Seems bizarre to be outraged. The old WHITE MAN you all hate so much is an idiot. The young BLACK MAN who shot a white family over a ball in his yard is a nut job who was a felon and not supposed to have any guns. So sad about the kid and the 85year old. You are picking a few cases and labeling an entire country. You do not understand a good guy with a gun vs. a bad guy with a gun. Have any of you lived in Kansas City and seen how it has changed? I doubt it....just like the person who dislikes people from the US....I rarely, if ever, talk to any foreigners in Cambodia...The bad guy will always have a gun..even here in Cambodia I see all the time. You have a chosen a case where an 85 year old man...maybe scared for his life shot a kid..or maybe he has dementia. Let the facts come out.
Guns are nothing but tools..I suspect you have never owned any. Most of the violent crimes are committed by people who are felons..The insanity going on in most cities is by felons using illegal guns. The old man probably the exception. I watched my hometown change from a city I could go anywhere in when I was a kid to what I call a two gun town..same city this tragic mess happened....Sadly, the old guy committed the #1 mistake in gun safety and just shot the kid for nothing...You never point a weapon at someone you are not going to shoot with a life threatening reason. He is 85...what is his sentence? Life in prison?
How about the Khmer guy who just chopped his lady friend's head off? Ban cleavers?
I will make sure I do not talk to any of you in public and not go to your haunts. Your outrage may be real..but, it is easy to attack an old man. I doubt he answered the door armed in the past. We did not lock our doors in the 60s
..I would not live where that man lived..not in 2023.
In 55 when he moved in it was different.
This is a great debate..It reminds me not to talk to foreigners in Cambodia...thanks so much for the reminder

JReb wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 8:18 am You have a chosen a case where an 85 year old man...maybe scared for his life shot a kid..or maybe he has dementia.

That's the point, if he didn't have a gun he wouldn't of shot the kid!
We can tar the whole country because the majority won't do anything about gun control.
Bunch of wackos

Big Daikon wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 6:37 am

Random Dude wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 5:48 am
I understand the rationale behind stand-your-ground laws, but from what I've seen (disclaimer: I haven't been following the story) the guy said he was scared because the kid was tall, or something like that when the boy did nothing threatening, the old man just opened the door and shot him in the head because he didn't like the look of him.

If the old man was found not guilty because he said he was intimidated by him, wouldn't that open the door to anyone being able to shoot someone they don't like and claiming they felt intimidated by the way they look?

"That dude looked like a scary mofo, he had a pissed off look on his face so I shot him".... translation : I saw a black/white/muslim/ethnic guy walking down the street and I hate those people, so I shot him. The law says I can, I just need to say I felt threatened.

My general understanding of the Castle Doctrine is that it specifically refers to someone entering your home without your consent. I think stand your ground may apply to street confrontations more generally.

No, you can't just snipe at people who are walking down the street. (My understanding of the laws.)

"No, you can't just snipe at people who are walking down the street. (My understanding of the laws."

Yeah, I understand that, I was thinking more of future legal precedent.

The Castle Doctrine... He's facing serious legal charges, he has to try something and that's probably his only bet. It still seems to me like a dangerous legal precedent to set if he gets off on that defense though.

'No he wasn't kicking in my door or anything, I just didn't like the look of him'.

Delivery guys, meter readers, salespeople, neighbors knocking on your door to complain about your loud music, tradesman there to quote a job ... better be damn sure you know who lives in that house and what their prejudices are, who about they paranoid about - you might get legally shot in the face.

Lots of criminals are released in western countries on their own recognizance to commit more crimes. Criminals are first to get illegal weapons and the first to react to anything with violence.

Lots of carjackings happen in western countries. Criminals jump into an unlocked car. If there is someone in the car, they’ve already determined to take that person’s life in order to get the car. Same with home invasions. Criminals have already determined to take your life to get what they want.
It takes less than a second to kill.

Police train constantly to determine in less than a split second whether or not a cheerleader is a criminal bent on killing or not. Even with all training, police are still being killed.

Once there was a heavily tattooed man banging at a door at 3 am, thinking it was his house. Homeowner opened, man barged in, flashing his eyelids, tattooed with the words ‘Kill ‘‘em All’. Homeowner was in fear of his life and shot him.

Maybe the criminal thought he was a Girl Scout selling cookies at 3 am. Maybe he is just a poor victim.

A long time ago, the motto was police always get there man. Now media glamorizes criminals, showing ever more inventive ways to commit crimes. Police are depicted as the enemy of the noble criminals.

Get rid of the criminals, make society safer. When only responsible gun owners are left, violence levels drop.

My opinions, of course.

JReb wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 8:18 am
Guns are nothing but tools..

I like this analogy, I never thought of it that way. When I look in my tool shed I see I have a lot of stuff that could do serious harm someone. I see what you mean, it's the person with the violent intentions (or carelessness, recklessness) behind the tool that is the problem. I admire the American first and second amendments and wish we had something like them in constitution-free UK. I would love to have an AK-47 hanging in my tool shed

newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 7:48 pm Lots of criminals are released in western countries on their own recognizance to commit more crimes. Criminals are first to get illegal weapons and the first to react to anything with violence.

Lots of carjackings happen in western countries. Criminals jump into an unlocked car. If there is someone in the car, they’ve already determined to take that person’s life in order to get the car. Same with home invasions. Criminals have already determined to take your life to get what they want.
It takes less than a second to kill.

Police train constantly to determine in less than a split second whether or not a cheerleader is a criminal bent on killing or not. Even with all training, police are still being killed.

Once there was a heavily tattooed man banging at a door at 3 am, thinking it was his house. Homeowner opened, man barged in, flashing his eyelids, tattooed with the words ‘Kill ‘‘em All’. Homeowner was in fear of his life and shot him.

Maybe the criminal thought he was a Girl Scout selling cookies at 3 am. Maybe he is just a poor victim.

A long time ago, the motto was police always get there man. Now media glamorizes criminals, showing ever more inventive ways to commit crimes. Police are depicted as the enemy of the noble criminals.

Get rid of the criminals, make society safer. When only responsible gun owners are left, violence levels drop.

My opinions, of course.

I’ve rarely read a more contrite pile of BS in my life. Despite them being, of course, your opinions. And the beauty of opinions, like arseholes, we all have.

Show us how crime is glamorized please? Show us how the police are “depicted” as the enemies of “noble criminals” please? By definition, are the police not de facto the enemies of criminal enterprise or have I missed something?

And define for me a “responsible gun owner” please. Because at times, this kind of reads like an oxymoron.

And “heavily tattooed” meaning what? People with tattoos are criminals? Or just those “heavily tattooed”?

Your “opinions” often come across as pompous. And I have no dog in the gun control fight. I care fuck all for it. But please, if you’re making claims. Back them up with evidence rather than opinions. It would be just as bad as me saying my “opinion” is that you’re a dick. But if I had evidence to back that up…. Q.E.D.

Yerg wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 11:43 pm

newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 7:48 pm Lots of criminals are released in western countries on their own recognizance to commit more crimes. Criminals are first to get illegal weapons and the first to react to anything with violence.

Lots of carjackings happen in western countries. Criminals jump into an unlocked car. If there is someone in the car, they’ve already determined to take that person’s life in order to get the car. Same with home invasions. Criminals have already determined to take your life to get what they want.
It takes less than a second to kill.

Police train constantly to determine in less than a split second whether or not a cheerleader is a criminal bent on killing or not. Even with all training, police are still being killed.

Once there was a heavily tattooed man banging at a door at 3 am, thinking it was his house. Homeowner opened, man barged in, flashing his eyelids, tattooed with the words ‘Kill ‘‘em All’. Homeowner was in fear of his life and shot him.

Maybe the criminal thought he was a Girl Scout selling cookies at 3 am. Maybe he is just a poor victim.

A long time ago, the motto was police always get there man. Now media glamorizes criminals, showing ever more inventive ways to commit crimes. Police are depicted as the enemy of the noble criminals.

Get rid of the criminals, make society safer. When only responsible gun owners are left, violence levels drop.

My opinions, of course.

I’ve rarely read a more contrite pile of BS in my life. Despite them being, of course, your opinions. And the beauty of opinions, like arseholes, we all have.

Show us how crime is glamorized please? Show us how the police are “depicted” as the enemies of “noble criminals” please? By definition, are the police not de facto the enemies of criminal enterprise or have I missed something?

And define for me a “responsible gun owner” please. Because at times, this kind of reads like an oxymoron.

And “heavily tattooed” meaning what? People with tattoos are criminals? Or just those “heavily tattooed”?

Your “opinions” often come across as pompous. And I have no dog in the gun control fight. I care fuck all for it. But please, if you’re making claims. Back them up with evidence rather than opinions. It would be just as bad as me saying my “opinion” is that you’re a dick. But if I had evidence to back that up…. Q.E.D.

...but, tattooed people ARE more likely to be criminals and here is the evidence:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5213001189

Results suggest that having tattoos is considered as a symptom of a set of developmental risk factors and personality traits that are both related to tattooing and being involved in crime... (though they don't necessarily predict crime over a lifetime.)

They aren't called tramp stamps for nothing. If you think this is a stereotype, you are correct but stereotypes are not just rationalizations of prejudice or inaccurate value judgements:

More evidence:

https://spsp.org/news-center/character- ... ffects-all

Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded r’s of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.