The right to bear arms

mickeyrat

over eye contact? what in the actual fuck?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/two-charged-with-murder-shooting-super-bowl-rally-kansas-city-2024-02-20/

  Two men are charged with murder for a gunfight on the fringe of a Super Bowl victory rally in Kansas City, Missouri, that killed one person and wounded more than 20 others, including the suspects, in a quarrel over eye contact, prosecutors said on Tuesday.

Their arrests - one charged on Tuesday, the other on Feb. 17 - brought to four the number of suspects facing prosecution in the Valentine's Day shooting. Two teenagers were taken into custody last week and charged as juveniles in family court with firearms offenses and resisting arrest.

continues...

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

over eye contact? what in the actual fuck?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/two-charged-with-murder-shooting-super-bowl-rally-kansas-city-2024-02-20/

  Two men are charged with murder for a gunfight on the fringe of a Super Bowl victory rally in Kansas City, Missouri, that killed one person and wounded more than 20 others, including the suspects, in a quarrel over eye contact, prosecutors said on Tuesday.

Their arrests - one charged on Tuesday, the other on Feb. 17 - brought to four the number of suspects facing prosecution in the Valentine's Day shooting. Two teenagers were taken into custody last week and charged as juveniles in family court with firearms offenses and resisting arrest.

continues...

Hey but they passed a law banning "celebratory gunfire." You know, "responsible" things like that?

nicknyr15

“Stupid, man. Just pulled a gun out and started shooting. I shouldn’t have done that. Just being stupid,”

Gern Blansten

much like seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc, the gov't has to step in and protect us from ourselves....yet the gun lobby continues to avoid that

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

much like seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc, the gov't has to step in and protect us from ourselves....yet the gun lobby continues to avoid that

Good luck with that: 

Gern Blansten

My mantra is that they will eventually have to convert...we haven't seen the worst mass killing yet

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

My mantra is that they will eventually have to convert...we haven't seen the worst mass killing yet

I would like to believe that, but if Sandy Hook, or Uvalde, or Vegas didn’t make them say “enough already”, I genuinely don’t think anything will. 

tempo_n_groove

mickeyrat said:

over eye contact? what in the actual fuck?

https://www.reuters.com/legal/two-charged-with-murder-shooting-super-bowl-rally-kansas-city-2024-02-20/

  Two men are charged with murder for a gunfight on the fringe of a Super Bowl victory rally in Kansas City, Missouri, that killed one person and wounded more than 20 others, including the suspects, in a quarrel over eye contact, prosecutors said on Tuesday.

Their arrests - one charged on Tuesday, the other on Feb. 17 - brought to four the number of suspects facing prosecution in the Valentine's Day shooting. Two teenagers were taken into custody last week and charged as juveniles in family court with firearms offenses and resisting arrest.

continues...

Youve never lived in a hood or urban I take it?  Eyeballing is a big deal.  To appear soft from said eyeballing is even worse...

josevolution

Yet you can still buy a gun on the internet or gun show with no background check 😂😂 this nation is screwed there’s 0 chance we will ever have sensible gun reform to save lives 

MD7886

Do you actually have any rights to use the gun, even when you own a gun legally?   I mean, what situation will be so cut-and-dry that you using your gun to harm, or kill, another person isn't going to be scrutinized criminally, and then civilly?

Worse yet - the old...."nothing can stop a bad guy with a gun but a good guy with a gun".....well, that sounds good but it NEVER plays out that way.   So a mass shooter starts shooting up a crowd, you pull your legally obtained gun out and return fire.   The cops show up in a heated rush and see YOU shooting and, HOPEFULLY the bad guy shooting as well.   How are the cops going to know who's in the right?

How do you know YOU'RE in the right, in that moment.  Why did the OTHER guy pull his gun, was HE responding to another threat?  It just goes on and on.   You don't really have the right to use your gun, ever.

Gern Blansten

MD7886 said:

Do you actually have any rights to use the gun, even when you own a gun legally?   I mean, what situation will be so cut-and-dry that you using your gun to harm, or kill, another person isn't going to be scrutinized criminally, and then civilly?

Worse yet - the old...."nothing can stop a bad guy with a gun but a good guy with a gun".....well, that sounds good but it NEVER plays out that way.   So a mass shooter starts shooting up a crowd, you pull your legally obtained gun out and return fire.   The cops show up in a heated rush and see YOU shooting and, HOPEFULLY the bad guy shooting as well.   How are the cops going to know who's in the right?

How do you know YOU'RE in the right, in that moment.  Why did the OTHER guy pull his gun, was HE responding to another threat?  It just goes on and on.   You don't really have the right to use your gun, ever.

yes...you can imagine a wild wild west situation...we all just walk around with our guns out because we don't know who's good and who's bad.

tempo_n_groove

Gern Blansten said:

MD7886 said:

Do you actually have any rights to use the gun, even when you own a gun legally?   I mean, what situation will be so cut-and-dry that you using your gun to harm, or kill, another person isn't going to be scrutinized criminally, and then civilly?

Worse yet - the old...."nothing can stop a bad guy with a gun but a good guy with a gun".....well, that sounds good but it NEVER plays out that way.   So a mass shooter starts shooting up a crowd, you pull your legally obtained gun out and return fire.   The cops show up in a heated rush and see YOU shooting and, HOPEFULLY the bad guy shooting as well.   How are the cops going to know who's in the right?

How do you know YOU'RE in the right, in that moment.  Why did the OTHER guy pull his gun, was HE responding to another threat?  It just goes on and on.   You don't really have the right to use your gun, ever.

yes...you can imagine a wild wild west situation...we all just walk around with our guns out because we don't know who's good and who's bad.

Just look for the men in White.

tempo_n_groove

MD7886 said:

Do you actually have any rights to use the gun, even when you own a gun legally?   I mean, what situation will be so cut-and-dry that you using your gun to harm, or kill, another person isn't going to be scrutinized criminally, and then civilly?

Worse yet - the old...."nothing can stop a bad guy with a gun but a good guy with a gun".....well, that sounds good but it NEVER plays out that way.   So a mass shooter starts shooting up a crowd, you pull your legally obtained gun out and return fire.   The cops show up in a heated rush and see YOU shooting and, HOPEFULLY the bad guy shooting as well.   How are the cops going to know who's in the right?

How do you know YOU'RE in the right, in that moment.  Why did the OTHER guy pull his gun, was HE responding to another threat?  It just goes on and on.   You don't really have the right to use your gun, ever.

Do you actually have any rights to use the gun, even when you own a gun legally?   I mean, what situation will be so cut-and-dry that you using your gun to harm, or kill, another person isn't going to be scrutinized criminally, and then civilly? This is what anti gun nuts want.

Worse yet - the old...."nothing can stop a bad guy with a gun but a good guy with a gun".....well, that sounds good but it NEVER plays out that way.   So a mass shooter starts shooting up a crowd, you pull your legally obtained gun out and return fire.   The cops show up in a heated rush and see YOU shooting and, HOPEFULLY the bad guy shooting as well.   How are the cops going to know who's in the right?
There have been occasions that the "good guy" was shot trying to help.  Carrying a firearm isn't always the best thing to do.

How do you know YOU'RE in the right, in that moment.  Why did the OTHER guy pull his gun, was HE responding to another threat?  It just goes on and on.   You don't really have the right to use your gun, ever. There are laws written for this.  "feeling threatened" applies in certain situations but if you are proven negligent then you will be arraigned.  You need to understand the laws if you want them to be in your favor when using your firearm in a situation.

mace1229

MD7886 said:

Do you actually have any rights to use the gun, even when you own a gun legally?   I mean, what situation will be so cut-and-dry that you using your gun to harm, or kill, another person isn't going to be scrutinized criminally, and then civilly?

Worse yet - the old...."nothing can stop a bad guy with a gun but a good guy with a gun".....well, that sounds good but it NEVER plays out that way.   So a mass shooter starts shooting up a crowd, you pull your legally obtained gun out and return fire.   The cops show up in a heated rush and see YOU shooting and, HOPEFULLY the bad guy shooting as well.   How are the cops going to know who's in the right?

How do you know YOU'RE in the right, in that moment.  Why did the OTHER guy pull his gun, was HE responding to another threat?  It just goes on and on.   You don't really have the right to use your gun, ever.

I agree with part of this. I wouldn't get involved with a mass shooter even if I were armed for the reasons you described.
Unless someone was putting my life or my kid's lives at risk, then yes, that 100% gives me the right to defend my children. I don't carry, but if I did, and I felt my children were threatened by someone with a lethal weapon, I wouldn't hesitate and I would be completely in the right. 

It is not as common, but there are plenty of good guy with a gun examples out there and it has happened. Not usually a mass shooting, but you hear about a fast food place being held up then someone with a gun stops it. The only potential mass shooting scenario I can remember was a church in Texas a couple years ago. Someone opened fire in a church and someone in the church took him out almost immediately. 

I'm not saying people should be armed and ready to stop the next shooter, just responding to your comment bout never having the right to use your gun. You do.

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

MD7886 said:

Do you actually have any rights to use the gun, even when you own a gun legally?   I mean, what situation will be so cut-and-dry that you using your gun to harm, or kill, another person isn't going to be scrutinized criminally, and then civilly?

Worse yet - the old...."nothing can stop a bad guy with a gun but a good guy with a gun".....well, that sounds good but it NEVER plays out that way.   So a mass shooter starts shooting up a crowd, you pull your legally obtained gun out and return fire.   The cops show up in a heated rush and see YOU shooting and, HOPEFULLY the bad guy shooting as well.   How are the cops going to know who's in the right?

How do you know YOU'RE in the right, in that moment.  Why did the OTHER guy pull his gun, was HE responding to another threat?  It just goes on and on.   You don't really have the right to use your gun, ever.

I agree with part of this. I wouldn't get involved with a mass shooter even if I were armed for the reasons you described.
Unless someone was putting my life or my kid's lives at risk, then yes, that 100% gives me the right to defend my children. I don't carry, but if I did, and I felt my children were threatened by someone with a lethal weapon, I wouldn't hesitate and I would be completely in the right. 

It is not as common, but there are plenty of good guy with a gun examples out there and it has happened. Not usually a mass shooting, but you hear about a fast food place being held up then someone with a gun stops it. The only potential mass shooting scenario I can remember was a church in Texas a couple years ago. Someone opened fire in a church and someone in the church took him out almost immediately. 

I'm not saying people should be armed and ready to stop the next shooter, just responding to your comment bout never having the right to use your gun. You do.

Just because it happens every so often doesn't make it right. People without guns have stopped people with guns. We still have an insane gun problem.

OnWis97

MD7886 said:

Do you actually have any rights to use the gun, even when you own a gun legally?   I mean, what situation will be so cut-and-dry that you using your gun to harm, or kill, another person isn't going to be scrutinized criminally, and then civilly?

Worse yet - the old...."nothing can stop a bad guy with a gun but a good guy with a gun".....well, that sounds good but it NEVER plays out that way.   So a mass shooter starts shooting up a crowd, you pull your legally obtained gun out and return fire.   The cops show up in a heated rush and see YOU shooting and, HOPEFULLY the bad guy shooting as well.   How are the cops going to know who's in the right?

How do you know YOU'RE in the right, in that moment.  Why did the OTHER guy pull his gun, was HE responding to another threat?  It just goes on and on.   You don't really have the right to use your gun, ever.

Criminally, anyway, the burden of proof not on the user. So it has to be cut-and-dry that they should not have have used their gun. And this is from governments increasingly disinterested in actually stopping such things, at least to certain kinds of victims.

In other words, you pretty much have the right to use your gun...or at least the risk is fairly minimal.

MD7886

These are all good points.    I guess I could take it a step further and say, in the heat of the moment you're not going to be able to go through all the possible scenarios that makes your use of a gun legally sound.   Sure, if someone comes after you and your kids and all other aspects are obvious - but how often would that be the case.

How often is brandishing a gun considered a threat to someone else.   Does brandishing a gun mean that the person intends on using it, I would assume most laws would protect the second, or replying-in-kind "brandisher"?    I could see a situation where the first person pulls out a gun to "warn" someone, that they do have a gun, never intending on actually using it.   Then the escalation of BOTH parties showing their seeming intent causes the actual use.

The issue is, the second person can't know that, and they have to proceed based on the intention.

I know there's been anecdotal cases of good guy / bad guy scenarios, but it doesn't happen very often.   But you all made good points.

mace1229

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

MD7886 said:

Do you actually have any rights to use the gun, even when you own a gun legally?   I mean, what situation will be so cut-and-dry that you using your gun to harm, or kill, another person isn't going to be scrutinized criminally, and then civilly?

Worse yet - the old...."nothing can stop a bad guy with a gun but a good guy with a gun".....well, that sounds good but it NEVER plays out that way.   So a mass shooter starts shooting up a crowd, you pull your legally obtained gun out and return fire.   The cops show up in a heated rush and see YOU shooting and, HOPEFULLY the bad guy shooting as well.   How are the cops going to know who's in the right?

How do you know YOU'RE in the right, in that moment.  Why did the OTHER guy pull his gun, was HE responding to another threat?  It just goes on and on.   You don't really have the right to use your gun, ever.

I agree with part of this. I wouldn't get involved with a mass shooter even if I were armed for the reasons you described.
Unless someone was putting my life or my kid's lives at risk, then yes, that 100% gives me the right to defend my children. I don't carry, but if I did, and I felt my children were threatened by someone with a lethal weapon, I wouldn't hesitate and I would be completely in the right. 

It is not as common, but there are plenty of good guy with a gun examples out there and it has happened. Not usually a mass shooting, but you hear about a fast food place being held up then someone with a gun stops it. The only potential mass shooting scenario I can remember was a church in Texas a couple years ago. Someone opened fire in a church and someone in the church took him out almost immediately. 

I'm not saying people should be armed and ready to stop the next shooter, just responding to your comment bout never having the right to use your gun. You do.

Just because it happens every so often doesn't make it right. People without guns have stopped people with guns. We still have an insane gun problem.

I don't disagree. Was just responding to the point that it never happens and using a gun is never justified. I disagree with that.

Gern Blansten

OnWis97 said:

MD7886 said:

Do you actually have any rights to use the gun, even when you own a gun legally?   I mean, what situation will be so cut-and-dry that you using your gun to harm, or kill, another person isn't going to be scrutinized criminally, and then civilly?

Worse yet - the old...."nothing can stop a bad guy with a gun but a good guy with a gun".....well, that sounds good but it NEVER plays out that way.   So a mass shooter starts shooting up a crowd, you pull your legally obtained gun out and return fire.   The cops show up in a heated rush and see YOU shooting and, HOPEFULLY the bad guy shooting as well.   How are the cops going to know who's in the right?

How do you know YOU'RE in the right, in that moment.  Why did the OTHER guy pull his gun, was HE responding to another threat?  It just goes on and on.   You don't really have the right to use your gun, ever.

Criminally, anyway, the burden of proof not on the user. So it has to be cut-and-dry that they should not have have used their gun. And this is from governments increasingly disinterested in actually stopping such things, at least to certain kinds of victims.

In other words, you pretty much have the right to use your gun...or at least the risk is fairly minimal.

Trayvon Martin proved that

Gern Blansten

MD7886 said:

These are all good points.    I guess I could take it a step further and say, in the heat of the moment you're not going to be able to go through all the possible scenarios that makes your use of a gun legally sound.   Sure, if someone comes after you and your kids and all other aspects are obvious - but how often would that be the case.

How often is brandishing a gun considered a threat to someone else.   Does brandishing a gun mean that the person intends on using it, I would assume most laws would protect the second, or replying-in-kind "brandisher"?    I could see a situation where the first person pulls out a gun to "warn" someone, that they do have a gun, never intending on actually using it.   Then the escalation of BOTH parties showing their seeming intent causes the actual use.

The issue is, the second person can't know that, and they have to proceed based on the intention.

I know there's been anecdotal cases of good guy / bad guy scenarios, but it doesn't happen very often.   But you all made good points.

You're right there. Simply showing someone a gun could escalate things when your intention was to de-escalate.

And then you have the possibility of a good guy with a gun protecting his family from (for example) a mall shooter...is he at fault if he only protects his family and does not attempt to take down the gunner? All of these circumstances lead us to the conclusion that guns should be next to impossible to obtain.