Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

I disagree the white dude made specific motions towards the black dude, even when the black dude tried to go around the truck away from the armed man.

he cleared the truck on the right side and came face to face with a white dude now in front of the truck pointing his gun at him

I don't see the white guy on the right side of the truck, only the black guy going around the right side and then coming out on the left side in a fight with the white guy.

at that point the black dude made the decision that his life was in danger and tried to defend himself as he has the right to do since the white dude is not of law enforcement.

If this were an alley, maybe, but it's not. The black guy had 350 degrees of direction to go, but went the 10degrees where danger lay.

again did you expect the black dude just to get down on the ground and hope that he doesnt get shot? that is 120% against every 2A/self defense arguement ever made in this thread. "lay down and be a sheep or defend yourself?"

You've never understood the 2a/ self defense argument before, so it's fine that you still don't. At no point would I advocate heading into danger with the idea that you can shoot your way out. Let alone when you're unarmed.

If this black guy was jogging down the road and two white guys in a pickup truck cut in front of him and he had no way to retreat and he shot both of them dead, so be it.
If this black guy was jogging down the road and two white guys are 100' ahead of him and he then shot them dead, uh, no. In this instance he didn't shoot them dead, he headed towards them and then a scuffle ensued.

This is not about the legality of anything that happened, this is about learning from the situation. Don't grab some guns and go chase some guy. And also, if you're jogging along and some guys stop their truck ahead of you, draw guns and start yelling shit, don't head towards them unless you're an excellent talker.

he ran around the truck away from the gun man. it was the gun man who followed.
He had no reason to believe he should run anywhere else because what did he do wrong besides being black at this point?

Assuming it's all about race, why did a black man see two white guys with guns yelling at him and think "well, I haven't done anything, and I'm good in a fist fight, lets go see what's going on"? It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, just follow the "what is safest" route.

As for the law, in that state they had no legal right to attempt or stop the man even if they believed he was involved in criminal activity. there is no allowance for anything relative to citizen action outside of private property.

Don't know, only saw early articles that said it was legal for a citizens arrest. I'd hope a former detective would know the laws concerning such, but we both know that's not true. As I said, whether legal or not, it's dumb.

Also running does you no good when you now have two dudes with guns and a pickuptruck. He must have felt this was his only chance.

We can't judge what he felt, but he certainly didn't have the posture of someone defending himself as he jogged up to the truck. I'd say he wasn't afraid at all, but who really knows. Invulnerability of youth.
He also certainly didn't look like anyone fleeing a crime scene, obviously. (Well, theoretically obviously, again we can't really "know" anything.)

I agree he was stupid for even going near them, but thats another problem i have with your logic. 2A folks say people with guns are the good guys. They are not the ones we have to worry about its the criminals. Why would the black guy have to run away from the "good guys with guns"??

So which is it are we to not worry about the 2A crowd with their guns, or run away from them if we see them in the middle of the street while jogging?

It gets hard to have a serious discussion on this forum if you keep going with lines of thought like this. Stop trying to score debate points in some fictional MMO-Champ fight ring and think of this as a conversation with someone you're not trying to one up. Because honestly, neither of us has any influence in the political arena, and it doesn't mean anything.

I've taught a few folks how to use a gun, though I'm not a trainer. First lesson is always that you don't go waving it around or use it as some magic pass. If you're jogging along and see people you don't know with a gun, you don't approach them. I don't know what they were yelling, but I can't imagine it was friendly. Not sure if he had earphones anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, much as most martial instructors will tell you the right course of action if you are mugged is to cooperate, I think as a question of prudence Arbery probably should have cooperated and insisted on the police being called to their location, etc. That's a different question than one of right, which absolutely covers resisting by force.

I'd think stopping at a distance and calling the police would have had a lot better result than heading towards them.

I guess Georgia is a stand your ground state, so no duty to retreat, but still a bad situation to head towards.

[Zan15]

I don't see the white guy on the right side of the truck, only the black guy going around the right side and then coming out on the left side in a fight with the white guy.


.

Looks like the struggle started on the side of the truck the black man came from not the left side

If this were an alley, maybe, but it's not. The black guy had 350 degrees of direction to go, but went the 10degrees where danger lay.

.

Not true, we have still not identified who was following taking the camera shot of the situation.
That would block off way more than 350 degrees of directions to go.

Also why would a law abiding citizen have to fear other law abiding good guys with guns? Seems very anti message you guys keep saying about gun owners??

You've never understood the 2a/ self defense argument before, so it's fine that you still don't. At no point would I advocate heading into danger with the idea that you can shoot your way out. Let alone when you're unarmed.

If this black guy was jogging down the road and two white guys in a pickup truck cut in front of him and he had no way to retreat and he shot both of them dead, so be it.
If this black guy was jogging down the road and two white guys are 100' ahead of him and he then shot them dead, uh, no. In this instance he didn't shoot them dead, he headed towards them and then a scuffle ensued.

This is not about the legality of anything that happened, this is about learning from the situation. Don't grab some guns and go chase some guy. And also, if you're jogging along and some guys stop their truck ahead of you, draw guns and start yelling shit, don't head towards them unless you're an excellent talker.

.

Whelp at least you are admitting that people with guns are to be feared ….
Guess all those people with guns yelling at state houses across the country should be feared and avoided by your logic. Then by that very logic they are now protesting with intimidation which would be illegal. Amazing the irony in this logic.

Assuming it's all about race, why did a black man see two white guys with guns yelling at him and think "well, I haven't done anything, and I'm good in a fist fight, lets go see what's going on"? It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, just follow the "what is safest" route.

I do admit I am making assumptions, but when they 911 call says nothing except "we see a black man running down the street", its hard not to make this about race.

I've taught a few folks how to use a gun, though I'm not a trainer. First lesson is always that you don't go waving it around or use it as some magic pass. If you're jogging along and see people you don't know with a gun, you don't approach them. I don't know what they were yelling, but I can't imagine it was friendly. Not sure if he had earphones anyway.

.

Again this is not the posture or guidance of 2A folks. They continue to push the narrative that people with legal guns are safe and you have no reason to fear them especially in open carry states/localities.

You might disagree and might give different advice to people when approaching people with guns, but you sir would be of the minority.


Not trying to score points, mostly trying to point out the hypocrisy any time something bad goes wrong how 2A supporters and organizations try to distance themselves from the situation and make excuses that are counter to the narrative they have been using for decades.

[Svifnymr]

Looks like the struggle started on the side of the truck the black man came from not the left side

The white guy is clearly on the left side and the black guy comes from the right side to the left side, you can see the feet of the white guy on the left side of the truck in your picture.

Not true, we have still not identified who was following taking the camera shot of the situation.
That would block off way more than 350 degrees of directions to go.

I had assumed the video was the third guy, but then they never really said anything about it. They also cut the video, so it's hard to say. That said, the 350/10 degrees is not an exact thing, just saying there was plenty of area to run.

Also why would a law abiding citizen have to fear other law abiding good guys with guns? Seems very anti message you guys keep saying about gun owners??

Oh, was it not clear? You avoid the guy yelling at you with a shotgun so you don't die to a shotgun blast while wrestling him for the gun.

Whelp at least you are admitting that people with guns are to be feared ….

I honestly don't know why I respond to you anymore, all you ever do is shit like this. Why can't you have a discussion without assigning made up sides?

Guess all those people with guns yelling at state houses across the country should be feared and avoided by your logic. Then by that very logic they are now protesting with intimidation which would be illegal. Amazing the irony in this logic.

When did I ever discuss the protestors on this forum?

I do admit I am making assumptions, but when they 911 call says nothing except "we see a black man running down the street", its hard not to make this about race.

Go to youtube for any of the comedy sketches where they try to describe someone without race.

Again this is not the posture or guidance of 2A folks. They continue to push the narrative that people with legal guns are safe and you have no reason to fear them especially in open carry states/localities.

No, the point is that MOST, the vast MAJORITY, of gun owners are safe and not using their guns for evil and that a person with a gun can do good in a situation where a person without a gun cannot. This situation here would have turned out differently if the guy had a gun, right?

It does not mean that every single gun owner is a smart guy or does the right thing, always.

You might disagree and might give different advice to people when approaching people with guns, but you sir would be of the minority.

I don't know any situation where you're told to charge a guy with a gun when there's enough room to escape. Even if you have a gun, most of the time it won't be the first option.

Not trying to score points, mostly trying to point out the hypocrisy any time something bad goes wrong how 2A supporters and organizations try to distance themselves from the situation and make excuses that are counter to the narrative they have been using for decades.

You are, because you keep wanting to make this "you people, with your GUNS" rather than "look what these two people did wrong". Analyze the situation, learn from it, stop trying to apply it to everyone. There is no narrative for decades that says "if you own a gun, go chase after people you think may have broken a law at some point", there is no narrative to "ignore the guy with the gun until you get close to him, then leap to the attack".

[Zan15]

Go to youtube for any of the comedy sketches where they try to describe someone without race.

.

why not say there is a man running down the street in X clothes, Y color of clothes, about 5' 11", male then you can say race and ethnicity.
the fact that ALL they said is "black man running down the street" really helps one person make extreme assumptions about the situation quite quickly when its the only thing you use as a descriptor.

its all about context.

I don't know any situation where you're told to charge a guy with a gun when there's enough room to escape. Even if you have a gun, most of the time it won't be the first option.

You are, because you keep wanting to make this "you people, with your GUNS" rather than "look what these two people did wrong". Analyze the situation, learn from it, stop trying to apply it to everyone. There is no narrative for decades that says "if you own a gun, go chase after people you think may have broken a law at some point", there is no narrative to "ignore the guy with the gun until you get close to him, then leap to the attack".

You live in an locality where its legal to carry guns.
You see people with guns.
FUCK OH HELL RUN AWAY?

wait what?

Or do you just ignore the two guys with their legal guns, like you do with the people you run into all the time in your locality where its legal to carry guns, till you round the car on the right side and they walk over and confront you with their guns pointing at you.


How do you escape then?? Umm a gun in an open area? oh turn at a right angle and run away with your back turned to a gun...
whelp that is effective if you want to be shot in the back I guess.

[Svifnymr]

why not say there is a man running down the street in X clothes, Y color of clothes, about 5' 11", male then you can say race and ethnicity.

As I said, go to youtube for any of the various videos avoiding race in descriptions.

You live in an locality where its legal to carry guns.
You see people with guns.
FUCK OH HELL RUN AWAY?

wait what?

You live in an area where dogs are legal. A giant pit bull with rabies is barking at you. You go and pet it, because it's your right!

You have to agree, because you are a dog guy, and if you disagree it's because your entire position that I just made up is wrong and you're a liar if you say you shouldn't pet rabid dogs.

How do you escape then?? Umm a gun in an open area? oh turn at a right angle and run away with your back turned to a gun...
whelp that is effective if you want to be shot in the back I guess.

It's a giant open space, plenty of room to run. If you think they would have shot him in the back as he ran, then why didn't they shoot him in the front while he ran at them? No no, you're right, best to head at them and then try to seize the gun. By all means, go forth and advocate for people to charge people with guns, you win.

Also, did see it mentioned in an article that camera-man was the third guy.

[Stormdash]

why not say there is a man running down the street in X clothes, Y color of clothes, about 5' 11", male then you can say race and ethnicity.
the fact that ALL they said is "black man running down the street" really helps one person make extreme assumptions about the situation quite quickly when its the only thing you use as a descriptor.

its all about context.



You live in an locality where its legal to carry guns.
You see people with guns.
FUCK OH HELL RUN AWAY?

wait what?

Or do you just ignore the two guys with their legal guns, like you do with the people you run into all the time in your locality where its legal to carry guns, till you round the car on the right side and they walk over and confront you with their guns pointing at you.


How do you escape then?? Umm a gun in an open area? oh turn at a right angle and run away with your back turned to a gun...
whelp that is effective if you want to be shot in the back I guess.

See, this is absurdism. "has guns"/"doesn't have guns" isn't a binary that exists in a vacuum. Conduct is what justified the victim entering a 'fight or flight' mentality - being stopped on the street for no reason, having his attention and compliance demanded, all would have been legitimately alarming even if no weapon were shown or even possessed.

It takes mc escher tier pretzel logic to turn this into an indictment of the 2nd Amendment - if anything, it Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use by the victim.

[Zan15]

You live in an area where dogs are legal. A giant pit bull with rabies is barking at you. You go and pet it, because it's your right!

You have to agree, because you are a dog guy, and if you disagree it's because your entire position that I just made up is wrong and you're a liar if you say you shouldn't pet rabid dogs.

So all of a sudden I would know that a giant pit bull has rabies vs just a barking dog?
Also its not your right to touch anyone else's pet since its considered private property.

If you are going to use examples don't pick a ridiculous example.

Are you saying people should know which gun owners are not safe (have rabies)? Or is the gun rabies in this case?
We are taught that all legal gun owners are good guys with guns!

Funny part is ANY dog with rabies is dangerous and life threatening.
So based on this logic, any gun owner at that point would be dangerous and life threatening.

It's a giant open space, plenty of room to run. If you think they would have shot him in the back as he ran, then why didn't they shoot him in the front while he ran at them? No no, you're right, best to head at them and then try to seize the gun. By all means, go forth and advocate for people to charge people with guns, you win.

Also, did see it mentioned in an article that camera-man was the third guy.

He didn't run at them, he ran around the truck where he was confronted by the guy with the gun.
Running straight at them would have required him to run to the left of the truck not the right.

He ran around the OPPOSITE side of the truck from the good guy with a gun and when he was followed and confronted by the guy he chose to fight for his life instead of running and being shot in the back.

Smart? Probably not. Legally he had every right in everything he did.

At the point where he was face to face with the gunman he felt his best option was try to disarm the good guy with the gun instead of turning his back, attempt to run and get shot in the back.

- - - Updated - - -

Welp looks like the investigators and procecuters agreed with most people's assessment of the video and confrontation. They were both arrested, murder charges....

[Mayhem]

Well, much as most martial instructors will tell you the right course of action if you are mugged is to cooperate, I think as a question of prudence Arbery probably should have cooperated and insisted on the police being called to their location, etc. That's a different question than one of right, which absolutely covers resisting by force.

I often say that what people forget when they deal with actual police is that they need to run their decisions through a couple different lenses. One of those is "should I do what the man with a gun says?" Most of the time, wisdom is going to answer "yes". If he'd been armed and fired on them I think that's within the law based on what I saw on the tape.

So you're saying guns in the hands of civilians likely escalate a situation that could be resolved with a phone call?

I mean, those two white idiots thought they were right, if the black guy had a gun he would've been right to defend himself and if no one had a gun no one would be dead.

And furthermore, if there was no dashboard cam video of this and the black guy had a gun, how likely do you think it is for him to reasonably portray himself as the victim?

[Stormdash]

So you're saying guns in the hands of civilians likely escalate a situation that could be resolved with a phone call?

Not at all - 100% of the problem was conduct. What I'm saying is that if both McMichaels had been dual-wielding M249s with chainsaw bayonet extensions and had an M2 Browning mounted on their truck and just minded their own business, there would have been no issue.

I mean, those two white idiots thought they were right, if the black guy had a gun he would've been right to defend himself and if no one had a gun no one would be dead.

Not only untrue but an infantile level of naive. People want guns for self-defense precisely because they very much *can* be killed in violent confrontations by those without them.

And furthermore, if there was no dashboard cam video of this and the black guy had a gun, how likely do you think it is for him to reasonably portray himself as the victim?

Somewhat academic, seeing as there is the video. This is a thread on gun control not critical race theory.

[Mayhem]

Not at all - 100% of the problem was conduct. What I'm saying is that if both McMichaels had been dual-wielding M249s with chainsaw bayonet extensions and had an M2 Browning mounted on their truck and just minded their own business, there would have been no issue.

So if they have reacted differently the outcome would've been a different one, no shit sherlock. Not the point I was making though.

Not only untrue but an infantile level of naive. People want guns for self-defense precisely because they very much *can* be killed in violent confrontations by those without them.

Wait, you think those two guys are the "beat 'em to death" type of guys? Are you sure you want to go that route in defending their right to bear arms with an argument that amounts to "they would've killed him anyway, might as well give 'em guns"?

Somewhat academic, seeing as there is the video. This is a thread on gun control not critical race theory.

So either your argument is, the rights you have depend on the colour of your skin or you just want to avoid talking about a hypothetical that leads to talking about gun control.

But even if we ignore their skin colours, how likely would it be that a white person could reasonably portray themselves as the victim?

[Big Thanks]

Just wanted to vent a little bit, sorry

In Portugal there is a new criminal case reminding me of the reason why im against the government making guns accessible to the public.
Is not a "gun" case at all.
Is just a case reminding me "human stupidity", and this is the main reason why im against guns.

Is yet another case of a family telling the police their kid is missing...and it turns out it was the family who killed the child.

Makes absolutely zero sense and is "human stupidity" at its best.

It makes me wonder if the only reason for people to behave "good" is the risk of punishment.
And even with punishment there is criminal cases every single day...

tldr: im against my country making guns accessible to the public because humans are stupid. I have no idea how you do it over there and how it hasnt yet turned into a cowboy movie.

[Svifnymr]

tldr: im against my country making guns accessible to the public because humans are stupid. I have no idea how you do it over there and how it hasnt yet turned into a cowboy movie.

As the saying goes, think of how stupid the average person is, then remember that half the population is stupider than that.

Of course, that also means plenty of people are not stupid and need some way to protect themselves from the stupid ones. The obvious answer is to put the trust in the government to protect you, but they're all idiots too. So you're kind of screwed.

[Big Thanks]

As the saying goes, think of how stupid the average person is, then remember that half the population is stupider than that.

Of course, that also means plenty of people are not stupid and need some way to protect themselves from the stupid ones. The obvious answer is to put the trust in the government to protect you, but they're all idiots too. So you're kind of screwed.

LOL, i dont know if to laugh or to cry we are screwed

[Coolthulhu]

Some swift, common sense gun control coming out of Canada:

Canada bans assault-style weapons after its worst ever mass murder

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/01/world...rnd/index.html

Common sense? Populism-driven insanity, more like. Guess Trudeau had some bad polling results to give a shake to.

it looks more militaristic.

That's always been one of the most compelling arguments the hoplophobes have managed to come up with in order to justify the calls for restrictions on "assault-style", "military-style", one might just be sincere and say "scary-looking" or even "I've seen that in a movie", which says a lot about the hoplophobic modus cogitandi.

Just wanted to vent a little bit, sorry

In Portugal there is a new criminal case reminding me of the reason why im against the government making guns accessible to the public.
Is not a "gun" case at all.
Is just a case reminding me "human stupidity", and this is the main reason why im against guns.

Is yet another case of a family telling the police their kid is missing...and it turns out it was the family who killed the child.

Makes absolutely zero sense and is "human stupidity" at its best.

It makes me wonder if the only reason for people to behave "good" is the risk of punishment.
And even with punishment there is criminal cases every single day...

tldr: im against my country making guns accessible to the public because humans are stupid. I have no idea how you do it over there and how it hasnt yet turned into a cowboy movie.

I don't know about Portugal's gun laws specifically, but where guns are available in Yurop, very thorough police and psychiatric evaluations are required in order to obtain a license. That's not the case for cars and trucks. Surely we don't wanna compare deaths caused by irresponsible drivers to those caused by irresponsible gun owners (or downright criminals) in Europe, do we? Even in the US, that's pretty moot, imagine over here.

[Levelfive]

Common sense? Populism-driven insanity, more like. Guess Trudeau had some bad polling results to give a shake to.

Yes, common sense. The fanaticism for unlimited "rights" to all kinds of weapons is pretty weird.

[Coolthulhu]

Yes, common sense. The fanaticism for unlimited "rights" to all kinds of weapons is pretty weird.

Funny how you leftiest lot always seem to base your arguments upon baseless assumptions. Unlimited rights? Did you read my post? I'm no American, my right to own guns is not a right but rather a privilege I earned (and maintain) through thorough police background checks and psychiatric evaluations (and mandatory technical capabilities and safety tests, too). Kind of like cars and trucks if you think about it, but with 90% less psychophysical tests, and no police background checks.
You know what seems weird to me? That the same checks don't apply to truck drivers. Here's some food for thought: July 14, 2016, Nice.

[Levelfive]

Funny how you leftiest lot always seem to base your arguments upon baseless assumptions. Unlimited rights? Did you read my post? I'm no American, my right to own guns is not a right but rather a privilege I earned (and maintain) through thorough police background checks and psychiatric evaluations (and mandatory technical capabilities and safety tests, too). Kind of like cars and trucks if you think about it, but with 90% less psychophysical tests, and no police background checks.
You know what seems weird to me? That the same checks don't apply to truck drivers. Here's some food for thought: July 14, 2016, Nice.

I should have used the word "fetish." My bad.

[omeomorfismo]

Common sense? Populism-driven insanity, more like. Guess Trudeau had some bad polling results to give a shake to.



That's always been one of the most compelling arguments the hoplophobes have managed to come up with in order to justify the calls for restrictions on "assault-style", "military-style", one might just be sincere and say "scary-looking" or even "I've seen that in a movie", which says a lot about the hoplophobic modus cogitandi.


I don't know about Portugal's gun laws specifically, but where guns are available in Yurop, very thorough police and psychiatric evaluations are required in order to obtain a license. That's not the case for cars and trucks. Surely we don't wanna compare deaths caused by irresponsible drivers to those caused by irresponsible gun owners (or downright criminals) in Europe, do we? Even in the US, that's pretty moot, imagine over here.

you need medical evaluation to obtain a driver license, at least in italy.
and you can be requested to do "police" evaluations to mantain it. for example i was caught with weed (not while driving nor in a car) and still i had to go to "commisariato del governo" to be evaluated and then sent to the addiction service SERT to start medical checks.
funny thing, one of my friend was caught while driving and after being sent to the "commisariato del governo" he didnt even need to go to SERT. why? he is white, im mestizo xD

[Coolthulhu]

I should have used the word "fetish." My bad.

So, one can be a car enthusiast, but only a gun fetishist, because guns are bad and "fetishist" is pejorative? How puritanical.

you need medical evaluation to obtain a driver license, at least in italy.
and you can be requested to do "police" evaluations to mantain it. for example i was caught with weed (not while driving nor in a car) and still i had to go to "commisariato del governo" to be evaluated and then sent to the addiction service SERT to start medical checks.
funny thing, one of my friend was caught while driving and after being sent to the "commisariato del governo" he didnt even need to go to SERT. why? he is white, im mestizo xD

It's not the same kind of medical evaluation. The one required for guns requires a certificate from your doctor, an examination from a state or military doctor, and you're automatically denied the license if you take (or have ever taken) a plethora or medications (legal medications, that is). It's also automatically rejected if you've ever been caught using illegal drugs, even after the depenalization for personal use. It gets so complicated it often requires a commission of five specialist state doctors if you've taken legal medications for, say, blood pressure or insomnia, even 20 years prior to the application, or have various health conditions, of which much more are taken into consideration if compared to those checked for a driver's license - the only similar thing is perhaps the eyesight test (if your sight ain't that right, you won't be denied a gun license, but just like in the driving one, you'll be compelled to use glasses or contacts).

As to police background checks, if you've ever been caught w/o a ticket on public transportation or got a parking ticket, that's already ground enough to have your gun license denied - your conduct must be "irreprehensible and not prone to potentially anti-social behaviours". Your family and friends are also checked for criminal activities, including minor ones (though I suppose they'd let a parking ticket your grandpa got slide).
TL;DR if the same criteria applied to driving licenses no Italian citizen would drive.

As to your story, did you both have the same amount (i.d. within the limit for personal use) on you, and/or in your system? If yes, you could've/should've pursued legal action for racial discrimination.

[Levelfive]

So, one can be a car enthusiast, but only a gun fetishist, because guns are bad and "fetishist" is pejorative? How puritanical.

I would never kink shame.