Gun control debate (merged)

[VOLS INC.]

Is this murder?

Unfortunate situation.

But what is the old saying? Stupid games, stupid prizes.

 

[kiddiedoc]

< 400 annually. Actually I think ALL rifles are that, so ARs are a subset.

The problem is the troll is not really interested in saving lives

So, Fentanyl kills 200x more Americans than rifles.

More gun laws.

Open border.

This is the insanity of our times.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Is this murder?

Is the shooter antifa or a Trump supporter?

 

[luthervol]

Most of them have spent at least 12 years in public education. Many also have children in public schools, and others are engaged going to meetings and other public events of the school systems. I am betting that is far more exposure than your time with guns, it's more than mine.

Not in relative comparison to someone who works in education, they have all of the exact same experiences PLUS another world of experience.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Is this murder?

Assuming it was an unprovoked attack, just a dumba55 being a thug: Nope. Taking out the trash.

 

[85SugarVol]

Is this murder?

Going to need more information. Do we know the demographics of the sucker puncher and shooter?

 

[bnhunt]

Let’s see….they don’t know what a woman is. Men can get pregnant. Everyone has to be vaccinated except illegal invaders walking across the border. They’re going all in on EVs while they’re asking people not to charge them because of their idiotic energy policies. The list is much longer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/04/gop-proud-of-its-own-stupidity/

 

[YankeeVol]

Is this murder?

I'd say yes. Dude was no longer a threat. He walked away and then turned around and shot him.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Gun, ammunition purchases by credit card will be coded - NewsBreak

Dem/commies pulling out all the stops.

 

[davethevol]

Is this murder?

It depends on what was said after that punch. He’s going to have a hard claiming self defense as he was able to walk away unless there was something said about further attacks (which there probably was).

If I’m on that jury, I wouldn’t find him guilty though.

 

[Orangeslice13]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/04/gop-proud-of-its-own-stupidity/

Projection!!

 

[GroverCleveland]

It depends on what was said after that punch. He’s going to have a hard claiming self defense as he was able to walk away unless there was something said about further attacks (which there probably was).

If I’m on that jury, I wouldn’t find him guilty though.

In Cook County, Illinois, yeah he probably gets charged with murder and convicted.

In Monroe County, Tennessee he may get charged, but is acquitted as the jury would probably want to dig the body up and shoot it twelve more times.

 

[Carl Pickens]

I'd say yes. Dude was no longer a threat. He walked away and then turned around and shot him.

That’s kind of what I was thinking too, but would it be that different if the guy pulled the gun and shot him while on the floor?

 

[Carl Pickens]

It depends on what was said after that punch. He’s going to have a hard claiming self defense as he was able to walk away unless there was something said about further attacks (which there probably was).

If I’m on that jury, I wouldn’t find him guilty though.

It would be hard for me to as well depending on what transpired beforehand

 

[Orangeslice13]

That’s kind of what I was thinking too, but would it be that different if the guy pulled the gun and shot him while on the floor?

It depends on what was said and did they know each other.
What was on the paper?

For example (wild speculation) the attacker says “I’m coming to your house later and I’m going to kill you and your family “. And for the sake of argument they have a long history. I can see the shooter believing the threat and shooting.

there’s just no way for us to know so going just by the video and nothing else, there’s no way for me to see that shooting being justified.

 

[GroverCleveland]

It depends on what was said and did they know each other.
What was on the paper?

For example (wild speculation) the attacker says “I’m coming to your house later and I’m going to kill you and your family “. And for the sake of argument they have a long history. I can see the shooter believing the threat and shooting.

there’s just no way for us to know so going just by the video and nothing else, there’s no way for me to see that shooting being justified.

Not provoking an argument with this question, so bear with me: your conclusion that it was unjustified: is that based on what the law currently prescribes or is it based on your personal moral standard?

I would agree the law may be a problem for the shooter, but morally, I think the shooter was justified IF it was just another unprovoked attack which seem to be increasing in frequency.

Wonder how everyone feels about it?

 

[Orangeslice13]

Not provoking an argument with this question, so bear with me: your conclusion that it was unjustified: is that based on what the law currently prescribes or is it based on your personal moral standard?

I would agree the law may be a problem for the shooter, but morally, I think the shooter was justified IF it was just another unprovoked attack which seem to be increasing in frequency.

Wonder how everyone feels about it?

No problem
I don’t think I have enough information to say if I believe it’s justified. Just on the video I think the shooter has a legal challenge in front of him.

 

[GroverCleveland]

No problem
I don’t think I have enough information to say if I believe it’s justified. Just on the video I think the shooter has a legal challenge in front of him.

I understand. I think about how I would feel if a 200lb man sucker punched my granddaughter from behind and me with my sidearm and he then throws his hands up or just stands there mouthing off.

One never knows until confronted with that, but I do believe it possible he went all in holding nothing.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I understand. I think about how I would feel if a 200lb man sucker punched my granddaughter from behind and me with my sidearm and he then throws his hands up or just stands there mouthing off.

One never knows until confronted with that, but I do believe it possible he went all in holding nothing.

There’s clearly something going on here we don’t know. The shooter is looking at some papers on the wall when he’s hit. The attacker walks over to those papers and started to do something to them when he’s shot. I don’t know if that’s of significance, but there’s a lot of questions here.

 

[sonofUT62]

If I was the shooters attorney, I would claim he was severely concussed from the sucker punch and wasn’t mentally capable. If I were serving on the jury I would nod my head and vote NG.

 

[GroverCleveland]

There’s clearly something going on here we don’t know. The shooter is looking at some papers on the wall when he’s hit. The attacker walks over to those papers and started to do something to them when he’s shot. I don’t know if that’s of significance, but there’s a lot of questions here.

Agreed. We do not know everything.

 

[LouderVol]

Ah, yes.

He’s from the “if it saves just one life” school I believe. Powerful.

But only if it saves a criminals life, not the victims.

It blows my mind that they are capable of complaining about civilian shooters stopping a shooting. Apparently the alternative of more civilians dying while they wait on the cops is preferable. Those lives dont matter.

 

[LouderVol]

Not in relative comparison to someone who works in education, they have all of the exact same experiences PLUS another world of experience.

And yet that is still a world away from your self professed ignorance regarding guns.

I asked before and never got an answer, how are you going to regulate something you dont know? It's why we get specific, you stay general and say you only want to get the bad assault rifles, but your vague definitions would hit 95% of guns out there how do you rectify that? In that case your ignorance hurts your rational and reasonable argument.

It also hurts when the guns you go after are only involved in a tiny number of the deaths.

 

[85SugarVol]

And yet that is still a world away from your self professed ignorance regarding guns.

I asked before and never got an answer, how are you going to regulate something you dont know? It's why we get specific, you stay general and say you only want to get the bad assault rifles, but your vague definitions would hit 95% of guns out there how do you rectify that? In that case your ignorance hurts your rational and reasonable argument.

It also hurts when the guns you go after are only involved in a tiny number of the deaths.

Never forget -

It’s not about getting “assault weapons” off the street. It’s about disarming the citizenry, and you have to start somewhere.

 

[VOLS INC.]

Never forget -

It’s not about getting “assault weapons” off the street. It’s about disarming the citizenry, and you have to start somewhere.

But we will all be safer when we finally reach the point that only government officials have firearms!
(In the most bluest of blue fonts possible!!)