St. Louis couple defends their house from protestors, with guns. Do you support "stand your ground laws"?

Do you support "stand your ground laws"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 91.5%
  • No

    Votes: 5 8.5%

  • Total voters
    59

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
60,980
Reaction score
11,168
Points
2,140
Don't tell me bullshit.
It's not bullshit.

What a bullshit. What you "believe" has to be real and to be plausible in such a case - otherwise every jugde will think you are a liar. No one has any "license to kill", also not agent 007.
It's not a license to kill, it's a license to use deadly force against a potential attack. Need me to link our laws for you? I'll be happy to do it. I'm a licensed CCW carrier, and I do know the laws very well.

I do not try to speak about Trump. Meanwhile Trump is in my eyes only a criminal idiot any longer and it helps no one anything what this man says nor what are the answers on his stupidities. So I changed this first draft. You answered before I finished the text. Read again what I wrote.
Well you did speak of Trump and that's why I responded with Trump. I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to understand what you are writing about. Your translation program is not very good.
You have NO RIGHT to use deadly force unless threatened with deadly force. You need to LEARN the laws of self defence.
Talking out your lying ass again...
"A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use lethal force to defend themselves or others (right of self-defense) against threats or reasonably perceived threats, regardless of whether they can safely retreat from the situation. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be[1] and may use any necessary force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes. The exact details vary by jurisdiction. "
That's idiotic. No one is per se innocent. I remember an US-American, who had murdered a German exchange student some long years ago, because the student had entered his garage. An irreplaceable loss. I was astonished how many US-Americans think everyone has the right to murder someone, who enters their house. But this murderer is in jail now for the rest of his life. I remember in this context for example someone, who had a car accident. This was in the USA. Another car driver stopped and liked to help him. The idiot murdered the helping person by saying something like he thought he likes to use his helpless situation for to do a crime. A very bad thing happened once in Germany here. A man saw a teenager at a railway station, who was sad, and asked "What's wrong, may I help?" - the teenager murdered him.
Then you wonder why we carry guns here?
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
60,980
Reaction score
11,168
Points
2,140
Don't tell me bullshit.
It's not bullshit.

What a bullshit. What you "believe" has to be real and to be plausible in such a case - otherwise every jugde will think you are a liar. No one has any "license to kill", also not agent 007.
It's not a license to kill, it's a license to use deadly force against a potential attack. Need me to link our laws for you? I'll be happy to do it. I'm a licensed CCW carrier, and I do know the laws very well.

I do not try to speak about Trump. Meanwhile Trump is in my eyes only a criminal idiot any longer and it helps no one anything what this man says nor what are the answers on his stupidities. So I changed this first draft. You answered before I finished the text. Read again what I wrote.
Well you did speak of Trump and that's why I responded with Trump. I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to understand what you are writing about. Your translation program is not very good.
You have NO RIGHT to use dealy force unless threatened with deadly force. You need to LEARN the laws of self defence.
We're not? Would you like me to link you to our government site that says how wrong you are?

Here is our law:

A CCW holder can use deadly force it the licensed holder believes that they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death.

It says nothing about your attacker being armed. Your life being threatened is only one legal reason to use deadly force. Our laws are pretty similar to most, if not all other states.

In your ever so arrogant fashion, you tell me to learn the laws? We have an old saying here "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight." When you think you know more about the laws of another country, especially than a citizen of that country who is a licensed CCW holder and a black belt in martial arts, you are bringing a knife to a gunfight, because I've spent many years studying self-defense in my country.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
60,980
Reaction score
11,168
Points
2,140
According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.
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?


Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

  • 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.
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.
And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining,
“The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------

There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:


That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:


The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership.
The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."
Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.
We do not have a "gun emergency," in the United States....
You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.
It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.
40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.
One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

You were saying?

BERLIN (Reuters) - Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.


That's an hysteric report from the year 2015, when we had about 2 million migrants in Germany. 1 million of them were refugees, which came from outside of the EU from war regions. When did you have the last time your history in only one year about 8 million refugees?

Was not so easy to solve all this proböems. Let me take a short look:

Murder: 2010: 281 - 2011: 357 - 2012: 281 - 2013: 282 - 2014: 298 - 2015: 296 - 2016: 373 - 2017: 405 - 2018: 386 - 2019: 245

245 times murder in a year in 2019 was the best value since the year 2000. In this year our killing-rate was less than 10% of the killing-rate of the USA.

And? We have a political party, the democrat party, that keeps releasing the most violent criminals back onto our streets, over and over again....it is these criminals who are committing murder over and over again.

When you have a political party in your country that will take your most violent criminals, and release them from jail on bond.......if you have that......and out of prison on short sentences....then you will understand why we have the crime rates we have in our democrat party controlled cities.....
Keep the USA within the USA then no one has any problem with the USA. On my own free will I never would visit the USA.
You'll never visit the USA, but you'll come to our political forums to discuss our politics?
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
60,980
Reaction score
11,168
Points
2,140
I'm anti gun, anti trump, anti racist cons which those couple are probably but I don't blame them for defending their property from trespassers.
From what I understand, they are hard leftists.
Still my position is stated above.
Only in America thugh, in other countries is not necessary....here is too violent, people are culturally violent and killings are the norm. Many of you gun lovers don't know that there are countless of countries living without guns, no shootings at school, work places......I know it is hard to understand. Not strange where most don't even know where cANADA is, or who the founding fathers are, or when the independence took place and so forth...thinks that me as an immigrant knew by heart in elementary school overseas in 3 languages.
America is not other countries. In fact, we are really one of a kind. Our problem is not guns, our problem is we thought this concept of a melting pot would work. It never has, and still doesn't.

The other countries you speak of are virtually one culture people. We are not that. Besides different races of people, we also have different cultures. You cannot successfully force the tiger and hyena to live together. One will end up killing the other.

I've made this point many times before: If you made law that all people in a low crime nice white middle-class suburb had to own a gun, their crime rate will not change. At the same time, if you created a law that nobody in a high crime minority city can own a gun, their crime rate will not change either. Hence, the object used to kill people is not what makes the difference.

And this is the ignorance of the left. They blame the object instead of the people for crime.
You are so wrong at so many levels I don't know where to begin.
Let's take Australia for example, almost identical history to the US there were natives, than European came in slaughtered them and took their land...later on more European migrants came in....down the road more migrants came in from many parts of the world and especially from third world countries just like the US. They don't have the same problems the US suffers from especially gun massacres, mass shootings, killings left and right and so forth....they have a far better quality life in general, better education system, better health care and list goes on.

And who the hell gave you the right to dictate who can come in and who can not? just because you landed here earlier than the rest of us? Did you even ask the original land owners?
As a natural born citizen, I do have the right to say who comes in this country, and I do so with my vote. What country allows anybody and everybody to come and go as they please? The only countries like that are countries nobody really wants to go to.

Nobody is more generous to people outside of their country than the United States of America. We allow nearly a million people every year to become citizens of our country, and almost that amount issued in VISA's and green cards so people can take advantage of everything we created. Name me one civilized country that does that.

Then when you consider how much foreign aid we taxpayers give to other countries, and our private charities, no other country comes close to helping others outside their border than us.

And that's not even the problem. The problem is when people complain that in spite of all we do, it's simply not enough. We have foreigners, like you, who move to this country to take advantage of everything we worked for, and then bitch about how we do things. That's the problem.
 

Issa

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
7,668
Reaction score
823
Points
275
I'm anti gun, anti trump, anti racist cons which those couple are probably but I don't blame them for defending their property from trespassers.
From what I understand, they are hard leftists.
Still my position is stated above.
Only in America thugh, in other countries is not necessary....here is too violent, people are culturally violent and killings are the norm. Many of you gun lovers don't know that there are countless of countries living without guns, no shootings at school, work places......I know it is hard to understand. Not strange where most don't even know where cANADA is, or who the founding fathers are, or when the independence took place and so forth...thinks that me as an immigrant knew by heart in elementary school overseas in 3 languages.
America is not other countries. In fact, we are really one of a kind. Our problem is not guns, our problem is we thought this concept of a melting pot would work. It never has, and still doesn't.

The other countries you speak of are virtually one culture people. We are not that. Besides different races of people, we also have different cultures. You cannot successfully force the tiger and hyena to live together. One will end up killing the other.

I've made this point many times before: If you made law that all people in a low crime nice white middle-class suburb had to own a gun, their crime rate will not change. At the same time, if you created a law that nobody in a high crime minority city can own a gun, their crime rate will not change either. Hence, the object used to kill people is not what makes the difference.

And this is the ignorance of the left. They blame the object instead of the people for crime.
You are so wrong at so many levels I don't know where to begin.
Let's take Australia for example, almost identical history to the US there were natives, than European came in slaughtered them and took their land...later on more European migrants came in....down the road more migrants came in from many parts of the world and especially from third world countries just like the US. They don't have the same problems the US suffers from especially gun massacres, mass shootings, killings left and right and so forth....they have a far better quality life in general, better education system, better health care and list goes on.

And who the hell gave you the right to dictate who can come in and who can not? just because you landed here earlier than the rest of us? Did you even ask the original land owners?
Except, no not really.
Not up to you those are facts.
 

Issa

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
7,668
Reaction score
823
Points
275
I'm anti gun, anti trump, anti racist cons which those couple are probably but I don't blame them for defending their property from trespassers.
From what I understand, they are hard leftists.
Still my position is stated above.
Only in America thugh, in other countries is not necessary....here is too violent, people are culturally violent and killings are the norm. Many of you gun lovers don't know that there are countless of countries living without guns, no shootings at school, work places......I know it is hard to understand. Not strange where most don't even know where cANADA is, or who the founding fathers are, or when the independence took place and so forth...thinks that me as an immigrant knew by heart in elementary school overseas in 3 languages.
America is not other countries. In fact, we are really one of a kind. Our problem is not guns, our problem is we thought this concept of a melting pot would work. It never has, and still doesn't.

The other countries you speak of are virtually one culture people. We are not that. Besides different races of people, we also have different cultures. You cannot successfully force the tiger and hyena to live together. One will end up killing the other.

I've made this point many times before: If you made law that all people in a low crime nice white middle-class suburb had to own a gun, their crime rate will not change. At the same time, if you created a law that nobody in a high crime minority city can own a gun, their crime rate will not change either. Hence, the object used to kill people is not what makes the difference.

And this is the ignorance of the left. They blame the object instead of the people for crime.
You are so wrong at so many levels I don't know where to begin.
Let's take Australia for example, almost identical history to the US there were natives, than European came in slaughtered them and took their land...later on more European migrants came in....down the road more migrants came in from many parts of the world and especially from third world countries just like the US. They don't have the same problems the US suffers from especially gun massacres, mass shootings, killings left and right and so forth....they have a far better quality life in general, better education system, better health care and list goes on.

And who the hell gave you the right to dictate who can come in and who can not? just because you landed here earlier than the rest of us? Did you even ask the original land owners?
As a natural born citizen, I do have the right to say who comes in this country, and I do so with my vote. What country allows anybody and everybody to come and go as they please? The only countries like that are countries nobody really wants to go to.

Nobody is more generous to people outside of their country than the United States of America. We allow nearly a million people every year to become citizens of our country, and almost that amount issued in VISA's and green cards so people can take advantage of everything we created. Name me one civilized country that does that.

Then when you consider how much foreign aid we taxpayers give to other countries, and our private charities, no other country comes close to helping others outside their border than us.

And that's not even the problem. The problem is when people complain that in spite of all we do, it's simply not enough. We have foreigners, like you, who move to this country to take advantage of everything we worked for, and then bitch about how we do things. That's the problem.
I'm sorry but that's the dumbest explanation I've ever heard. Without immigration the US would have not only not being created but would've became a third world country. Have you been to labs? Silicone valley? Seen who is behind all the innovations, technologies, research and so forth ? Mostly immigrants.

America allows immigrants because it needs them, is a wini wini situation.
I came to this country and contributed with my education and my skills and in 20 years I managed to be better than millions of american born... just like my fellow citizen who also migrated to the US and now leads the task force to find a vaccine and he found 23 in the past that have been saving millions of lives here in the US and in the world, what have you done. I'm also 100% positive I paid more taxes than you .

Oh and the US charity, well let me tell you my friend that the US if it gives it takes more than it gives.

Your vote is useless it cant srop human movement that dates thousands of years. You can manifest your racism as much as you like but this country will not be majority white and I advise you to accept it and adapt.
 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
70,146
Reaction score
6,089
Points
1,815
I'm anti gun, anti trump, anti racist cons which those couple are probably but I don't blame them for defending their property from trespassers.
From what I understand, they are hard leftists.
Still my position is stated above.
Only in America thugh, in other countries is not necessary....here is too violent, people are culturally violent and killings are the norm. Many of you gun lovers don't know that there are countless of countries living without guns, no shootings at school, work places......I know it is hard to understand. Not strange where most don't even know where cANADA is, or who the founding fathers are, or when the independence took place and so forth...thinks that me as an immigrant knew by heart in elementary school overseas in 3 languages.
America is not other countries. In fact, we are really one of a kind. Our problem is not guns, our problem is we thought this concept of a melting pot would work. It never has, and still doesn't.

The other countries you speak of are virtually one culture people. We are not that. Besides different races of people, we also have different cultures. You cannot successfully force the tiger and hyena to live together. One will end up killing the other.

I've made this point many times before: If you made law that all people in a low crime nice white middle-class suburb had to own a gun, their crime rate will not change. At the same time, if you created a law that nobody in a high crime minority city can own a gun, their crime rate will not change either. Hence, the object used to kill people is not what makes the difference.

And this is the ignorance of the left. They blame the object instead of the people for crime.
You are so wrong at so many levels I don't know where to begin.
Let's take Australia for example, almost identical history to the US there were natives, than European came in slaughtered them and took their land...later on more European migrants came in....down the road more migrants came in from many parts of the world and especially from third world countries just like the US. They don't have the same problems the US suffers from especially gun massacres, mass shootings, killings left and right and so forth....they have a far better quality life in general, better education system, better health care and list goes on.

And who the hell gave you the right to dictate who can come in and who can not? just because you landed here earlier than the rest of us? Did you even ask the original land owners?
As a natural born citizen, I do have the right to say who comes in this country, and I do so with my vote. What country allows anybody and everybody to come and go as they please? The only countries like that are countries nobody really wants to go to.

Nobody is more generous to people outside of their country than the United States of America. We allow nearly a million people every year to become citizens of our country, and almost that amount issued in VISA's and green cards so people can take advantage of everything we created. Name me one civilized country that does that.

Then when you consider how much foreign aid we taxpayers give to other countries, and our private charities, no other country comes close to helping others outside their border than us.

And that's not even the problem. The problem is when people complain that in spite of all we do, it's simply not enough. We have foreigners, like you, who move to this country to take advantage of everything we worked for, and then bitch about how we do things. That's the problem.
I'm sorry but that's the dumbest explanation I've ever heard. Without immigration the US would have not only not being created but would've became a third world country. Have you been to labs? Silicone valley? Seen who is behind all the innovations, technologies, research and so forth ? Mostly immigrants.

America allows immigrants because it needs them, is a wini wini situation.
I came to this country and contributed with my education and my skills and in 20 years I managed to be better than millions of american born... just like my fellow citizen who also migrated to the US and now leads the task force to find a vaccine and he found 23 in the past that have been saving millions of lives here in the US and in the world, what have you done. I'm also 100% positive I paid more taxes than you .

Oh and the US charity, well let me tell you my friend that the US if it gives it takes more than it gives.

Your vote is useless it cant srop human movement that dates thousands of years. You can manifest your racism as much as you like but this country will not be majority white and I advise you to accept it and adapt.

what are you calling "white" vs "not....white" and to what do you refer with the statement "accept it and adapt"
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
15,378
Reaction score
5,795
Points
350
Location
The AL part of PA
I'm anti gun, anti trump, anti racist cons which those couple are probably but I don't blame them for defending their property from trespassers.
From what I understand, they are hard leftists.
Still my position is stated above.
Only in America thugh, in other countries is not necessary....here is too violent, people are culturally violent and killings are the norm. Many of you gun lovers don't know that there are countless of countries living without guns, no shootings at school, work places......I know it is hard to understand. Not strange where most don't even know where cANADA is, or who the founding fathers are, or when the independence took place and so forth...thinks that me as an immigrant knew by heart in elementary school overseas in 3 languages.
America is not other countries. In fact, we are really one of a kind. Our problem is not guns, our problem is we thought this concept of a melting pot would work. It never has, and still doesn't.

The other countries you speak of are virtually one culture people. We are not that. Besides different races of people, we also have different cultures. You cannot successfully force the tiger and hyena to live together. One will end up killing the other.

I've made this point many times before: If you made law that all people in a low crime nice white middle-class suburb had to own a gun, their crime rate will not change. At the same time, if you created a law that nobody in a high crime minority city can own a gun, their crime rate will not change either. Hence, the object used to kill people is not what makes the difference.

And this is the ignorance of the left. They blame the object instead of the people for crime.
You are so wrong at so many levels I don't know where to begin.
Let's take Australia for example, almost identical history to the US there were natives, than European came in slaughtered them and took their land...later on more European migrants came in....down the road more migrants came in from many parts of the world and especially from third world countries just like the US. They don't have the same problems the US suffers from especially gun massacres, mass shootings, killings left and right and so forth....they have a far better quality life in general, better education system, better health care and list goes on.

And who the hell gave you the right to dictate who can come in and who can not? just because you landed here earlier than the rest of us? Did you even ask the original land owners?
As a natural born citizen, I do have the right to say who comes in this country, and I do so with my vote. What country allows anybody and everybody to come and go as they please? The only countries like that are countries nobody really wants to go to.

Nobody is more generous to people outside of their country than the United States of America. We allow nearly a million people every year to become citizens of our country, and almost that amount issued in VISA's and green cards so people can take advantage of everything we created. Name me one civilized country that does that.

Then when you consider how much foreign aid we taxpayers give to other countries, and our private charities, no other country comes close to helping others outside their border than us.

And that's not even the problem. The problem is when people complain that in spite of all we do, it's simply not enough. We have foreigners, like you, who move to this country to take advantage of everything we worked for, and then bitch about how we do things. That's the problem.
I'm sorry but that's the dumbest explanation I've ever heard. Without immigration the US would have not only not being created but would've became a third world country. Have you been to labs? Silicone valley? Seen who is behind all the innovations, technologies, research and so forth ? Mostly immigrants.

America allows immigrants because it needs them, is a wini wini situation.
I came to this country and contributed with my education and my skills and in 20 years I managed to be better than millions of American born... just like my fellow citizen who also migrated to the US and now leads the task force to find a vaccine and he found 23 in the past that have been saving millions of lives here in the US and in the world, what have you done. I'm also 100% positive I paid more taxes than you .

Oh and the US charity, well let me tell you my friend that the US if it gives it takes more than it gives.

Your vote is useless it cant stop human movement that dates thousands of years. You can manifest your racism as much as you like but this country will not be majority white and I advise you to accept it and adapt.
You are an example of Trump's skills/merit based immigration initiative.
 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
415
Points
140
Don't tell me bullshit.
It's not bullshit.

What a bullshit. What you "believe" has to be real and to be plausible in such a case - otherwise every jugde will think you are a liar. No one has any "license to kill", also not agent 007.
It's not a license to kill, it's a license to use deadly force against a potential attack. Need me to link our laws for you? I'll be happy to do it. I'm a licensed CCW carrier, and I do know the laws very well.

I do not try to speak about Trump. Meanwhile Trump is in my eyes only a criminal idiot any longer and it helps no one anything what this man says nor what are the answers on his stupidities. So I changed this first draft. You answered before I finished the text. Read again what I wrote.
Well you did speak of Trump and that's why I responded with Trump. I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to understand what you are writing about. Your translation program is not very good.
You have NO RIGHT to use deadly force unless threatened with deadly force. You need to LEARN the laws of self defence.
Talking out your lying ass again...
"A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use lethal force to defend themselves or others (right of self-defense) against threats or reasonably perceived threats, regardless of whether they can safely retreat from the situation. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be[1] and may use any necessary force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes. The exact details vary by jurisdiction. "
That's idiotic. No one is per se innocent. I remember an US-American, who had murdered a German exchange student some long years ago, because the student had entered his garage. An irreplaceable loss. I was astonished how many US-Americasn think everyohne has the right to murder someone, who enters their house. But this murderer is in jail now for the rest of his life.
.....(grammar) everyone has the right to murder someone who enters HIS house...... -------
I liked to write "their houses"

I do not remember that case. According to
civilized law-----the killing of an unknown
trespasser is usually not construed as murder.
it is manslaughter (no mens rea)
It was murder.
grammar and legal theory is not your FORTE
It was murder. The murderer was convicted by an US-American court.
 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
415
Points
140
Don't tell me bullshit.
It's not bullshit.

What a bullshit. What you "believe" has to be real and to be plausible in such a case - otherwise every jugde will think you are a liar. No one has any "license to kill", also not agent 007.
It's not a license to kill, it's a license to use deadly force against a potential attack. Need me to link our laws for you? I'll be happy to do it. I'm a licensed CCW carrier, and I do know the laws very well.

I do not try to speak about Trump. Meanwhile Trump is in my eyes only a criminal idiot any longer and it helps no one anything what this man says nor what are the answers on his stupidities. So I changed this first draft. You answered before I finished the text. Read again what I wrote.
Well you did speak of Trump and that's why I responded with Trump. I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to understand what you are writing about. Your translation program is not very good.
You have NO RIGHT to use deadly force unless threatened with deadly force. You need to LEARN the laws of self defence.
Talking out your lying ass again...
"A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use lethal force to defend themselves or others (right of self-defense) against threats or reasonably perceived threats, regardless of whether they can safely retreat from the situation. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be[1] and may use any necessary force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes. The exact details vary by jurisdiction. "
That's idiotic. No one is per se innocent. I remember an US-American, who had murdered a German exchange student some long years ago, because the student had entered his garage. An irreplaceable loss. I was astonished how many US-Americans think everyone has the right to murder someone, who enters their house. But this murderer is in jail now for the rest of his life. I remember in this context for example someone, who had a car accident. This was in the USA. Another car driver stopped and liked to help him. The idiot murdered the helping person by saying something like he thought he likes to use his helpless situation for to do a crime. A very bad thing happened once in Germany here. A man saw a teenager at a railway station, who was sad, and asked "What's wrong, may I help?" - the teenager murdered him.
Then you wonder why we carry guns here?
A gun is a thing, which throws little pieces of metal with a very high speed through the air. If someone takes not care such pieces of metal are able to hurt a living organism - in worst case someone dies, because of the use of such toys. I think to use guns is a boring and stupid game from idiots for idiots.

 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
415
Points
140
According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.
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?


Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

  • 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.
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.
And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining,
“The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------

There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:


That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:


The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership.
The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."
Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.
We do not have a "gun emergency," in the United States....
You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.
It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.
40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.
One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

You were saying?

BERLIN (Reuters) - Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.


That's an hysteric report from the year 2015, when we had about 2 million migrants in Germany. 1 million of them were refugees, which came from outside of the EU from war regions. When did you have the last time your history in only one year about 8 million refugees?

Was not so easy to solve all this proböems. Let me take a short look:

Murder: 2010: 281 - 2011: 357 - 2012: 281 - 2013: 282 - 2014: 298 - 2015: 296 - 2016: 373 - 2017: 405 - 2018: 386 - 2019: 245

245 times murder in a year in 2019 was the best value since the year 2000. In this year our killing-rate was less than 10% of the killing-rate of the USA.

And? We have a political party, the democrat party, that keeps releasing the most violent criminals back onto our streets, over and over again....it is these criminals who are committing murder over and over again.

When you have a political party in your country that will take your most violent criminals, and release them from jail on bond.......if you have that......and out of prison on short sentences....then you will understand why we have the crime rates we have in our democrat party controlled cities.....
Keep the USA within the USA then no one has any problem with the USA. On my own free will I never would visit the USA.
You'll never visit the USA, but you'll come to our political forums to discuss our politics?
Exactly. I have nothing to do with the English speaking world and I do not speak English in my daily life.

 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
60,980
Reaction score
11,168
Points
2,140
Don't tell me bullshit.
It's not bullshit.

What a bullshit. What you "believe" has to be real and to be plausible in such a case - otherwise every jugde will think you are a liar. No one has any "license to kill", also not agent 007.
It's not a license to kill, it's a license to use deadly force against a potential attack. Need me to link our laws for you? I'll be happy to do it. I'm a licensed CCW carrier, and I do know the laws very well.

I do not try to speak about Trump. Meanwhile Trump is in my eyes only a criminal idiot any longer and it helps no one anything what this man says nor what are the answers on his stupidities. So I changed this first draft. You answered before I finished the text. Read again what I wrote.
Well you did speak of Trump and that's why I responded with Trump. I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to understand what you are writing about. Your translation program is not very good.
You have NO RIGHT to use deadly force unless threatened with deadly force. You need to LEARN the laws of self defence.
Talking out your lying ass again...
"A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use lethal force to defend themselves or others (right of self-defense) against threats or reasonably perceived threats, regardless of whether they can safely retreat from the situation. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be[1] and may use any necessary force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes. The exact details vary by jurisdiction. "
That's idiotic. No one is per se innocent. I remember an US-American, who had murdered a German exchange student some long years ago, because the student had entered his garage. An irreplaceable loss. I was astonished how many US-Americans think everyone has the right to murder someone, who enters their house. But this murderer is in jail now for the rest of his life. I remember in this context for example someone, who had a car accident. This was in the USA. Another car driver stopped and liked to help him. The idiot murdered the helping person by saying something like he thought he likes to use his helpless situation for to do a crime. A very bad thing happened once in Germany here. A man saw a teenager at a railway station, who was sad, and asked "What's wrong, may I help?" - the teenager murdered him.
Then you wonder why we carry guns here?
A gun is a thing, which throws little pieces of metal with a very high speed through the air. If someone takes not care such pieces of metal are able to hurt a living organism - in worst case someone dies, because of the use of such toys. I think to use guns is a boring and stupid game from idiots for idiots.

That toy may save my life someday, so this idiot will always keep his.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
60,980
Reaction score
11,168
Points
2,140
I'm anti gun, anti trump, anti racist cons which those couple are probably but I don't blame them for defending their property from trespassers.
From what I understand, they are hard leftists.
Still my position is stated above.
Only in America thugh, in other countries is not necessary....here is too violent, people are culturally violent and killings are the norm. Many of you gun lovers don't know that there are countless of countries living without guns, no shootings at school, work places......I know it is hard to understand. Not strange where most don't even know where cANADA is, or who the founding fathers are, or when the independence took place and so forth...thinks that me as an immigrant knew by heart in elementary school overseas in 3 languages.
America is not other countries. In fact, we are really one of a kind. Our problem is not guns, our problem is we thought this concept of a melting pot would work. It never has, and still doesn't.

The other countries you speak of are virtually one culture people. We are not that. Besides different races of people, we also have different cultures. You cannot successfully force the tiger and hyena to live together. One will end up killing the other.

I've made this point many times before: If you made law that all people in a low crime nice white middle-class suburb had to own a gun, their crime rate will not change. At the same time, if you created a law that nobody in a high crime minority city can own a gun, their crime rate will not change either. Hence, the object used to kill people is not what makes the difference.

And this is the ignorance of the left. They blame the object instead of the people for crime.
You are so wrong at so many levels I don't know where to begin.
Let's take Australia for example, almost identical history to the US there were natives, than European came in slaughtered them and took their land...later on more European migrants came in....down the road more migrants came in from many parts of the world and especially from third world countries just like the US. They don't have the same problems the US suffers from especially gun massacres, mass shootings, killings left and right and so forth....they have a far better quality life in general, better education system, better health care and list goes on.

And who the hell gave you the right to dictate who can come in and who can not? just because you landed here earlier than the rest of us? Did you even ask the original land owners?
As a natural born citizen, I do have the right to say who comes in this country, and I do so with my vote. What country allows anybody and everybody to come and go as they please? The only countries like that are countries nobody really wants to go to.

Nobody is more generous to people outside of their country than the United States of America. We allow nearly a million people every year to become citizens of our country, and almost that amount issued in VISA's and green cards so people can take advantage of everything we created. Name me one civilized country that does that.

Then when you consider how much foreign aid we taxpayers give to other countries, and our private charities, no other country comes close to helping others outside their border than us.

And that's not even the problem. The problem is when people complain that in spite of all we do, it's simply not enough. We have foreigners, like you, who move to this country to take advantage of everything we worked for, and then bitch about how we do things. That's the problem.
I'm sorry but that's the dumbest explanation I've ever heard. Without immigration the US would have not only not being created but would've became a third world country. Have you been to labs? Silicone valley? Seen who is behind all the innovations, technologies, research and so forth ? Mostly immigrants.

America allows immigrants because it needs them, is a wini wini situation.
I came to this country and contributed with my education and my skills and in 20 years I managed to be better than millions of american born... just like my fellow citizen who also migrated to the US and now leads the task force to find a vaccine and he found 23 in the past that have been saving millions of lives here in the US and in the world, what have you done. I'm also 100% positive I paid more taxes than you .

Oh and the US charity, well let me tell you my friend that the US if it gives it takes more than it gives.

Your vote is useless it cant srop human movement that dates thousands of years. You can manifest your racism as much as you like but this country will not be majority white and I advise you to accept it and adapt.
And when it ceases to be white, it will turn into a third-world country, or at the very least, a Socialist or Communist country.

At one time we did need immigrants, but that time is long past. Now it's time to keep foreigners out of this country. For every foreigner you can site that was a benefit to our nation, I can find you ten that were a negative. Foreigners use more welfare than native born Americans. I don't call that a benefit.

So we no longer need immigrants, especially illegal ones, and that's why we voted for President Trump, and will again in November.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
24,713
Reaction score
7,294
Points
290
Location
Niagara Escarpment
Don't tell me bullshit.
It's not bullshit.

What a bullshit. What you "believe" has to be real and to be plausible in such a case - otherwise every jugde will think you are a liar. No one has any "license to kill", also not agent 007.
It's not a license to kill, it's a license to use deadly force against a potential attack. Need me to link our laws for you? I'll be happy to do it. I'm a licensed CCW carrier, and I do know the laws very well.

I do not try to speak about Trump. Meanwhile Trump is in my eyes only a criminal idiot any longer and it helps no one anything what this man says nor what are the answers on his stupidities. So I changed this first draft. You answered before I finished the text. Read again what I wrote.
Well you did speak of Trump and that's why I responded with Trump. I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to understand what you are writing about. Your translation program is not very good.
You have NO RIGHT to use deadly force unless threatened with deadly force. You need to LEARN the laws of self defence.
Talking out your lying ass again...
"A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use lethal force to defend themselves or others (right of self-defense) against threats or reasonably perceived threats, regardless of whether they can safely retreat from the situation. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be[1] and may use any necessary force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes. The exact details vary by jurisdiction. "
That's idiotic. No one is per se innocent. I remember an US-American, who had murdered a German exchange student some long years ago, because the student had entered his garage. An irreplaceable loss. I was astonished how many US-Americans think everyone has the right to murder someone, who enters their house. But this murderer is in jail now for the rest of his life. I remember in this context for example someone, who had a car accident. This was in the USA. Another car driver stopped and liked to help him. The idiot murdered the helping person by saying something like he thought he likes to use his helpless situation for to do a crime. A very bad thing happened once in Germany here. A man saw a teenager at a railway station, who was sad, and asked "What's wrong, may I help?" - the teenager murdered him.
Then you wonder why we carry guns here?
A gun is a thing, which throws little pieces of metal with a very high speed through the air. If someone takes not care such pieces of metal are able to hurt a living organism - in worst case someone dies, because of the use of such toys. I think to use guns is a boring and stupid game from idiots for idiots.

That toy may save my life someday, so this idiot will always keep his.
How long have you owned this gun? You say it "may" save your life "someday" which implies you've never needed it. Do you think maybe, you don't need this gun, but you got snookered into buying one because of right wing fear and paranoia.

I cannot tell you how many times people on this board have told me I "need" a gun to protect myself. I'm 71 years old and I have never "needed" a gun in my life. I used to play poker in Toronto in underground rooms and hung out with pretty dodgy people in my time, so it's not like I lived this pristine "church lady" life that never exposed me to any dangers.

You people have sold your souls to the NRA, and what did you get in return? 35,000 shootings deaths every year. 1000 children gunned killed by guns every year. More mass shootings than the rest of the world combined.

Gun violence costs your economy $229 billion per year:


This is a piece from the Globe and Mail in Toronto on the economic costs of gun violence in Canada. Canada's population is 1/10th that of the US. If you factor in the population differences, the economic cost of gun violence in Canada is $3 billion, compared to $299 billion for the USA.


Since Americans don't care about the bloodshed, or the children dying, let's point out the ONLY thing that matters to Americans. The cost to the economy.

$229 billion per year, is what your obsession with guns costs. Is it worth it?
 

badbob85037

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2018
Messages
306
Reaction score
213
Points
193
According to you, it's illegal for someone to stand on their own property holding a firearm?

Go to fucking ass-rape hell.

Why don't you go live in a country where the natural right to self defense has been completely infringed.

Go live somewhere else. Go live where you can be "safe" from all these "gun nuts."

You have your pick of pretty much anywhere else in the world. We have nowhere else we can go.

Get the fuck out.
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?


Links to Harvard and Brooklyn Law are hardly "fair and balanced". Both are liberal/democrat strongholds. Find better sources.

  • 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.
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.
And you lied about the CDC being banned from doing research.......do you just sit there with your jaw slack, drooling.....as the left wing implants their fake information into your skull...

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining,
“The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.





No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------

There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.

And your used a FAKE NEWS site. Why are we not surprised:


That being said, the REAL story is not as was portrayed in the fake news site you linked to, so we'll go with this one:


The study doesn't say ANY of the things your article claims, it just reviews 5 other studies and says more studies are needed. I bolded the parts you left out.

The study (available as a PDF) calls the defensive use of guns by crime victims "a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed." While it might be as high as 3 million defensive uses of guns each year, some scholars point to the much lower estimate of 108,000 times a year. "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field," the study notes.

The authors also say gun ownership might be good for defensive uses, but that benefit could be canceled out by the risk of suicide or homicide that comes with gun ownership.
The depth of the relationship is unknown "and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."
Gee, that's not what your fake news article said. And while the idea that the CDC cannot do a study which promotes gun control is not quite the same thing as an outright ban on research, all gun violence studies do that in one way or another. The CDC doesn't want to do this research because it's so political.

The bald fact is there is a national emergency of gun violence in the USA. But like every other American problem, you refuse to even discuss the problem, much less deal with it.
We do not have a "gun emergency," in the United States....
You have very very serious weapon problems in the USA. Example: In a normal year more than 250,000 policemen shoot in Germany less than 100 shots against human beigns - including warn shots - and less than 10 crimnals die and nearly never a policeman loses his life during shootings.
It's not a weapons problem we have here, it's a culture problem. We have groups of people here who are inherently more violent than others. When you have the diversity we have, then you can opine.
40% of all children in Germany have a migration background.

Until then, you need to live here to understand what our real problems are.
One of your real problems is the weapon fetishism in the USA.

You were saying?

BERLIN (Reuters) - Young male refugees in Germany got the blame on Wednesday for most of a two-year increase in violent crime, adding fuel to the country’s political debate over migrants.


That's an hysteric report from the year 2015, when we had about 2 million migrants in Germany. 1 million of them were refugees, which came from outside of the EU from war regions. When did you have the last time your history in only one year about 8 million refugees?

Was not so easy to solve all this proböems. Let me take a short look:

Murder: 2010: 281 - 2011: 357 - 2012: 281 - 2013: 282 - 2014: 298 - 2015: 296 - 2016: 373 - 2017: 405 - 2018: 386 - 2019: 245

245 times murder in a year in 2019 was the best value since the year 2000. In this year our killing-rate was less than 10% of the killing-rate of the USA.
ya see in America we try not to import rape of our women. Not like Europe who like importing rape to make up for your short comings. It must also suck not being able to take a truck load of guns out in the desert for the week end or not being able to tell your bitch queen to fuck off.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
60,980
Reaction score
11,168
Points
2,140
Don't tell me bullshit.
It's not bullshit.

What a bullshit. What you "believe" has to be real and to be plausible in such a case - otherwise every jugde will think you are a liar. No one has any "license to kill", also not agent 007.
It's not a license to kill, it's a license to use deadly force against a potential attack. Need me to link our laws for you? I'll be happy to do it. I'm a licensed CCW carrier, and I do know the laws very well.

I do not try to speak about Trump. Meanwhile Trump is in my eyes only a criminal idiot any longer and it helps no one anything what this man says nor what are the answers on his stupidities. So I changed this first draft. You answered before I finished the text. Read again what I wrote.
Well you did speak of Trump and that's why I responded with Trump. I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to understand what you are writing about. Your translation program is not very good.
You have NO RIGHT to use deadly force unless threatened with deadly force. You need to LEARN the laws of self defence.
Talking out your lying ass again...
"A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use lethal force to defend themselves or others (right of self-defense) against threats or reasonably perceived threats, regardless of whether they can safely retreat from the situation. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be[1] and may use any necessary force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes. The exact details vary by jurisdiction. "
That's idiotic. No one is per se innocent. I remember an US-American, who had murdered a German exchange student some long years ago, because the student had entered his garage. An irreplaceable loss. I was astonished how many US-Americans think everyone has the right to murder someone, who enters their house. But this murderer is in jail now for the rest of his life. I remember in this context for example someone, who had a car accident. This was in the USA. Another car driver stopped and liked to help him. The idiot murdered the helping person by saying something like he thought he likes to use his helpless situation for to do a crime. A very bad thing happened once in Germany here. A man saw a teenager at a railway station, who was sad, and asked "What's wrong, may I help?" - the teenager murdered him.
Then you wonder why we carry guns here?
A gun is a thing, which throws little pieces of metal with a very high speed through the air. If someone takes not care such pieces of metal are able to hurt a living organism - in worst case someone dies, because of the use of such toys. I think to use guns is a boring and stupid game from idiots for idiots.

That toy may save my life someday, so this idiot will always keep his.
How long have you owned this gun? You say it "may" save your life "someday" which implies you've never needed it. Do you think maybe, you don't need this gun, but you got snookered into buying one because of right wing fear and paranoia.

I cannot tell you how many times people on this board have told me I "need" a gun to protect myself. I'm 71 years old and I have never "needed" a gun in my life. I used to play poker in Toronto in underground rooms and hung out with pretty dodgy people in my time, so it's not like I lived this pristine "church lady" life that never exposed me to any dangers.

You people have sold your souls to the NRA, and what did you get in return? 35,000 shootings deaths every year. 1000 children gunned killed by guns every year. More mass shootings than the rest of the world combined.

Gun violence costs your economy $229 billion per year:


This is a piece from the Globe and Mail in Toronto on the economic costs of gun violence in Canada. Canada's population is 1/10th that of the US. If you factor in the population differences, the economic cost of gun violence in Canada is $3 billion, compared to $299 billion for the USA.


Since Americans don't care about the bloodshed, or the children dying, let's point out the ONLY thing that matters to Americans. The cost to the economy.

$229 billion per year, is what your obsession with guns costs. Is it worth it?
I never had an interest in guns, until I came home from work one day many years ago and found somebody busted into my apartment and stole some items near and dear to me. I knew who the people were, but our system of justice is that regardless what you know, authorities will not act on anything until you have evidence. The people who did this to me were very dangerous. So I bought my first gun.

One of them came around assuming I didn't know it was him. So I took my gun and flashed it around. I told him I'm anxiously awaiting for the crooks to come back so I can send them home in a box for their mama to cry over. I told him I even have a friend come over to take my car out of my parking lot from time to time to give the appearance I'm not home, encouraging them to break in again. Then I irresponsibly took that gun and twirled it on my shooting finger like a cowboy, and the guy got so scared he ran away and never came back. It was a revolver with a very tight trigger so I knew it wouldn't go off accidentally. But I wanted to give him the impression that I was crazy and blood thirsty at the same time. It worked.

The housing bubble was caused by the government encouraging banks to give home loans at 0% down with no credit check. Before you knew it, lowlife blacks from the inner-city invaded our suburb, and along with them came the crime. One year we had three murders within a half mile of my home, so I took a CCW class and got my license.

Will I need my gun in the future? I certainly hope not. But if I do, I'll be glad I had it.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
24,130
Reaction score
6,977
Points
290
Location
Tejas
I'm anti gun, anti trump, anti racist cons which those couple are probably but I don't blame them for defending their property from trespassers.
From what I understand, they are hard leftists.
Still my position is stated above.
Only in America thugh, in other countries is not necessary....here is too violent, people are culturally violent and killings are the norm. Many of you gun lovers don't know that there are countless of countries living without guns, no shootings at school, work places......I know it is hard to understand. Not strange where most don't even know where cANADA is, or who the founding fathers are, or when the independence took place and so forth...thinks that me as an immigrant knew by heart in elementary school overseas in 3 languages.
America is not other countries. In fact, we are really one of a kind. Our problem is not guns, our problem is we thought this concept of a melting pot would work. It never has, and still doesn't.

The other countries you speak of are virtually one culture people. We are not that. Besides different races of people, we also have different cultures. You cannot successfully force the tiger and hyena to live together. One will end up killing the other.

I've made this point many times before: If you made law that all people in a low crime nice white middle-class suburb had to own a gun, their crime rate will not change. At the same time, if you created a law that nobody in a high crime minority city can own a gun, their crime rate will not change either. Hence, the object used to kill people is not what makes the difference.

And this is the ignorance of the left. They blame the object instead of the people for crime.
You are so wrong at so many levels I don't know where to begin.
Let's take Australia for example, almost identical history to the US there were natives, than European came in slaughtered them and took their land...later on more European migrants came in....down the road more migrants came in from many parts of the world and especially from third world countries just like the US. They don't have the same problems the US suffers from especially gun massacres, mass shootings, killings left and right and so forth....they have a far better quality life in general, better education system, better health care and list goes on.

And who the hell gave you the right to dictate who can come in and who can not? just because you landed here earlier than the rest of us? Did you even ask the original land owners?
Australia is better?

Well, here:
Australia Immigration--Online Application

Fucking immigrants coming here and demanding that we change to accommodate YOU. GO TO HELL!!!

NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH WOULD TOLERATE THAT SHIT!!!
 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
415
Points
140
Don't tell me bullshit.
It's not bullshit.

What a bullshit. What you "believe" has to be real and to be plausible in such a case - otherwise every jugde will think you are a liar. No one has any "license to kill", also not agent 007.
It's not a license to kill, it's a license to use deadly force against a potential attack. Need me to link our laws for you? I'll be happy to do it. I'm a licensed CCW carrier, and I do know the laws very well.

I do not try to speak about Trump. Meanwhile Trump is in my eyes only a criminal idiot any longer and it helps no one anything what this man says nor what are the answers on his stupidities. So I changed this first draft. You answered before I finished the text. Read again what I wrote.
Well you did speak of Trump and that's why I responded with Trump. I'm sorry, but it's very difficult to understand what you are writing about. Your translation program is not very good.
You have NO RIGHT to use deadly force unless threatened with deadly force. You need to LEARN the laws of self defence.
Talking out your lying ass again...
"A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) provides that people may use lethal force to defend themselves or others (right of self-defense) against threats or reasonably perceived threats, regardless of whether they can safely retreat from the situation. Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be[1] and may use any necessary force if they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes. The exact details vary by jurisdiction. "
That's idiotic. No one is per se innocent. I remember an US-American, who had murdered a German exchange student some long years ago, because the student had entered his garage. An irreplaceable loss. I was astonished how many US-Americans think everyone has the right to murder someone, who enters their house. But this murderer is in jail now for the rest of his life. I remember in this context for example someone, who had a car accident. This was in the USA. Another car driver stopped and liked to help him. The idiot murdered the helping person by saying something like he thought he likes to use his helpless situation for to do a crime. A very bad thing happened once in Germany here. A man saw a teenager at a railway station, who was sad, and asked "What's wrong, may I help?" - the teenager murdered him.
Then you wonder why we carry guns here?
A gun is a thing, which throws little pieces of metal with a very high speed through the air. If someone takes not care such pieces of metal are able to hurt a living organism - in worst case someone dies, because of the use of such toys. I think to use guns is a boring and stupid game from idiots for idiots.

That toy may save my life someday, so this idiot will always keep his.
And the people, who never touch a weapon? How they are able to survive in the anti-united weaponed toy world of America?

 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List