Michael-5 said:
You're telling me that my opinion isn't grounded when it's reflective off your own statistics.
Yet your opinion is grounded, despite your opinion being different from your arguement.
There is no reason to encourage safe, non gun crazy nations to pick up arms. However restricting guns could help prevent homicides, because often times homicides are committed with a stolen gun which was at one point purchased legally.
A) Again, you failed to post an arguement. Is that statistic higher or lower then other countries? I'm extremely doubtful that 88% is the highest rate, and that that rate belongs to the USA.
B) Yea, that's just wrong, homicide rates (as you have shown) do not correlated with gun bans (homicides don't go up). However the homicide rate spiked in the 1930's, when Alcohol was banned. Banning alcohol has a negative effect, guns do not.
C) BS, This "fact" you speak of is your own opinion.
D) No it isn't if you bothered to read my post. You're response up to this point has just been random thoughts, not at all related to my comment? Why bother quoting me, if you're not going to say anything related to what you're quoting?
As for you're point on Japan, now you're just speaking jiberish. First of all, you're making a theoretical situation, with theoretical results, which Most non-Americans, or at least non-gun nuts would immediatly see just being silly. This is clearly your own opinion, not fact, and you're presenting it as if it's a grounded reason why to make more countries have guns. If you gave everyone in Japan a gun, criminals wouldn't stab people anymore, but they would shoot more people, more easily.
Just this logic is insane. Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Germany, among other countries, have the best economies in the world. Why are you trying to change their system, to mimic the inferior US system? Even if guns aren't the issue, you're arguement should be that USA should mimic Japans Education System, not have Japan mimic USA's gun policy and "See what happens."
I'm not going to continue debating with you. Whenever I introduce an arguement, you fail to counter. You still haven't defended against yourself for my claim of you being a hypocrite, and you clearly have a preconcieved view on weapons. You want more people to have more guns, when the evidence you have shown tells us that there is no benefit for a populationto carry or not to carry weapons.
As you have shown, countless times getting rid of guns, doesn't make things "less safe." It makes no difference in safety. Stop arguing a different point from your own statistics shown before. Stop being a hypocrite.
Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
i just wonder when it comes to gun law, when does it go from protecting yourself to actual murder? How does US law define that? |
Varies state to state and generally you have to go to trial. Even the majority of "Stand your ground" cases in which someone shoots a criminal in their own home goes to trial.
The legal standard is generally "Reasonably fear for your life." So they'll be looking to make sure the burglar was armed, wasn't shot in the back or running.
Even then, being found innocent there doesn't mean you won't be found for killing the person at a Civil trial where the burden of proof is lower.
|
Every sate is different, but this is the general consensus.
O.J. Simpson won in the criminal court, but lost in the civil trial.
The reason for this is because generally criminal charges are laid when the defended is believed to be guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" where civil courts only need you to "likely" be guilty.
|
