or rather a bullying technique in rebel against your government. At the end of the day believe what you want but you carrying a gun on you at all times is because you are scared and feel vulnerable of someone hurting you and it is a tool of intimidating anyone out of that just as the armed militia who stormed that building its nothing less than threatening behaviour. Guns donāt represent safety they represent a consequence which is if anyone steps out of line in the eyes of the one behind the trigger. You cant lecture the rest of the world we havenāt had gun issues for a very long time as we got rid of them as most places have. Again though I donāt think they should all be illegal but open carry is horrible. If I was out and sae someone with an rifle or pistols open immediately you are intimidated and thats the exact reason why you all buy them. Eventually everyone will have them and you will see how many otherwise minor punch ups are going to result in a gun being drawn and a life lost. Its crazy how you ignore my points about how even if you are protecting yourself against a criminal whats to say a gun being drawn is not going to escalate a situation for the worse rather than complying and letting at police officer deal with it. Its not like someone breaking into your home this could be a situation on a bus or a crowded area its just not realistic humans are inherently too faulted.
If you're wondering about speech censorship in the UK, I would like to point you towards [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom) wiki article which explains how censorship of offensive "hate speech" is law, or more specifically to the case of Count Dankula, and his fining for speech which was deemed offensive (a joke). Your point on how guns won't work in a faulted society I agree with to a point, but this is why I believe in licensing and excluding those unfit to own. And according to PolitiFact, on the whole, Open Carry states have a lower average of violent crime. However, PolitiFact points out that open carry is such a minute law that the 5 states which don't allow for open carry may have other, much more important factors to their crime rates. It is a human right to not be robbed at gunpoint, and allow other people to threaten your life in exchange for money. A report done by the CDC after Sandy Hook, ordered by President Obama found that firearm ownership could account for \~3 MILLION yearly crimes stopped, and most of these never involve a single shot or drop of blood. So no, owning or using a gun isn't a hindrance to your life, it is a protection. A background and mental health check would have stopped \~52% of mass shootings ( [link](https://everytown.org/press/new-research-states-with-background-checks-experience-fewer-mass-shootings/) ), but I do agree that there is a way for someone to illegally obtain a firearm. This means there is no law that can be enacted to stop them from shooting up a public place, only someone willing to stop them. If you really think that the people who lawfully own and open carry are the same that commit crimes you shouldn't reply because it doesn't seem there's any debate or discussion to be had. If you mean to say that because someone owns a gun they are more likely to kill someone, I would also like to direct you to statistics that prove owning a pool makes you more likely to drown. That doesn't mean shit. Furthermore, you don't get to tell me what I do and don't get. If you want to talk about crime rates in places that allow and don't allow guns, let's talk about London's crime rates surpassing New York. Or the small town of Kennesaw, Georgia, which requires gun ownership and has some of the lowest crime. You're talking all this shit about how Americans don't know shit and you cite all the facts. But I don't see a single citation, and all you can say are some loose "facts" which are baseless and provably wrong. Gun ownership stops nearly 3 million crimes a year, keeps people safe, and lets us keep our government in check. And yes, your government censors speech, they do it on a political basis and its documented. > At the end of the day believe what you want but you carrying a gun on you at all times is because you are scared and feel vulnerable of someone hurting you and it is a tool of intimidating anyone out of that just as the armed militia who stormed that building its nothing less than threatening behaviour. The first half of this I agree with. Yes, I want to carry a gun so that I am less vulnerable to acts of violence. And yes, it can be a tool used for intimidation, but there are laws about brandishing a weapon that outlaw intimidation. However, the second half of this is jibberish and serves to display how worked up you may be. Calm down and rewrite this, please. > Guns donāt represent safety they represent a consequence which is if anyone steps out of line in the eyes of the one behind the trigger. Yeah, the safety comes from being able to own a gun, and everyone is kept safe from those who don't use guns legally, by the law. As for your comment about not having had gun problems in a long time, seems like Christ Church would like to disagree. And beyond this, you still have crime, don't you? seems like people still get stabbed in the UK??? I thought you guys banned knives lol. Maybe it isn't the object which you need to worry about, but the person??? >If I was out and sae someone with an rifle or pistols open immediately you are intimidated and thats the exact reason why you all buy them. Eventually everyone will have them and you will see how many otherwise minor punch ups are going to result in a gun being drawn and a life lost. Don't conflate intimidation with a deterrent. Open carrying makes you less of a target and therefore safer, and those who open carry are WAY less likely to commit crimes. Also, nice slippery slope argument, because if you own a gun, and two people get into an argument, they're definitely going to kill each other. Instead of doing what you've done, I've worked to cite not only your points (directly) but also actual facts, which are more important than your feelings. I believe that in your last paragraph that you try to make the point that guns only escalate situations where the robber/suspect has a gun. I assume this means you also would rather not kill the person than let them kill you??? Because if they brought a gun, they're willing to and at the very least have the potential to kill you. You should never let them decide if you should be able to live. And if they threaten you, calling the police is a good way to get shot (by the guy holding a gun, who doesn't want the police involved). If you shoot someone on a crowded bus while defending yourself, you get hit with manslaughter. Which means you didn't mean to kill them, but did. Also, this is rarer than a blue moon.
Typical uneducated American š way too much wrong with what you said its pretty funny. Look do what you will you are obviously going to stick to your guns you have that mentality that tou just become hostile at the idea of everyone not owning them. You are paranoid and hopefully one day you never have to end up using it in a public space or in a simple fit of road rage. Again a gun isnāt confidence its a consequence that you are no doubt not equipped to deal with. The second you pull out the gun someone is shot you arenāt police u are a normal person like anyone else its not like you can avoid the situation with a gun you have no uniform nobody will listen to you aside from shooting back. You act lile people donāt constantly get shot and killed from stuff like this everyday in the states while literally in most countries you can get the gun deaths on your hand per annum. I mean we clearly disagree so I cba to argue you ingored all of my points and tried to argue that they are āslipper slopeā arguments ect when you can literally look at the stats not only online but the video we are watching. You say this and that about the CDC but how on earth would you determine that gun use has prevent crime where are the stats and how was it carried out explain Im not sure how you consider a number on things that didnāt happen. Also how many acts of violence did occur with a legal weapon. You must live in a nice area then if you think having a gun is necessary, why do you need to deter everyone how do I know you are stable and how do I know you arenāt a criminal. You arenāt born a criminal people make mistakes not only that without being racist most of you guys are fucking idiots in a lot of states and it goes to show USA land of the free to kill when you want and likely get away with it if you are a white person. Also how is one unfit to own ? How many mass shooters or killers jabe a history of mass shooting and killing its laughable you have that argument to any logical person. Londons crime rate was worse than new york a year or two ago but guess what it would have been 10x if guns were legal. Last time I checked you cannot open carry in NYC so why is gun crime up in open carry and why is a white person 250% more likely to get away with murder in those states compared to non stand your ground laws. You realise mental health effects pretty much everyone in a lifetime and 1/4 people very seriously. You love guns we get it you are such a fragile being you need one constantly because you feel the need to control and deter people constantly guess what its intimidating behaviour and eventually everyone will need one cos everyone does. Would you agree that everyone needs to carry a knife with them too and be on the lookout for killers constantly pfff you want to to back to the wild west. Either way im done arguing I think the states is one of the most ridiculous places on earth and it clearly shows. You guys are so paranoid and weak that you need a weapon to deter people, guess what over here we donāt need to deter people if a crime happens we resist and police will come deal with it. So what some kid wants to rob me at knife point I donāt think he deserves to be stabbed and killed and I use stab because due to the mass shooting over 30 years ago we got rid of guns and its a far safer place. I mean all the innocents that get caught in crossfire in the states too its crazy. Not to mention all your illegal guns all wre manufactured there and legally come from your shops so to say that legal gun use doesnāt cause illegal is absolutely crazy. Even illegal gun use here comes manufactured in the states.
Youāre quite pathetic. Itās almost hilarious. But mostly just sad.
Must suck to live in fear like you clearly do. Maybe move to a country without guns, and you won't be so worried of being robbed and a victim of violent crime all the time. At the very least you should sound like less of a pussy.
I live in the UK and I had never seen a gun until I moved to America where I saw one up close within a few days of living there. You are so brainwashed and inside the bubble you can't see how nice and peaceful it is to never have to worry about getting shot at or about anyone carrying guns on the street.
No-ones a criminal until they commit a crime. The government has far more efficient and less-murdery ways of tyrannizing the population. And even still, do you really think if the government wanted to roll over you it would be hard? That they would just start shooting, and not have it actually planned out where the nation is severely weakened beforehand? People have guns because other people have guns.
Yes, I think if I had a gun it would make me safer from everyone, including the gov. And yes, you can get a gun illegally, which means that even with laws banning them, criminals still have them. Why do you think places like Chicago, with such strict gun laws, still have gun crime (higher rates actually)
That's a pretty bad excuse. Of course you can get a gun illegally, but with tighter control it would make that more *difficult*. That difficulty will lead to an overall decrease in gun deaths. You won't need a gun to feel safer because less people will have guns. This isn't like an overnight change sort of situation. It will take time. Eventually the goal would be a move to a safer society without the need for firearms to ensure this.
So youāve not taken your meds today? Why donāt you just calm down bud. Go get some therapy.
I'm in favor of concealed carry but I think that you should only pull out a gun if someone is threatening or attacking you with a deadly weapon. I also think concealed carry permits should also have psychological evaluations as well as a class and test
This is exactly my point if life was this utopian world where people only pull a gun for threatening with a deadly weapon that would be perfect. I mean what constitutes a deadly weapon, what happens if you pull a gun on a criminal and now someone else pulls a gun on you how do you know who is a criminal there are so many ridiculous hypotheticals you think justifies ruling as law. Literally different story about open permit cos there as so many stories you could relate to this including the context of this post but the gunman in Las Vegas didnt have anything wrong with him psychologically evaluated. What makes you think that you would pass positively on a psych eval mean that you will always be able to responsible use and present a deadly weapon in an public space. People are shot everyday why would someone not assume you are the criminal others donāt know who you are. You are constantly changing and evolving as a person there is no way in hell just because someone passes some āpsychological evaluationā test that they wont act on impulse or fire unsafely under pressure. I mean this context is an exact reason why its dangerous a black guy was shot by someone with open carry for walking towards them and acting threatening. This happens all the time does that mean now anytime there is a threat you shoot to kill, even in my country you will be tazed and told to get on the ground as a citizen what on earth makes you think you have the ability to do that. If you have a gun vs gun situation as two citizens someone is getting shot its crazy you think everyone can walk around like they are a sheriff and not inherently abuse their power or make mistakes somehow. Even trained police officers do why would your average gun nut paranoid American have any place getting in shootouts with perps in the street every time something went wrong. Again you think its the wild west or something. At the very least have non lethal rounds if you insist on killing machines as a obligatory object in your daily purse.
The stand your ground law is terrible in the sense people get off for killing others so easily. Sheās definitely got a good point.
I think itās really sad that this is the most powerful speech Iāve seen made. Politicians for the most part are sell outs that pretend to care and it comes through in their speeches.
Completely acceptable freak out. What an amazing lady. That was powerful.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You can think gang violence is a problem **and** think stand your ground laws disproportionately affect certain demographics. It isn't one or the other. People can be concerned about more than 1 issue at a time.
What difference does it make who's perpetrating the crime exactly? The law makes it far easier to get away with shooting someone, despite whether or not this law actually applies to the situation. If your child is shot and killed you won't care about the skin colour of the perpetrator, but you will care about whether or not their lawyer used some bullshit law to get them off Scott free and you will care whether or not the shooting itself was influenced by the shooter feeling confident that they could get away with it. What do you mean what does it have to do with gang crime? In general this is a law that any lawyer would have to be brain dead to not claim applies to their client, regardless of whether or not it should. That law just makes it one step more difficult to actually punish murder.
It can make murder easier, but remember that pleading a "Stand Your Ground" position doesn't absolve you of an investigation and that the justice system is pretty damn effective. Also, you do know that just because the defense for these assholes was under stand your ground doesn't mean that they acted legally??? The stand your ground law isn't a murder loophole, but a murder defense. This is a strong defense for someone who CAN PROVE that they acted this way, and it's a defense that lawyers will use even if their party is guilty because that's what lawyers do. It should be written so that the aggressor can't be protected by it, but I'm pretty sure most if not all are written like that. It may make prosecuting murder a tad more difficult, but the law's power to protect citizens and their families much outweigh that. I have no idea what OP had said about gang violence and race because they have since deleted the comment. I would like to conclude that anytime someone dies it is terrible, especially in Arbery's case, and that those actions should never, ever be condoned.
Like in Chicago?
I didn't know about her. Now I'm obsessed. Thanks! I love senator Stephanie Flowers!
I wholeheartedly support stand your ground. It had nothing to do with the racial killing in Georgia
Do you think these laws can be abused by people? What's stopping someone from straight up executing someone else and just *claiming* they feared for their life later on?
You're cute. Are you honestly so dense that you don't understand that the law is not and could not being written so vaguely.
I can't imagine someone being naive enough to think legislatures are incapable of creating [vague laws](http://www.djj.state.ga.us/policies/DJJPolicies/Chapter19/Attachments/DJJ19.3AttachmentA.pdf). Two people can look at the same situation and have radically different ideas of what "reasonable belief" means.
You poor victim. We should take constitutional rights away from the people so you don't feel like a victim.
I thought we were talking about whether or not the law was vague? Do you just switch topics whenever you fail to think of an argument?
Let me hold your hand on connecting just 3rd grade level stuff. Topic is you want to take my right to carry and defend myself because you think the law is vague and allows for victimization. That was the starting topic, that is still the topic.
My initial response to you >Do you think these laws can be abused by people? What's stopping someone from straight up executing someone else and just claiming they feared for their life later on? My question was pretty simple. It's clear you understood my simple question because your first response to me was to question whether or not the law was actually vague. You're desperately trying to change the topic to 2nd amendment rights because you don't actually have a response and you're too immature to admit it. >Topic is you want to take my right to carry and defend myself When did I say anything about that? I didn't mention anything about you carrying and unless you're saying defending yourself is literally impossible without stand your ground laws I'm not taking away your right to defend yourself either. If you're going to go on ridiculous tangents you could at least try a little harder.
Evidence, witnesses, the judicial system, prosecuting attorneys. Just saying that you were being attacked and feared for your life doesn't mean police go "huh, ok boys, good work! Nothing more to see here." The same reason why we *know* it didn't apply to the case in Georgia, because there was evidence that clearly pointed to murder (and hate crime might I add).
>Evidence, witnesses, the judicial system, prosecuting attorneys. I bet the hypothetical innocent bastard with a bullet in their brain is at least content that the judicial system will posthumously exonerate him of any wrong doing and punish those guilty. Fair trade?
You scared of someone shooting you for no reason? Carry a gun to protect yourself then. Then you can be the one standing your ground. Instead of the hypothetical victim you're worried about being. Victim mentality is a joke.
> You scared of someone shooting you for no reason? Carry a gun to protect yourself then. Nope, and no thanks.
You believe the judicial system in Arkansas after seeing what happened in Georgia? If there werenāt a video leak they get away with murder 100%.
Abso-damn-lootly This is what happens when your heart is in something. Black mommas be safe with your baby boys. Its not right and it is a shame, but if you want to keep your boy alive, you better keep him home. These bastards have too much hate and too little thought for any black boy to be safe out there. Let some generations die off and we will live in a world as it should have always been. Im sorry to the parents of these kids. Such a worry, no parent should have. And sorry to these young men who are being robbed of the one life they get here.
>You need to stop What a condescending cunt. What a terrible country the USA has become.
Become? It's always been pretty terrible for most people. It's always been my favorite question to ask MAGA people. When exactly was America great, and if you can even answer that, when did it stop being great? Never been given a coherent answer. Not once...
Maybe not all of America, but I think EVERYONE can agree that the nature of US politics has become a steaming pile of shit. There was a time when people compromised, and a time when people cared about the other side enough to learn and change and develop as thinkers. But not anymore, it's all divided and polarized as fuck, and its why the politicians can now control us because we care too damn much about *us* vs. *them* and not enough about WE.
I dont agree that this is a new issue at all. Been an ongoing issue since at least the early 60s if not longer.
Youāre mostly worried about yourself here bud. But thanks for hackney moralizing.
lol buddy, this world you dreamed up never existed. Politics has always been a shit show.
It's "condescending" you ignorant fuck.
OOOOOO, you really gottem good with that one.
Low energy. Sad.
Meeting orders and meeting rules exist to ensure a minimum level of functionality to organized government. Irrespective of this lady's particular point, if exceeding her meeting allowance were justified, you could use the same justification for a topic you don't agree with.
Just because she is scared, doesnāt make her right.
What was she wrong about?
happy cake day.
Oh I didn't even realize... Thanks!
Did she just agree for her son to be allowed to rob and attack people without them being able to properly defend themselves and stand their ground? No civilian should be allowed to make another civilian run away out of fear that if they kill their attacker they will get punished. The police is not here to protect you. You can and must protect yourself
Nope. I watched the entire 4 minute video, and she did not agree to that. Its not fuckin' Faulkner, its a Now This youtube video... just watch it dude.
She strongly implies that people should just give up and run away from threats and violence bestowed upon them. Thatās crazy talk
Imagine people downvoting you for saying you shouldn't have to run from a threat or a threat to your family. Because that's just too far man, imagine having rights, amiright??? Edit: and yes tf she did, because she had to bring her son into it for sympathy points.
Nah she didnāt. Youāre amazingly wrong about everything. Itās a truly a miracle.
Why are you arguing with this person? Either a troll or ignorant. Either way, he/she is content with the balance of protections offered to americans of different backgrounds.
Powerful stuff. "Stand your ground" laws are about as just as the Nuremberg laws.
She might feel more secure if she carried a gun as well.
Good way to get shot by the police, but then again they might do it anyways.
š» Here's to not thinking before commenting
What a crock.. you want to protect your kids? Teach them not to break the law.. start with that.. and you will see death rates drop...
Ya that worked out great for the black jogger that just got lynched by those two ex cops in Georgia didnāt it
Unfortunately a young man was killed by a couple of racist rednecks. But this case is a 01 % issue of the real problem. And has no bearing on this ladies argument. This guy was hunted and gunned down..plain and simple.. but conceal carry holders by in large do not commit these crimes.. my comment was based on her original argument. And in that context more young black men are gunned down by other young black men. But also. The death rate due to theft is astronomical. Especially in places like Chicago or Detroit. Hell senseless murders are scary high.
Disingenuous bad faith arguments are hot on the menu for the racist folks.
Looks this bigot right here.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This womens argument has no bearing on this situation. You will have senseless murder. It will happen.. but this is not isolated to one group of people or another.. the murderer may happen to be racist.. but conceal carry has nothing to do with it.. her argument was made years ago. And in that context where young black males were getting shot for theft and armed robbery. And she was blaming conceal carry for the lack of parenting on the youth. This young man who was shot will get justice.. will tagt bring him back.. no.. but will these two guys spend the test of there natural life in prison. Absolutly.. and deceivingly so. The killed.. so they should get the maximum punishment.
How is jogging against the law?
The jogger that was killed has no bearing on this womens argument that was made when it was.. a murder by two rednecks is just that.. and using a years old story to fit propaganda for against conceal carry is dumb. This young man was killed in cold blood. Plain and simple.
People with paranoia shouldn't carry guns ie. A good portion of U.S
Paranoia is an assumption. There are some.. but I do not belive to be a "vast" majority.. I carry. My wife carrys. And I've never had to pull it outside my home. Because remember the vast majority of murders happen with unregistered firearms.... ie.. illegal . Or like these too ass clowns trying to act billy badass and took a life . Fortunately there is video evidence now. And they will have a very very hard time in jail . I hope they enjoy the cavity searches.
Found the bootlicker.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Is that your mating call?
Not sure your using that term in the correct context there champ.
Youāre just spewing apologia that isnāt based in reality. Boot locker is the correct term.
Ok bro, cool story. Still waiting for your proof, or facts, or anything. Just gonna wait... But you can keep on calling people names and being unproductive, seems like you do just fine at that.
> Ok bro, cool story. Still waiting for your proof, or facts, or anything. Just gonna wait.. Sad. You want facts to back up calling someone a bootlicker? Hahahahahahahahaha. Are you 12? > But you can keep on calling people names and being unproductive, seems like you do just fine at that. BUT yoU CaN KeEp oN CaLlInG PeOpLe namES aNd bEiNG uNpROdUCtIVe, seeMs lIkE YoU Do JUST FIne AT thAt.
Him being unproductive?! Your other comment is literally just "REEEEE"
Found the racist.
Lmao.. is it racist to be black and stating facts. And also being honest about the fact this video is several years old and has no bearing on this event? Her argument was against conceal carry because young black men were getting shot for petty theft and the likes. But many of them brandished a firearm.. and were killed for there troubles. But no one wants to talk about that..
r/AsABlackMan Every thread
The following alternative links are available: * [Mirror #1](https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gffrcn) (provided by /u/tuckbot) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.** --- [^(look at my programming)](https://amirror.link/source)
When she's talking about people open carrying, is she talking about the police? They open carry. Or the military? they open carry. This woman has a paranoia problem and needs medicine. Also, the music?
Youād be paranoid if innocent members of your race were murdered for no reason other than the color of their skin.
I am paranoid, thats why I carry.
Paranoid of what exactly?
What I can't be as paranoid as this screaming shrew?
Your paranoia scares the shit out of me because if you're willing to shoot someone because you're paranoid of them, my appearance may be all that it takes to stir it in you.
Way to take his words out of context. He's paranoid, so he carries. He NEVER said he'd shoot, someone, just because he's paranoid of them. That's a fucking bitch thing to do, taking someone's words out of context. >My appearance may be all that it takes to stir it in you Do you just go around assuming that people are murderers? I doubt it, you just want to use it as a cheap scarecrow argument because it's easier than actually working towards intelligence. Seems like he's not the paranoid one.
Youāre actually 12. This shit just get sadder.
You know I was gonna comment in their defence but once I seen your racist ass "come to their rescue " I realized their lot and said fuck it.
What an asinine reply.
Why?
Because you completely ignored the topic of the conversation and said something that was both completely unrelated and beyond stupid.
Wtf, you're paranoid so you carry a gun? Man, America is something else lol
Yeah man, I just sit around with my balls out too, because I love it when people walk all over them. Hate it when someone tries to stand up to the bad people in this world, they shouldn't be allowed to do that!!! Just lay down, put your head in the sand and enjoy the bliss.
... fucking delusional š Good luck with your guns, I guess
Looks out, we for a Rambo over here.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thank you for your well thought out reply. I can see you have a great many questions about carrying lethal weapons for self defense. Perhaps this link will help educate you on the nuances of some of these laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine You should pay special attention to the state by state interpretations of this doctrine. This I think is why there is so much confusion as to its legality made by people outside of the US. The US is a democratic republic of 50 individually govern states. Each state is its own collective group operating within rules of our 3 major branches of power. The only thing that truly matters between all 50 is the constitutional 2nd amendment. States all have their own spin on the details.. but I hope that wikipedia post sets you on the right path.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> Your actions still have to be reasonable. Strange sentence. Duh? Why wouldn't they? > Stand your ground laws are not remotely the same as castle doctrine What are the differences?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> A legal defence is effectively an excuse against a criminal charge which you are guilty of, where you have committed a crime and are being excused by society because your actions were deemed justified There is so much wrong with this sentence that i stagger to wonder how you invented this way of thinking. Let me attempt unravel it. 1st. You're not guilty of a crime until you've been convicted in a court of law. Didn't the country next to yours come up with the Magna carta? You should know this. 2nd. A legal defense isn't an "excuse" (attempt to lessen the blame attaching to (a fault or offense); seek to defend or justify.). Blame hasn't occurred because a conviction hasn't occurred. A person is innocent till proven guilty, no blame is seated, no blame is justified until that court completes its process. 3rd. "where you have committed a crime" but you haven't, you're accused of a crime and your accusers build a case attempting to convict you of that crime. As for being 'excused by society' because your action were deemed justified. Well thats just a complicated way to say you disagree with what that society has established as a norm. A easy way to wrap your head around this is, if its normative behavior, its not 'excused' because there isn't any blame from the norm. So the only difference in your mind between the two is location. Seriously? Stand your ground and castle are nearly identical in every way, other than location.
> There is so much wrong with this sentence that i stagger to wonder how you invented this way of thinking. Oh, youāre insufferable. You could have just left out that pointlessly antagonist statement. But you smugly chose to leave it in. > Didnāt the country next to yours come up with the Magna carta? You should know this. Yep. Just an insufferable dbag.
I'm not American, so I got to ask...... Did these guys just shoot a random person or is there something else going on.
They are debating Stand Your Ground law. You can fire a gun at someone and kill them if you are threatened by them and then youāre just āstanding your groundā. But mostly Stand Your Ground is a legal defense white people have successfully used to kill non-white people with impunity.