Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[crarelast]

Concerning the case of the couple who stood outside of their home to defend their property in Mo.........

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson says he is prepared to exercise his pardon powers if prosecutors bring criminal charges in the case of a St. Louis couple who brandished firearms at a group of protesters outside their home.

Parson, a Republican, told a St. Louis radio station Friday that he thinks a pardon is “exactly what would happen” if Mark and Patricia McCloskey are hit with charges in the June 28 incident captured on video and seen by millions.

He later added that based on what he knows about the case, “I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail.”

I would do the same thing if I was the Gov. of MO. This is a overreach on the part of the St. Louis Justice dept. Politically motivated. If anything, those who broke thru the gated community and then threatened the couple, should be the ones arrested.

People should stop engaging with you. You are a very stupid person, a weird combination of docile passivity and extreme violence. You took the easy route out in life, signed up to the military, and have been pathetically subservient to petty authority your entire life. You have never developed your intellect beyond what was necessary to do other people's bidding. On the internet no one really cares about any one's opinion, but yours is especially wortheless giving you spent your whole life sucking the dick of whatever petty authority you were grovelling to at that specific moment in time.

Trying to argue the details about specific cases with these people just legitimizes them. There isn't an argument here. There's the NRA and inadequate people with massive, dangerous psychological insecurities that need a firearm to feel safe.

[Felya]

That's the point. It's apolitical hit job to punish them by costing them tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves knowing that there will never be a conviction.

Good... they could have gotten someone killed, because the president of the US is using fear mongering protestors. For fuck’s sake, the way that woman was holding her gun, she likely would have killed her self and her husband, before hitting an protestors.

Pointing Guns at people who are illegally trespassing on private property and threatening you is absolutely appropriate.

No one was trespassing on their private property, nor was anyone seen threatening them... although, they sure as hell were... in fact, this actions just reverberate these people’s history in the community. Things like destroying bee hives the church was using to raise funds, then charging the church because of the mess it caused. It’s why you don’t see any of their neighbors defending them for protecting their property... they have been shitting in their neighbor property since they moved in.

- - - Updated - - -

If it’s absolutely appropriate then the case should wrap up pretty quick. And shouldn’t cost them tens of thousands either.

I’m sure it will be easy to show all the houses that were broken into, where there were no lunatics with guns “protecting” their property. I don’t think Trump tweets about crazy protestors, will be enough evidance.

[Draco-Onis]

Pointing Guns at people who are illegally trespassing on private property and threatening you is absolutely appropriate.

Did you not watch the video? no one trespassed their property they came out and started pointing guns at people. In the video you can hear the protesters telling them to calm down trying to defuse the situation.

[Specialka]

Did you not watch the video? no one trespassed their property they came out and started pointing guns at people. In the video you can hear the protesters telling them to calm down trying to defuse the situation.

Do you have the whole video ? What I find interesting here is that Foxnews is saying that the protesters entered the property. It is absolutely not like Foxnews to "distort" the reality xD

[Shadowferal]

If I had a couple of rifles pointed at me I'd be trying to calm them down to.

As such nothing will happen to the couple.

[Felya]

Do you have the whole video ? What I find interesting here is that Foxnews is saying that the protesters entered the property. It is absolutely not like Foxnews to "distort" the reality xD

From what I understand... and to be clear, this isn’t something I give a lot of shit about, so I have not looked into the two idiots. But... the protestors entered a gated community, which is what I bet Fox meant by entered property. But, they never stepped foot on the actual private property of the gun toting lunatics, nor anyone else’s in the gated community. I believe the only reported damage was the gate they broke, to get inside the gated community.

[Draco-Onis]

If I had a couple of rifles pointed at me I'd be trying to calm them down to.

As such nothing will happen to the couple.

Of course that only works if you assume no one in that crowd had a gun or projectile or the ability to outsmart two morbidly obese people who could barely hold their guns properly.

[Shadowferal]

Of course that only works if you assume no one in that crowd had a gun or projectile or the ability to outsmart two morbidly obese people who could barely hold their guns properly.

We don't need to make assumptions.

[Draco-Onis]

We don't need to make assumptions.

That's right because we have video, no one was running scared or paying attention to their property until they came out waving their guns around like toys. It is pretty clear that these people have not been to the shooting range probably because they are allergic to movement.

[Coolthulhu]

He posted himself across the street and shot the shooter once he exited the church. So yes, the shooting was over and the guy most probably exited the building to flee.

And I was taught by my insctructors in military school (Gendarmerie Nationale) to shoot for legs and arms and avoir chest, head and under the chest(pelvis ?). I was also taught to not empty the magazine but to shoot one OR 2 bullets then check.

So it seems you were taught by cowboys.

Again, speculate all you want, fact is the police was 5 to 7 minutes behind, the guy fled and had more firearms on him, so even if the shooting was over) which is not confirmed by account) another firefight could've happened (and again, he had a level III vest, and would've still have had his rifle if not for the confrontation with Willeford), whereas this way the guy realized he was bleeding out and offed himself after fleeing for a while.

Also, I refuse to believe your second point, unless perhaps you're talking about the ceremonial department. Or perhaps you were taught by an incompetent. Even in Europe, the rules of engagement against armed subjects who do not immediately desist and pose a threat are to shoot center-mass till the threat is neutralized (which is what the French police did in a number of occasions in the recent years, even against people armed with knives and not firearms).
Another reason not to believe what you said is that according to the laws of proportionality, shooting someone in the legs would cause issues with R. 434-18 (wouldn't want to nick that femoral artery now would you), especially given the vast amount of less-than-lethal options at their disposal, from tasers to incapacitant gel-stream canisters (which as you surely know, having been trained, have a much longer range and higher concentrations of active ingredient than the aerosol/spray ones; gel is also more difficult to remove, can't wash it away with milk as easily) to rubber bullets/shots &c.

Maybe if it was not so easy to get a gun, there would be no shooting at all ?

France had very strict gun laws even before the major terror attacks happened, since we were shifting towards France.

[Shadowferal]

That's right because we have video,.

Yes...yes...we know...you want to add your own irrelevancies.
No shots fired. That's all we need.

[Draco-Onis]

Yes...yes...we know...you want to add your own irrelevancies.
No shots fired. That's all we need.

Nope just stating facts, the biggest threat to that couple was the wife she could have easily shot her husband. Last but not least coming outside in the open non defensible position is as smart as holding a lightning rod in a thunderstorm. The guns don't give you forcefields.

[Ghostpanther]

If I had a couple of rifles pointed at me I'd be trying to calm them down to.

As such nothing will happen to the couple.

There was only one rifle I think. The husband had a AR-15. Not see any photos of him actually pointing it at anyone however. Towards the crowd and at the ground maybe. But if you intend to shoot someone, you take aim first. I have not see any video or photo of him going that far however.

The wife had a pistol which was inoperative, but she does seem to be maybe pointing it. Which the fact it was inoperative does not do away with the responsibility of the gun owner, to not use it in a threatening manner, unless they are being threatened.

The part which really bugs me, is the fact the city took control of their weapons, before any charges were filed. That is a violation of the Second Amendment in my opinion and one reason I am not too fond of the red flag laws, which gives the governments too much authority.

I am proud of the governor however, for sticking up for the couple.

[Zan15]

That's the point. It's apolitical hit job to punish them by costing them tens of thousands of dollars to defend themselves knowing that there will never be a conviction.

Pointing Guns at people who are illegally trespassing on private property and threatening you is absolutely appropriate.

So far there is no evidence they were threatened is there?

As far as defending themselves, welcome to the system.
Funny how its a problem now. Whole party won't even sign up for Bail reform or legal defense reform.

It sure looks like they can afford it and even if they can't there will most likely be financial support from many 2A folks, i know their go fund me was already in the tens of thousands before it got shut down.


From all the video's the protestors are on the sidewalk. The private property they are trespassing on is most likely that of the homeowners association and not the actual property owner since property owners do not own sidewalks or roads for the most part.


His history also seems very sketchy and seems to threaten everyone including other residents...

The affidavit states they have “regularly prohibited all persons, including Portland Place residents, from crossing the Parcel including at least at one point, challenging a resident at gunpoint who refused to heed the McCloskeys’ warnings to stay off such property.”



You can't threaten people with weapons then claim you were protecting yourself because they then threatened you. Its kind of half ass backwards in legality of defending ones property.

- - - Updated - - -

There was only one rifle I think. The husband had a AR-15. Not see any photos of him actually pointing it at anyone however. Towards the crowd and at the ground maybe. But if you intend to shoot someone, you take aim first. I have not see any video or photo of him going that far however.

The wife had a pistol which was inoperative, but she does seem to be maybe pointing it. Which the fact it was inoperative does not do away with the responsibility of the gun owner, to not use it in a threatening manner, unless they are being threatened.

The part which really bugs me, is the fact the city took control of their weapons, before any charges were filed. That is a violation of the Second Amendment in my opinion and one reason I am not too fond of the red flag laws, which gives the governments too much authority.

I am proud of the governor however, for sticking up for the couple.

Who would have figured you "didn't see" him pointing at anyone.... /s

i would agree he isn't directly threatening anyone with the weapon but its clearly level half the time with the crowd.

it sure isn't pointing at the ground or the air.



Or how about right at the camera.. say cheese


- - - Updated - - -

Nope just stating facts, the biggest threat to that couple was the wife she could have easily shot her husband. Last but not least coming outside in the open non defensible position is as smart as holding a lightning rod in a thunderstorm. The guns don't give you forcefields.

at one point he has the weapon sideways directly aimed at his wife.....

[Coolthulhu]

From all the video's the protestors are on the sidewalk. The private property they are trespassing on is most likely that of the homeowners association and not the actual property owner since property owners do not own sidewalks or roads for the most part.

No, they broke through a gate on their private road. They were on private property. You can easily see how far they broke in by looking at this. And for someone so concerned with the fact, you could've googled it, it took me 30 seconds.

That being said, the the McCloskeys' behavior was far from ideal. Poor and dangerous gun handling, and they should've stayed inside, call 911 and wait for LE to arrive. That's what I would've done at least.

[Zan15]

No, they broke through a gate on their private road. They were on private property. You can easily see how far they broke in by looking at this. And for someone so concerned with the fact, you could've googled it, it took me 30 seconds.

That being said, the the McCloskeys' behavior was far from ideal. Poor and dangerous gun handling, and they should've stayed inside, call 911 and wait for LE to arrive. That's what I would've done at least.

The other video does not quite support that they broke through a gate.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/lo...e-41d5d4d71b61

Looks very intact and not damaged at all. The damage to the gate appears to have happened after the incident with the guns.

N. And for someone so concerned with the fact, you could've googled it, it took me 30 seconds.

.

It actually took me 11 seconds, maybe you should have taken more than 30 seconds to google it??
you might also want to steer clear of the NYP if you want facts.

[Coolthulhu]

The other video does not quite support that they broke through a gate.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/lo...e-41d5d4d71b61

Looks very intact and not damaged at all. The damage to the gate appears to have happened after the incident with the guns.




It actually took me 11 seconds, maybe you should have taken more than 30 seconds to google it??
you might also want to steer clear of the NYP if you want facts.

So, your point is that people filmed it from another POV as well? And despite the pictures (which aren't exclusive to the NYP) in that article you say that the first video was filmed from outside of that huge-ass wall that completely and utterly blocks the view of the front of the mansion? And let me get one thing straight: I might not be a native speaker, but I'm pretty sure that breaking through something doesn't necessarily mean literally breaking/damaging it, so please, spare me that embarrassing "looks very intact and not damaged at all".

[Zan15]

So, your point is that people filmed it from another POV as well? And despite the pictures (which aren't exclusive to the NYP) in that article you say that the first video was filmed from outside of that huge-ass wall that completely and utterly blocks the view of the front of the mansion? And let me get one thing straight: I might not be a native speaker, but I'm pretty sure that breaking through something doesn't necessarily mean literally breaking/damaging it, so please, spare me that embarrassing "looks very intact and not damaged at all".

my actual point was you should attack someone so fast about doing research when you did not bother to do it yourself.
Also you might want to read your sources first a little more carefully might be my second point since the NYP is know to distort the facts to push an agenda.


So your point is "walking through an open gate" qualifies as "breaking through" something?


You know it would have just been easier to say "shit i didn't see that second video" and "shit i didn't know the damage to the gate was done after the initial entry by protestors".

But i know admitting faults is hard for humans to do but to try to flub that kind of logical excuse on wording is embarrassing to read.

[Coolthulhu]

my actual point was you should attack someone so fast about doing research when you did not bother to do it yourself.
Also you might want to read your sources first a little more carefully might be my second point since the NYP is know to distort the facts to push an agenda.


So your point is "walking through an open gate" qualifies as "breaking through" something?


You know it would have just been easier to say "shit i didn't see that second video" and "shit i didn't know the damage to the gate was done after the initial entry by protestors".

But i know admitting faults is hard for humans to do but to try to flub that kind of logical excuse on wording is embarrassing to read.

You didn't address the matter of the incriminated video clearly being shot from inside that wall, hence in private property. You instead deflected onto an utterly irrelevant second video shot from without the property, and told me to better check my sources because "the NYP distorts them"^{[citation needed]} despite the fact that the pictures and videos are the same on all major media outlets, and I picked the NYP because it was the first one on google not to give me the annoying "you're a Yuropean, you can't read this, sorry" message. Well done, well done.
Now, care to finally address the fact that they couldn't have shot the video from outside the private property, or are you going to indulge in even more abstruse mental gymnastics to avoid doing so?

[Citizen T]

If it’s absolutely appropriate then the case should wrap up pretty quick. And shouldn’t cost them tens of thousands either.

The point is to continue the process all they way to court so that they have to continue paying lawyers then just before they have to try the case, they drop charges or eventually force them to plead either guilty or nolo to lesser charges to make the costs go away.

- - - Updated - - -

From all the video's the protestors are on the sidewalk. The private property they are trespassing on is most likely that of the homeowners association and not the actual property owner since property owners do not own sidewalks or roads for the most part.

Sidewalks are generally owned by the property owner. My property is owned all the way to the road in the front and half of the alley behind my property. I am responsible for upkeep and can be cited for not doing so. If the sidewalk is in the public view then there is a legal easement to allow others to use it to traverse the property. Since this is not in the public view and the road itself is even private property, anyone on their sidewalk is trespassing on their private property.

They guy - as far I can see on the video - maintained proper trigger control. His booger hook was never on the bang switch. His wife on the other hand is a moron.