People violently breaching a gate designed to delimit the boundary of private property, advancing on said private property, and yelling threats, however, DOES constitute reasonable fear that you are in imminent danger. The mob should be glad for the home owners' forebearance and patience, simply notifying the mob that they were armed and ready to defend themselves. Yet another defensive gun use in which no one was harmed.Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.
Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says
Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professorwww.ksdk.com
Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
Your comprehension on the meaning of "stand your ground" laws and the "castle doctrine" is on VERY shaky ground. You're not alone in lack of comprehension. These laws merely mean that you don't have a duty to retreat or remove yourself from danger in defending yourself or your home. That doesn't give you the right to shoot trespassers.
It also doesn't change your obligation not to use deadly force except to counter deadly force. YOU CANNOT KILL PEOPLE TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, ONLY YOUR LIFE OR THAT OF ANOTHER PERSON.
"Stand your ground" laws only apply to your ability to defend yourself outside your residence. Every jurisdiction which has passed "stand your ground laws" has seen a large increase in the numbers of murders in those states, because people think that give them the right to shoot people if they feel in any way threatened. The only legal grounds you have to shoot to kill, is the REASONABLE fear that your life is in danger.
Conservative paranoia and irrational fears of "others", be they black, Muslim, or gay", is not reasonable grounds for killing them.
'Stand Your Ground' Linked To Increase In Homicides
A controversial self-defense statute appears to produce more killings, according to a new study. Advocates for the law say it's working as designed. But researchers have different explanations about what might be happening.www.npr.org
Homicide rates rise after introduction of 'Stand Your Ground' self-defense law
A change in self-defense laws in Florida that gave citizens the right to use lethal force to protect themselves in public has been linked with the state's homicide rates going up by nearly a quarter.www.sciencedaily.com
St. Louis couple defends their house from protestors, with guns. Do you support "stand your ground laws"?
- Thread starter kyzr
- Start date
Not unless said CCW is visibly carrying (violation of the whole CONCEALED thing, but regardless), and acting in a threatening manner. CCW holders, by definition, do not advertise that they are armed unless necessary. That, plus the fact that the vast majority of CCW holders are among the safest in the country, means that your question is really quite silly.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,438
- 2,290
No, you didn't respond because you can't. What are they protesting in that neighborhood? Those people haven't done anything. Idiot.You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.So what? It's not required. I respond to what I think is important.
The protesters are innocent civilians, dope.I didnt respond because it's retarded and irrelevant.
They were passing through the neighborhood enroute to the mayor's home, dope.
It was a 9 mile protest march.
Then why didn't they keep marching to his house? According to the victim, the Mayor doesn't even live in that community.They did, dope. They were passing through.
I seen the video. It looked like they were stopped in front of their home to me, dope.Yes...after being confronted with guns, dope.
So why did they stop? Goes back to my earlier statement of why they just didn't continue walking?
- Thread starter
- #464
Agreed. I'm cool with a sticker on the carry permit that says you had all required Federal training to carry in any state.Its weird we disagree on this issue.Certified training could be part of the Fed Bill, whatever it takes.
My point is that just driving thru a "no gun" state can lead to prison term.
A Philadelphia mother of two who obtained the necessary permits to carry a gun in Pennsylvania and was arrested in New Jersey for unlawful possession of a weapon is now facing three years in prison.
Woman with Pa. handgun permit faces prison sentence for carrying in New Jersey
During a trip to Atlantic City last October, Allen was arrested following a routine traffic stop and was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of hollow-point bullets.www.nj.com
Luckily she was pardoned by Christie.
Perfect example. In our 10 hour class, it was covered repeatedly about taking firearms or your license to another state. You need to go to their web site to see if your license is acceptable there, and if carrying in your car, if that's acceptable in the states you are driving through to reach your destination.
Even if it is, the state still gets to create their own laws for carriers. A few years ago, we allowed CCW holders to enter restaurants and bars that serve alcohol providing you do not touch a drop. Now if I don't check out the laws in PA or NJ and stop at an Applebee's for dinner, I could be arrested because carried my gun into an establishment that served alcohol even if I nor anybody at my table were drinking alcohol.
So not only do you need to know if your license has reciprocity in another state, you need to carefully study their laws as well to stay out of trouble. Possessing a CCW license comes with a lot of responsibility, and we don't need to have a federal license because some don't exercise that responsibility.
1. I prefer Federal Law to say a CCW permit in one municipality is valid nationwide, with exceptions...
2. CCW permits are NOT valid in bars or restaurants where alcoholic beverages are sold. (as an example)
There needs to be some uniformity across state lines or law-abiding permit holders are risking prison, especially in blue states,
There is actually, for instance there are many states where their CCW's are recognized in our state, and vice-versa. Take Utah for example. There is no training or background check to carry there. We don't want an untrained carrier in our state unless we are assured they know how to handle that weapon, and had training on downrange and other safety procedures.
So if the politicians in each state work together as they have, eventually we may have licenses that are accepted in most if not all states. But again, you can't make national laws, so you still need to study those. I would never dream of taking my gun and license to a place like NJ or NY, because even if you kill somebody in self-defense, you could still be arrested and charged in those commie states.
If a blue DA like Kim Gardner for example, gets aggressive and trumps up bullshit gun charges then the US Marshals (or ATF, or the FBI?, etc) could tell her to pound sand.
The object is to prevent the prison sentence for just carrying thru a blue state, like that Phila mom in NJ.
i posted pics of a smashed gate.and what the fuck are the homeowners watching a crowd of people break down their gate, trespass on their property and threaten them and their dog?You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.So what? It's not required. I respond to what I think is important.
The protesters are innocent civilians, dope.
you are just a fucking doosh-d-lux out of use fucknugget asshole.Liar.
I've posted the video of marchers passing through a very intact gate while the gun nuts were threatening the marchers. Anything said to them was a result of being threatened with dogs and firearms.
was it or was it not private property they were going through?
has there or has there NOT been a shitton of violence in st louis?
you keep dismissing violent act after violent act and every protested busted for violence you say is simply misunderstood. so far in your eyes NO PROTEST HAS BEEN VIOLENT.
pray tell then sir fuckupsalot, who is being violent that we see so much of?
suck on your bullshit stick son.Good for you. Who broke it, dope?
They were not reacting to a "mob that broke down their gate". They were overreacting to a group of scary black marchers.
Funny that no one else the entire day had a problem.
There was no violence to dismiss, dope.
you have no idea if other people along the way or in the housing complex
"had a problem" with the jerky exhibitionist marchers
starskey imgines that he can READ MINDS and is absolutely sure that no one
in a suburban setting would have a problem with hundreds of heavily armed
clowns attached to a program of vandals and looters would bother them. That
very group managed to kill several adults and a few children ---just the past few days around the corner from my tiny residence which I have not left for weeks
Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.
You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.
A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,
Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.
What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.
They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.
As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?
Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use
1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…www.hsph.harvard.edu
Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed
The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...fee.org
- Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
- Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
- 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
- Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
- Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.
Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives
Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.www.forbes.com
Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.
Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.
There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.
All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.
The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.
Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.
Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.
You're free to show us all where any of those protesters were anything other than peacefully walking through the neighborhood.Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia
Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says
Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor
Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
They destroyed the gate to enter the private property illegally.
They were trespassing and threatening the homeowners with violence, including killing their dog.
Where is your evidence that the gate was "destroyed". In this video, the gate is open, not "destroyed". The gate was open and working fine and in good repair. After the video went viral, the couple showed a picture of the "destroyed gate". Yet in the videos of the people going through their gate, it was open and in good repair. Did the couple later "destroy" the gate and take pictures so that they could claim an excuse for their behaviour? Looks like a "false flag" to me.
Where in the video of any evidence of threats to the couple? Just them threatening others.
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,919
- 1,600
you're just a fucking asshole sucking troll.how the fuck do you know this for a fact? you don't. you're just propping up your bullshit stick with someone elses bullshit and having some symbiotic bullshit stick moment when everyone ones how full of shit you really are.that wasn't a neighborhood. it was private property. if you have zero respect for others property and accomplishments then don't expect for anyone to respect anything of yours.You're free to show us all where any of those protesters were anything other than peacefully walking through the neighborhood.Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia
Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says
Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor
Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
now you're free to explain why you are condoning the violence going on right now.
It was a neighborhood, dope. They were marching to the mayor's home. There was no violence to condone.
They issued threats against the life of the homeowners and their dog. Threatening to KILL someone while on their property can be a fatal move...
Liar.
Anything said by the protesters was in response to the homeowner's actions. No one told them to let their dogs out to intimidate marchers.
Had they remained indoors, the crowd would have passed without incident. Just as it had for the rest of the 9 mile march.
Even their neighbors thought they were idiots.Derp...
I see you can niether read or think for yourself.
It was a nine mile march to the mayor's home. This one and only incident happened within the last mile and was precipitated by the overreacting homeowners.
The enirety of the march was indeed without incident. None of the neighbors felt threatened or saw a cause for concern.
In fact, they thought the gun brandishers were idiots.
BS Filter
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2018
- 43,698
- 26,891
- 2,615
Bullshit. Harvard WAS a good school, not anymore. Idiot.Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.
You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.
A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,
Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.
What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.
They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.
As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?
Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use
1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…
Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed
The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...fee.org
- Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
- Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
- 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
- Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
- Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives
Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.
Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.
Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.
There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.
All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.
The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.
Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.
Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.
Every person has a right to protect themselves. If you watch for weeks black guys and gals rioting and destroying and people getting hurt and worse, then see black guys and gals coming onto your property what the hell are you going to think? The radical judges and radical politicians need to be killed. sadly, it is people who will not acclimate to the authoritarian progressive socialism we are going to have who most likely will be killed.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,438
- 2,290
Agreed. I'm cool with a sticker on the carry permit that says you had all required Federal training to carry in any state.Its weird we disagree on this issue.Certified training could be part of the Fed Bill, whatever it takes.
My point is that just driving thru a "no gun" state can lead to prison term.
A Philadelphia mother of two who obtained the necessary permits to carry a gun in Pennsylvania and was arrested in New Jersey for unlawful possession of a weapon is now facing three years in prison.Woman with Pa. handgun permit faces prison sentence for carrying in New Jersey
During a trip to Atlantic City last October, Allen was arrested following a routine traffic stop and was charged with unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of hollow-point bullets.
Luckily she was pardoned by Christie.
Perfect example. In our 10 hour class, it was covered repeatedly about taking firearms or your license to another state. You need to go to their web site to see if your license is acceptable there, and if carrying in your car, if that's acceptable in the states you are driving through to reach your destination.
Even if it is, the state still gets to create their own laws for carriers. A few years ago, we allowed CCW holders to enter restaurants and bars that serve alcohol providing you do not touch a drop. Now if I don't check out the laws in PA or NJ and stop at an Applebee's for dinner, I could be arrested because carried my gun into an establishment that served alcohol even if I nor anybody at my table were drinking alcohol.
So not only do you need to know if your license has reciprocity in another state, you need to carefully study their laws as well to stay out of trouble. Possessing a CCW license comes with a lot of responsibility, and we don't need to have a federal license because some don't exercise that responsibility.
1. I prefer Federal Law to say a CCW permit in one municipality is valid nationwide, with exceptions...
2. CCW permits are NOT valid in bars or restaurants where alcoholic beverages are sold. (as an example)
There needs to be some uniformity across state lines or law-abiding permit holders are risking prison, especially in blue states,
There is actually, for instance there are many states where their CCW's are recognized in our state, and vice-versa. Take Utah for example. There is no training or background check to carry there. We don't want an untrained carrier in our state unless we are assured they know how to handle that weapon, and had training on downrange and other safety procedures.
So if the politicians in each state work together as they have, eventually we may have licenses that are accepted in most if not all states. But again, you can't make national laws, so you still need to study those. I would never dream of taking my gun and license to a place like NJ or NY, because even if you kill somebody in self-defense, you could still be arrested and charged in those commie states.
If a blue DA like Kim Gardner for example, gets aggressive and trumps up bullshit gun charges then the US Marshals (or ATF, or the FBI?, etc) could tell her to pound sand.
The object is to prevent the prison sentence for just carrying thru a blue state, like that Phila mom in NJ.
And remember a couple of years ago when that war vet when to the statue of liberty, told the guard he was giving him his gun because the sign said no guns allowed, and the guard called the cops and had him arrested? These commie states are pathetic, especially when it comes to guns.
DukeU
Diamond Member
Because guns save more lives than they take.Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.
You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.
A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,
Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.
What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.
They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.
As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?
Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use
1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…
Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed
The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...fee.org
- Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
- Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
- 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
- Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
- Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives
Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.
Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.
Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.
There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.
All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.
The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.
Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.
Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.
Also, there are no "unbiased sources" when it comes to guns, everyone has a bias one way or the other.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 34,802
- 8,842
- 1,340
i posted pics of a smashed gate.and what the fuck are the homeowners watching a crowd of people break down their gate, trespass on their property and threaten them and their dog?You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.So what? It's not required. I respond to what I think is important.
The protesters are innocent civilians, dope.
you are just a fucking doosh-d-lux out of use fucknugget asshole.Liar.
I've posted the video of marchers passing through a very intact gate while the gun nuts were threatening the marchers. Anything said to them was a result of being threatened with dogs and firearms.
was it or was it not private property they were going through?
has there or has there NOT been a shitton of violence in st louis?
you keep dismissing violent act after violent act and every protested busted for violence you say is simply misunderstood. so far in your eyes NO PROTEST HAS BEEN VIOLENT.
pray tell then sir fuckupsalot, who is being violent that we see so much of?
suck on your bullshit stick son.Good for you. Who broke it, dope?
They were not reacting to a "mob that broke down their gate". They were overreacting to a group of scary black marchers.
Funny that no one else the entire day had a problem.
There was no violence to dismiss, dope.
Everyone else was scared and hiding in their basement.
Liar.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 34,802
- 8,842
- 1,340
No, you didn't respond because you can't. What are they protesting in that neighborhood? Those people haven't done anything. Idiot.You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.So what? It's not required. I respond to what I think is important.
The protesters are innocent civilians, dope.I didnt respond because it's retarded and irrelevant.
They were passing through the neighborhood enroute to the mayor's home, dope.
It was a 9 mile protest march.
Then why didn't they keep marching to his house? According to the victim, the Mayor doesn't even live in that community.They did, dope. They were passing through.
I seen the video. It looked like they were stopped in front of their home to me, dope.Yes...after being confronted with guns, dope.
So why did they stop? Goes back to my earlier statement of why they just didn't continue walking?
Because Ken and Karen were having an idiotic meltdown just as their neighbors said.
- Banned
- #475
Or no permit required, in any US state.
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
This is COMPLETELY uninformed.Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.
You're damn right you have nowhere else to go. Sensible people people in your country don't want guns either. AMERICANS want to enjoy the safety and security of living in a country where anyone who feels threatened by "others" can't shoot them.
A study I read a few years ago that took the stories of gun owners who had drawn their guns to defend themselves from the threat of crimes being committed against them. These were licensed, "responsible" gun owners. None had criminal records. In the cases which wer reviewed,
Their stories were reviewed by a group of retired criminal judges. Only the gun owners' stories were heard, and their stories weren't questioned. The judges found that most gun owners were guilty of criminal offences, when they pulled the gun. What the gun owners called "self-defence", was using their gun to threaten and intimmidate others. In nearly every case the judges reviewed, the gun owner was, at all times, the aggressor.
What you have created is a nation where "shoot first, ask questions later" is a way of life. Just read the posts of the Internet Rambos here. If they feel threatened, they will use lethal force, and apologize if they're wrong. It doesn't matter whether the threat is real or not. And if they do, they'll likely end up in jail for murder, or at best, manslaughter.
They think they can argue their way out of a murder charge if they're wrong, because of "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground". This ignorant and wrong headed interpretation of these laws is why the murder rates rise so precipitiously after SYG laws have been enacted. The first question asked when lethal force is used isn't whether you felt threatened, but whether or not the threat was real.
As crime goes down, conservatives are buying more and more guns. "Feeling threatened" is not the same thing as being threatened. I have to ask myself, if crime rates are going down, the police are brutally clamping down on the "thugs", why do you all feel so threatened?
Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use
1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…
Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows | Lawrence W. Reed
The Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be as high as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day. And there is plenty more evidence showing that guns keep...fee.org
- Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
- Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
- 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
- Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
- Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives
Guns are used for legal self-defense far more often than most people realize.
Almost all of the national surveys are coming from the NRA, with an agenda to keep handguns legal and readily available. There is little to no funding available for unbiased studies, and even less which highlight the dangers of gun ownership, because the agenda is to keep gun ownership legal and unregulated.
Since the CDC were barred by Congress by doing research on gun issues, there has been little unbiased research on the topic. The Republican Congress stopped funding research the results always came out badly for the "gun rights" crowd. Every study the CDC did, essentially came back with the same results: gun regulation saves lives.
There are few unbiased studies being done in the USA, and even fewer that show gun ownership in a negative light, despite the gut wrenching numbers of deaths, injuries, and mass killings ever year. There is no need to prove unrestricted handgun ownership is a detriment to public health. The numbers alone on the deaths, injuries, suicides, and mass shootings, make it obvious, when compared to other first world nations where handgun ownership is strictly regulated.
All of the statistics from the Foundation for Economic Freedom are refuted by the Harvard Study, and here's the reason why. The FEF study set out to demonstrate how many times guns are used to prevent crime. The survey was biased to find as many positive gun uses as possible, because that's they're looking for: studies to support the libertarian view.
The Harvard study wasn't looking for a result. If anything, it was set up to show how effective law abiding gun owners are in the use of their weapons. They didn't even hear from the "other guy" as to what went down, nor did they cross examine the gun owners or question their statements. The accepted what the gun owner told them was true, and never questioned their reasons. They also used retired criminal judges to assess the stories. Criminal judges are hardly flaming liberals. If anything, listening to criminals try to justify their crimes all day would make anyone hardcore conservative.
Added to which, the Harvard study results were truly surprising. It was expected that some of the gun owners acted inappropriately when drawing weapons, but not virtually ALL of them.
Last but not least, Harvard is hardly a "liberal" institution. 8 US Presidents attended Harvard from the past. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, all attended Harvard. It's an even split between Democrats and Republicans.
There are no surveys because gun-grabbers don't like the results and don't want to PROVE that we should KEEP handguns.
And, yes, Harvard IS a "liberal" institution. It's full of leftists. It wasn't always like that, but the past 40 years, it has been overrun by commies. The fact that you list Barack Obama tells me how clueless you are.
IOW, the demonstration that the home owners were armed had the desired effect. Another defensive gun use in which no one was harmed, just like many others happen every year.No, you didn't respond because you can't. What are they protesting in that neighborhood? Those people haven't done anything. Idiot.You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.So what? It's not required. I respond to what I think is important.
The protesters are innocent civilians, dope.I didnt respond because it's retarded and irrelevant.
They were passing through the neighborhood enroute to the mayor's home, dope.
It was a 9 mile protest march.
Then why didn't they keep marching to his house? According to the victim, the Mayor doesn't even live in that community.They did, dope. They were passing through.
I seen the video. It looked like they were stopped in front of their home to me, dope.Yes...after being confronted with guns, dope.
So why did they stop? Goes back to my earlier statement of why they just didn't continue walking?Because Ken and Karen were having an idiotic meltdown just as their neighbors said.
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
Oh, sure. It had nothing to do with the angry mob breaching the gate near their house.No, you didn't respond because you can't. What are they protesting in that neighborhood? Those people haven't done anything. Idiot.You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.So what? It's not required. I respond to what I think is important.
The protesters are innocent civilians, dope.I didnt respond because it's retarded and irrelevant.
They were passing through the neighborhood enroute to the mayor's home, dope.
It was a 9 mile protest march.
Then why didn't they keep marching to his house? According to the victim, the Mayor doesn't even live in that community.They did, dope. They were passing through.
I seen the video. It looked like they were stopped in front of their home to me, dope.Yes...after being confronted with guns, dope.
So why did they stop? Goes back to my earlier statement of why they just didn't continue walking?Because Ken and Karen were having an idiotic meltdown just as their neighbors said.
- Thread starter
- #479
You're free to show us all where any of those protesters were anything other than peacefully walking through the neighborhood.Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia
Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says
Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor
Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
They destroyed the gate to enter the private property illegally.
They were trespassing and threatening the homeowners with violence, including killing their dog.
Where is your evidence that the gate was "destroyed". In this video, the gate is open, not "destroyed". The gate was open and working fine and in good repair. After the video went viral, the couple showed a picture of the "destroyed gate". Yet in the videos of the people going through their gate, it was open and in good repair. Did the couple later "destroy" the gate and take pictures so that they could claim an excuse for their behaviour? Looks like a "false flag" to me.
Where in the video of any evidence of threats to the couple? Just them threatening others.
1. Some of the mob destroyed the "walk-in" gate to enter the private development:
2.
Your video states that no Mo laws were broken. Period, full stop.You're free to show us all where any of those protesters were anything other than peacefully walking through the neighborhood.Missouri is a "stand your ground" state. People have the right to defend their home and property, period.
View attachment 357308Stand-your-ground law - Wikipedia
Even though the Leftist MSM wants legal action against the McClosky's for threatening "peaceful protestors", the law is on their side.Couple pointing guns at protesters unlikely to face charges, law professor says
Could the gun-wielding attorneys find themselves in legal trouble? Not likely, according to one St. Louis law professor
Do you support "stand your ground laws"? (poll)
They destroyed the gate to enter the private property illegally.
They were trespassing and threatening the homeowners with violence, including killing their dog.
Where is your evidence that the gate was "destroyed". In this video, the gate is open, not "destroyed". The gate was open and working fine and in good repair. After the video went viral, the couple showed a picture of the "destroyed gate". Yet in the videos of the people going through their gate, it was open and in good repair. Did the couple later "destroy" the gate and take pictures so that they could claim an excuse for their behaviour? Looks like a "false flag" to me.
Where in the video of any evidence of threats to the couple? Just them threatening others.
Your video also shows people going thru the vehicle gate that was open and in good repair, the walk-in gate was destroyed, above photo.
Your ass is a "false flag".
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,438
- 2,290
No, you didn't respond because you can't. What are they protesting in that neighborhood? Those people haven't done anything. Idiot.You didn't quote my entire post, you coward. What are these scum protesting on the streets of innocent civilians?Well, that's you. What are these scum protesting in a gated community?So? If your neighbors drink poisoned Kool Aid are you going to drink it?Funny that none of the other neighbors felt like they needed to defend themselves.They actually think these two are idiots.
‘Horrific’: Dozens of Neighbors Sign Letter Calling Out St. Louis Gun Couple
“I think we, as a group, were absolutely horrified,” one signatory said of the armed lawyer duo who won overnight infamy.www.thedailybeast.comI wouldn't equate pointing guns at protesters with drinking poison koolaid but of course the neighbors would do neither idiotic thing.Sure is. I'm neither an idiot who is afraid of protesters or a pussy who needs to point guns at them.So what? It's not required. I respond to what I think is important.
The protesters are innocent civilians, dope.I didnt respond because it's retarded and irrelevant.
They were passing through the neighborhood enroute to the mayor's home, dope.
It was a 9 mile protest march.
Then why didn't they keep marching to his house? According to the victim, the Mayor doesn't even live in that community.They did, dope. They were passing through.
I seen the video. It looked like they were stopped in front of their home to me, dope.Yes...after being confronted with guns, dope.
So why did they stop? Goes back to my earlier statement of why they just didn't continue walking?Because Ken and Karen were having an idiotic meltdown just as their neighbors said.
Idiotic meltdown by standing there with their guns? No, they stopped because they spotted an invitation to cause trouble. One of the lowlifes recorded it for that very reason. If I think somebody is having a "meltdown" I'm getting the F away from them as soon as I can, not stand there for them to shoot or kill me if that's what I think is happening.
Similar threads
