Hey im ANtiGuns 😄

Or at least Anti Big Guns. Gas pistols and pepper pistols are fine 😄

Zino stick around, i'm your Huckleberry 😉

Sure 🙏

I grew up in a farming area, where 12-15 year olds with lower caliber rifles were seen as helping the neighbors with varmint control, or learning life skills. One farmer kept firearms stored outside his house proper -- in an unlocked cabinet in the workshop over a garage out back. No one did anything that drew police or required an emergency room, as safe use and realistic risks was part of normal childhood education.

I've worked in cities where I've carried a sidearm and it's a PITA, plus elevated stress working conditions to be around risks that drive that need. I've been certified to teach firearm safety and self defense courses, several recognized as legal standards for concealed carry permits under illegal but prolific laws of many states, as a major US Constitutional right is their use to kill certain vaguely defined classes of corrupt officials (who in turn, are inherently incompetent to regulate citizens in that role). I've had more firearm safety training than some jurisdictions require of police.
I've done some training alongside police, including reckless arrogant dimwit liars who I was glad to see flunk out, and others who are mature skilled individuals. I have been in situations where I've been lawfully entitled to kill humans, but have always found other ways to handle those situations, which is a key issue of some wannabe firearm users who perhaps really shouldn't have access to them. I've worked around potentially lethal industrial environments where one could only hope that safe and reliable systems or tools as firearms are (reckless humans not included) were possible to design.

But, overall, when most safety issues where firearms are potentially needed against other humans reflect rights-oppressive drug policies, and other political corruption, if we had honest, functional government, it'd be far easier to reduce social stressors that are unhealthy to live around. Firearms are tools whose use reflects that, but are not the cause.

I see.. Hm. Loki would you agree to have a Scoring System for firearms, starting from a pepper pistol (with people of low score - fellons, antisocial, bullies and so on) and Co2 Gas pistols for people who are as responsibile as you ? People that you could count on handleing dangerous situations in a good manner?

Most situations where use of lethal force is legally and ethically justified are ones where good choices are already missing.

Yes good point

Do you have the principle of proportionality in US Gun Law? Meaning that if some1 attacks you, your reaction must be of equal proportion to the attack ?

Most states require "imminent threat of death or major bodily injury"

in order to defend yourself with lethal force

Oh. That is quite subjective..

We have that also, but it goes with the proportionality principle both when a judge decides

Shooting some1 when he attacs you with a knife is consideret unproportional.

Exception being in your home or in defence of an incapacited person or defending family

Proportional defense only applies to lesser crimes. Once someone demonstrates ability and imminent intent for felony assault (which does not require completion as battery), arson, rape, or homicides, lethal force is justified, to attempt to "stop", not kill per se.

Any restrictions on access to particular firearms is blatantly illegal were US foundational law honestly enforced. There are practical issues where any firearm one can conveniently carry, or hand hold, is marginal as to rapid stopping power. Your list of toys or sub-lethal weapons do not apply, and for citizens (unlike police who have a duty to attempt to protect perp's they arrest), there's rarely a case where sub-lethal force is lawfully justified when lethal force is not.

Guys-- Black ppl are so rare in this part of the world that when you see one, its soo exciting :))

Loki im curious: In US, when demonstrating the imminent intent for felony assault - can you use the criminal record of the attacker (his past history) ?

Is that proof admitable in court ?

(criminal record as proof to indicate imminent intent for assault) ?

Better article probably:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/22/institutional-racism-britain-stephen-lawrence-inquiry-20-years

If we'd have such a debate about racism in Europe lasting more than a week people would die of boredom, discussing same subject..Nobody cares what color you have.. Just saying..

For the record I have only skimmed the article and I'm not sure if it supports Ola's claim

Police is brutal cause they are scared of ppl might shoot them. Ppl are scared by police shooting them. Every1 lives in fear.. too much fear. Ban the guns and fear will go away in a few years.

And reward the good citizens. With access to cheaper credits, food, better schools and home owenership and so on.. better heathcare and culural fests

In a few years, people will race to be better and better ^_^

> Loki im curious: In US, when demonstrating the imminent intent for felony assault - can you use the criminal record of the attacker (his past history) ?
@Yussuki ₪
Possibly in the case of a known perpetrator.... That's a messy area of law, and states and courts have inconsistent criteria, or lawyers who make emotive and political arguments that may prevail even if in theory invalid.

But, that's not a key criterion. The perp had better have shown some threat that was immediate there and then.

Unless of course, you're a member of a corrupt "Blue Wall" police gang of testiliars. Then, it seems popular to claim "he was reaching for his waistband" as if an invisible supposed firearm that hasn't been drawn nor aimed qualifies (in theory, it does NOT), and "I was skeered!", count. Cops are supposed to control irrational fears, tolerate criticism as government actors (fuck off and die, pigs!), and act on analytical awareness of SAF (specific and articulable facts). Too many of them are instead serial felons with their own criminal gang culture.

Wow. That's interesting. In Europe, criminal record from the past is suffice to prove the assault when waters are murky. Criminal record is always the cherry on the pie if evidence is equal both sides.

> Most states require "imminent threat of death or major bodily injury"
@drenath
@Yussuki ₪
That's got lots of wiggle room for lawyers to argue, but it's precise and specific by US lawyer standards. That language comes from the nearly century old MPC (Model Penal Code lawyer trade group drafted criminal law standards adopted with minor variants in all US states), to distinguish 2nd degree assault (felony) from 3rd Degree Assault (higher level misdemeanor).

Gangs are very rare. Quite inexistent. In Germany and France yea ..but not many.

How do you establish the "major bodily injury"? is it according to the number of days in hospital?

This is how they are set in Europe.. formulation is a bit more clear here

Remember, assault is ability and intent; battery is physical contact, so zero injuries required. Answering such legal questions can turn complex fast, and not be possible to do in advance of specific cases, despite legal standards requiring that.

We only use "intent" here. Ability is non existent in law

And crimes involving physical contact are specifically mentioned one by one..

For example: "Hit that causes death"

"Brawl that leads to 1 person dead"

"Brawl that leads to more than 1 person dead"

If some dementia riddled old person states a threat and shows intent to carry it out, but is grossly lacking in ability to do so, or someone in another country or without a firearm at hand threatens to shoot you, I'd guess your courts do incorporate what in US law is the "ability" provision into whether "intent" seems credible?

"Robbery with violence"

"Robbery without violence"