Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

How is it contradictory. Saying only vets, then saying make more vets. ?

Hagred: You're an Avenger now, Harry!

?

[Diopolis]

The idea of someone murdering themselves amuses me.

Historically, we’ve never charged anyone for murdering themselves. Sort of an academic exercise - thought experiment if you will.

We did charge a pregnant woman with felony murder of a fetus once, where she initiated a violent crime, a person acted in self defense, shooting her, which killed the fetus.

A truly bizarre series of events, but the result made legal sense in context.

I seem to remember a few cases where we’ve charged criminals for murdering their accomplices who were shot in self defense by the intended victim. Could be wrong though.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

These two statements are contradictory in objective.


No.

How is it contradictory. Saying only vets, then saying make more vets. ?

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought they were contradictory when in reality they were both retarded and born from a vague notion that soldiers are more trustworthy with guns than the average citizen.

[Kowani]

Historically, we’ve never charged anyone for murdering themselves. Sort of an academic exercise - thought experiment if you will.

We did charge a pregnant woman with felony murder of a fetus once, where she initiated a violent crime, a person acted in self defense, shooting her, which killed the fetus.

A truly bizarre series of events, but the result made legal sense in context.

I seem to remember a few cases where we’ve charged criminals for murdering their accomplices who were shot in self defense by the intended victim. Could be wrong though.

I know it’s happened with police, but I can’t think of any with the victim off the top of my head.

[Galloism]

Historically, we’ve never charged anyone for murdering themselves. Sort of an academic exercise - thought experiment if you will.

We did charge a pregnant woman with felony murder of a fetus once, where she initiated a violent crime, a person acted in self defense, shooting her, which killed the fetus.

A truly bizarre series of events, but the result made legal sense in context.

I seem to remember a few cases where we’ve charged criminals for murdering their accomplices who were shot in self defense by the intended victim. Could be wrong though.

Yes, felony murder rule is explicitly to do that.

[The Chuck]

Kowani, get me a coffee and get your ass on Discord if you want to talk gun control with me. I can send you a few images of when/where I was shot and explain why gun control is a dumb idea and why every day citizens ought to be able to legally carry whatever they want.

Chuck, you and I both know that anecdotal evidence isn’t going to convince me.
And if it was…I have enough of my own.

I seem to remember you brushing off some solid statistics I've provided in the past Kowani Just because I've been to the hospital twice for GSWs and survived doesn't mean I don't need the ability to defend myself against those wishing to do harm.

Just remember that I support the right to bear arms for all citizens no matter their race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, etc. The Bill of Rights is quite clear on the matter of the right to bear arms.

[Kowani]

Chuck, you and I both know that anecdotal evidence isn’t going to convince me.
And if it was…I have enough of my own.

I seem to remember you brushing off some solid statistics I've provided in the past Kowani

I can’t remember off the top of my head, so…when?

Just because I've been to the hospital twice for GSWs and survived doesn't mean I don't need the ability to defend myself against those wishing to do harm.

Just remember that I support the right to bear arms for all citizens no matter their race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, etc. The Bill of Rights is quite clear on the matter of the right to bear arms.

What does this have to do with anything? I’m not accusing you of wanting people to not be able to own weapons.

[The Chuck]

I seem to remember you brushing off some solid statistics I've provided in the past Kowani

I can’t remember off the top of my head, so…when?

When we were discussing the St. Louis City Homicide statistics in relation to drug crime/etc. last decade (ha, I get to make these jokes now).

[Kowani]

I can’t remember off the top of my head, so…when?

When we were discussing the St. Louis City Homicide statistics in relation to drug crime/etc. last decade (ha, I get to make these jokes now).

I actually have no idea what you’re talking about.

[The Chuck]

I can’t remember off the top of my head, so…when?

When we were discussing the St. Louis City Homicide statistics in relation to drug crime/etc. last decade (ha, I get to make these jokes now).

I actually have no idea what you’re talking about.

233 Days ago over telegrams once we were told to take our convo elsewhere by the mods discussing drugs and crime in the gun control III thread.

[Telconi]

Historically, we’ve never charged anyone for murdering themselves. Sort of an academic exercise - thought experiment if you will.

We did charge a pregnant woman with felony murder of a fetus once, where she initiated a violent crime, a person acted in self defense, shooting her, which killed the fetus.

A truly bizarre series of events, but the result made legal sense in context.

I seem to remember a few cases where we’ve charged criminals for murdering their accomplices who were shot in self defense by the intended victim. Could be wrong though.

That's not that uncommon, Zone of Danger laws are on the books in most states I believe.

[Kowani]

I actually have no idea what you’re talking about.

233 Days ago over telegrams once we were told to take our convo elsewhere by the mods discussing drugs and crime in the gun control III thread.

Oh, that! Okay, now I remember.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

How is it contradictory. Saying only vets, then saying make more vets. ?

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought they were contradictory when in reality they were both retarded and born from a vague notion that soldiers are more trustworthy with guns than the average citizen.

That’s a lot of assumptions right there...

[Telconi]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought they were contradictory when in reality they were both retarded and born from a vague notion that soldiers are more trustworthy with guns than the average citizen.

That’s a lot of assumptions right there...

So why should only vets have this particular right?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought they were contradictory when in reality they were both retarded and born from a vague notion that soldiers are more trustworthy with guns than the average citizen.

That’s a lot of assumptions right there...

Assumptions founded on a firm base.

[The Two Jerseys]

That’s a lot of assumptions right there...

Assumptions founded on a firm base.

But surely we can trust this veteran with a gun...

Or this one...

[Gig em Aggies]

Assumptions founded on a firm base.

But surely we can trust this veteran with a gun...

Or this one...

so cherry picking are we this early? as with events surrounding police officers its not fair to label all of them just because a small few do very stupid shit. one thing is that Whitman's actions could have been caused in part by his brain tumor. Oswald's actions could have been based off of mental issues or he just felt like that JFK would ruin communism so he had to act on behalf of communism

[The Empire of Pretantia]

But surely we can trust this veteran with a gun...

Or this one...

so cherry picking are we this early? as with events surrounding police officers its not fair to label all of them just because a small few do very stupid shit. one thing is that Whitman's actions could have been caused in part by his brain tumor. Oswald's actions could have been based off of mental issues or he just felt like that JFK would ruin communism so he had to act on behalf of communism

You're missing their point.

[Gig em Aggies]

so cherry picking are we this early? as with events surrounding police officers its not fair to label all of them just because a small few do very stupid shit. one thing is that Whitman's actions could have been caused in part by his brain tumor. Oswald's actions could have been based off of mental issues or he just felt like that JFK would ruin communism so he had to act on behalf of communism

You're missing their point.

no I saw there point about trusting veterans with guns but you cant just choose a couple of incidents in the past and use to push a theory or argument of today.

[The Two Jerseys]

You're missing their point.

no I saw there point about trusting veterans with guns but you cant just choose a couple of incidents in the past and use to push a theory or argument of today.

You are missing the point.

The point is "why can Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald be trusted to own guns simply because they're veterans, but I as a non-veteran can't be trusted?".

[Gig em Aggies]

no I saw there point about trusting veterans with guns but you cant just choose a couple of incidents in the past and use to push a theory or argument of today.

You are missing the point.

The point is "why can Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald be trusted to own guns simply because they're veterans, but I as a non-veteran can't be trusted?".

oh okay well when its put like that I think people in general put more trust into soldiers and law enforcement since they go through more training then the average hunter or avid gun enthusiast.

in retrospect I thought your were being snarky with your comment.

[Telconi]

You are missing the point.

The point is "why can Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald be trusted to own guns simply because they're veterans, but I as a non-veteran can't be trusted?".

oh okay well when its put like that I think people in general put more trust into soldiers and law enforcement since they go through more training then the average hunter or avid gun enthusiast.

in retrospect I thought your were being snarky with your comment.

I'd argue that point, LEOs generally go through less practice than an 'avid gun enthusiast' many are only required to re-qual on a yearly basis, and fire a few hundred rounds in total.

[Gig em Aggies]

oh okay well when its put like that I think people in general put more trust into soldiers and law enforcement since they go through more training then the average hunter or avid gun enthusiast.

in retrospect I thought your were being snarky with your comment.

I'd argue that point, LEOs generally go through less practice than an 'avid gun enthusiast' many are only required to re-qual on a yearly basis, and fire a few hundred rounds in total.

I thought at the academy you had to qualify to something similar like in basic for the military.

[The Two Jerseys]

You are missing the point.

The point is "why can Charles Whitman and Lee Harvey Oswald be trusted to own guns simply because they're veterans, but I as a non-veteran can't be trusted?".

oh okay well when its put like that I think people in general put more trust into soldiers and law enforcement since they go through more training then the average hunter or avid gun enthusiast.

in retrospect I thought your were being snarky with your comment.

No worries.

[Telconi]

I'd argue that point, LEOs generally go through less practice than an 'avid gun enthusiast' many are only required to re-qual on a yearly basis, and fire a few hundred rounds in total.

I thought at the academy you had to qualify to something similar like in basic for the military.

The academy course I went through was 1600/300/100 round count, we had to provide our own so I remember.