The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Estebonrober]

Family of the toddler that had its jaw shot off in Texas has been getting donations for the surgery they cant afford.

In what kind of a country does baby's surgery from getting shot at cause financial trouble for the family?

Did this happen in some third world ********?

Such a lovely country.

I'm not going to lie it feels pretty crappy.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Walmart changes gun policies after shootings

Walmart is to stop sales of some types of ammunition following recent shootings, including one at one of its stores in Texas that left 22 dead.

The head of the company said it would discontinue sales of some bullets that can be used in assault-style weapons, and those used in handguns.

The move comes amid increasing pressure on the company, often cited as the largest firearms seller in the US.

Chief executive Doug McMillon said the company had been "listening".

"It's clear to us that the status quo is unacceptable," he said in a note to employees and published on the firm's website.

The firm also said it would discontinue handgun sales in Alaska, the only place it still offered such weapons.

The firm asked customers at Walmart and its Sam's Club stores to stop carrying firearms openly, even in states where it is legally permitted, saying such actions have caused fear and evacuations.

Mr McMillon said: "We know these decisions will inconvenience some of our customers, and we hope they will understand."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49572760

 

[Fippy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d-purse-snatcher-says-her-gun-saved-her-life/

“It was all I had in my gun. I shot until I couldn’t shoot anymore,” Hudgins said. “I saved my life.”

Good job, she (almost?) killed a youth between 15-20 instead of firing just 1 shot and make them flee.
Guns in the hands of stupid people are great.

 

[Commodore]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d-purse-snatcher-says-her-gun-saved-her-life/

“It was all I had in my gun. I shot until I couldn’t shoot anymore,” Hudgins said. “I saved my life.”

Good job, she (almost?) killed a youth between 15-20 instead of firing just 1 shot and make them flee.
Guns in the hands of stupid people are great.

Says the person who has never been in a situation like that.

Any gun training course you take will tell you to never fire "warning shots". One of those reasons being that you are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your gun. So if you fire a warning shot and it ends up hitting someone 100 yards down the road, you are going to jail for manslaughter if it kills them.

Those same gun training courses will also tell you that "mag dumping" into your target is the best practice because you don't know how many bullets it will take to stop someone. There are reports of people being shot up to 17 times and still not going down.

Please try to educate yourself before opening up your mouth.

I also love how you take this story and attempt to spin it so the criminal is the victim. Maybe if this piece of human garbage wasn't prowling around looking to rob young women, he wouldn't have to worry about getting his worthless body riddled with bullets.

This woman is a hero and I congratulate her for choosing to defend herself rather than choosing to be a victim.

 

[Fippy]

You are such an idiot, talking about a teenager like that who should be shot (as you claim) for making a mistake in his life.
None of them even attacked her yet, propaganda like yours is responsible for those terrible laws.

 

[Lexicus]

Maybe if this piece of human garbage wasn't prowling around looking to rob young women, he wouldn't have to worry about getting his worthless body riddled with bullets.

And yet in the article Fippy posted, the cops say they don't know whether the person who was shot is actually the suspect. And this really underscores the problem with guns, that people who carry them around suddenly get to be judge, jury, and executioner.

You are such an idiot, talking about a teenager like that who should be shot (as you claim) for making a mistake in his life.

He is so bloodthirsty, it frankly disgust me.

 

[El_Machinae]

You are such an idiot, talking about a teenager like that who should be shot (as you claim) for making a mistake in his life.
None of them even attacked her yet, propaganda like yours is responsible for those terrible laws.

It sounds like she used the gun properly according to local law. Lex is correct that it makes her the judge jury and executioner, and that's a problem. In Canada, we don't allow violence to protect property. So we wouldn't shoot a purse snatcher. But it also sounds like they trapped her, which is an appropriate time to escalate the violence

I don't really have a problem with self-defense shootings. I just think it's reasonable to require trained licensing

In Starship Troopers, they made citizenship something that had to be truly achieved, which means that people were careful in protecting it. Many people that I know that are patriotic enough to go through the rigorous licensing process are going to use the firearms a lot more carefully then someone who can just buy it at the corner shop

 

[Lexicus]

I don't really have a problem with self-defense shootings.

My issue is that most "self-defense shootings" are clearly "property defense shootings" when they aren't just lunatic racist paranoia

 

[rah]

Yeah, for me it's similar to the death penalty.
When I was younger, I thought it was a good thing, but once I started to look at how unfairly it was administered, (usually along racial lines) I changed my mind.
Same thing for defensive killings. The guy that always seems to get off is the white guy that kills a black man. The opposite is somewhat rare. So it makes me wonder.

 

[El_Machinae]

My issue is that most "self-defense shootings" are clearly "property defense shootings" when they aren't just lunatic racist paranoia

Yeah, I can understand the concern. Like I said, in Canada we're not justified in using violence to defend property, just people. So, a 'self-defense shooting' means something different up here. I only read the linked article, but "attacking a woman while she's trapped in her car" crosses certain thresholds. He might have been just going for her purse. But he also crossed a line into physical violence.

It's not an argument for unlicensed carry. It's not an argument for long-guns with high-capacity magazines. Sure, this lady fended people off. Just the other day, a guy was able to kill more people than necessary during his rampage. Both incidents show that reasonable restrictions are viable.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Maybe if this piece of human garbage wasn't prowling around looking to rob young women, he wouldn't have to worry about getting his worthless body riddled with bullets.

I think this sentence right here nicely illustrates why I don't want most gun owners to have a gun. The death penalty for a literal purse-snatcher, without any due process, a frightened, probably untrained, civilian acting in the heat of the moment as judge, jury and executioner.

 

[Commodore]

I think this sentence right here nicely illustrates why I don't want most gun owners to have a gun. The death penalty for a literal purse-snatcher, without any due process, a frightened, probably untrained, civilian acting in the heat of the moment as judge, jury and executioner.

It wasn't the death penalty, it was suicide. The waste of human life killed himself by making the decision to try to rob someone. There is no blood on this lady's hands.

 

[El_Machinae]

Here's a bit of a problem. There's a reasonable chance she acted improperly. I'm only speaking statistically, since it was obviously a tense situation.

In order to convict her of improperly shooting someone (where she's acted as the judge and the executioner), we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she acted improperly. Flip that around for a second. This young man apparently escaped the situation, and so to convict him of robbery the State would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had acted criminally.

They're just completely different burdens. The only restraint that a defensive shooter has is "can they PROVE it was NOT self-defense?" in order to carry out their attempted death penalty. It's not even a balance of probabilities, like we'd see in civil law. It is vastly easier to inappropriately shoot people than it is to even sue them for the damages they cause. The burdens of evidence become all weird once Commodore's advice of 'mag dump' come into play.

 

[EgonSpengler]

It wasn't the death penalty, it was suicide. The waste of human life[...]

That's all I need to know. Thanks.

When it reveals itself, the latent violence of gun owners is simultaneously shocking and unsurprising, like learning that Ronald Reagan was racist. I mean, I didn't know-know, but I kinda knew. Y'know?

 

[Fippy]

According to WP, he might have been 16 or 17y old.
One possible crime: getting drunk with friends, and doing something forbidden and stupid, but not brutal.

Grabbing a purse from a car would probably get him youth custody, working social hours etc in my country, in an attempt to correct a young mind.
In some peoples wicked world, he justifiable gets shot and nobody will be sad about it.

 

[Farm Boy]

In what locality is self defense not an affirmative defense? Some stand your ground mentally and morally challenged space?

 

[El_Machinae]

Multiple youth trap a woman in a car, in what world should she be forced to assume that it is just a robbery?

 

[Farm Boy]

In one where she clearly killed somebody on the street. So your argument is that it clears the affirmative defense on its face, not that the burden of proof is different?

 

[Commodore]

My issue is that most "self-defense shootings" are clearly "property defense shootings"

Your point? Using lethal force to defend property is, depending on the state, perfectly legal. You have the right to defend your property as well as your life, especially since for most people their lives depend on their property. For example, if your car is the only means you have to get to work that provides the paycheck you need to eat, then you most certainly should be allowed to do absolutely anything in your power, including using lethal force to stop that car from being stolen. Because in a roundabout way, protecting that car is protecting your life.

That's all I need to know. Thanks.

When it reveals itself, the latent violence of gun owners is simultaneously shocking and unsurprising, like learning that Ronald Reagan was racist. I mean, I didn't know-know, but I kinda knew. Y'know?

Nope. Most gun owners aren't violent at all when it comes to dealing with other law-abiding citizens. If you and I were talking face to face, I wouldn't even consider any violent action against you no matter how angry you made me. Try to break into my house or try to harm me or my family and I wouldn't hesitate to gun you down. Most gun owners are only violent with violent people, like criminals. That's because those people are a threat and need to be dealt with before they cause any damage.

I want an honest answer to this question: why do people with your political leanings always seem to stand up for criminals and never for their victims? I mean, it really bothers me that you think it's an acceptable risk to allow people to be robbed in the street.

The burdens of evidence become all weird once Commodore's advice of 'mag dump' come into play.

Not as much as you'd think. I work with a retired cop and he explained how they were told to handle a claim of self-defense in a shooting. Basically he said as long as the perpetrator was inside the victim's home and he didn't have a bunch of entry wounds in his back, they would take the claim of self-defense at face value and not arrest the victim. For ones out in public like this, just replace "in the victim's home" with "victim feared for their life".

 

[El_Machinae]

In what locality is self defense not an affirmative defense? Some stand your ground mentally and morally challenged space?

You're correct. I was confusing between manslaughter and murder. The burden of evidence for self defense is still significantly lower than the burden to criminally convict the assaulter