Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes -- Is America Next?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 hours ago, Illurion said:

 

Where i live,   most everyone has guns,  and the law allows us to "STAND OUR GROUND",  and we are allowed to kill to protect our property,  and selves.

Note to international readers:  there is NO place inside the USA where anyone is allowed to "kill to protect our property."   What are known as "stand your ground" laws are modifications of the general requirement for any person confronted by another to first retreat.  Some States inside the USA have modified this requirement to retreat, otherwise incumbent on everybody, to where a citizen has the option to "stand in place" and then if further attacked, to fire upon the attacker.  That option, and you find that in places such as Florida, applies also to non-home locations.  You can be on the public sidewalk or in a shopping mall and if attacked, you then have the legal option to resist with force including deadly force if attacked personally.  You are then "standing your ground."

No such privilege extends to property. If someone is stealing your motorboat from your dock you are not entitled to go run out of your house with a shotgun and start blasting away.  Irrational, emotionally charged and  hysterical people write that they can, and will, and that is a good reason to keep guns out of the hands of those people.  An irresponsible, untrained, hysterical person with a loaded gun is a menace to society.  That always, always goes wrong. 

International readers may also take note that America is awash with guns.  As a practical matter all proposals to restrict guns are doomed to fail, it is now far too deeply ingrained in the society.  Americans pay a huge price for that, of course, as the total number of (internal USA) gun deaths since the jihadists knocked down the World Trade Center buildings inside New York now exceeds the number of US combat deaths in all of WWII.  Those deaths are just Americans shooting themselves or each other, forget about the Muslims, those are basically inconsequential.   It rather reminds me of that line in Casablanca, where Mr. Rick says (with dry intonation) to Major Strasser,when the new German Commandant suggests the Wehrmacht will go to New York:  

 Well, there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade.

[shadowkin + 584]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Note to international readers:  there is NO place inside the USA where anyone is allowed to "kill to protect our property."   What are known as "stand your ground" laws are modifications of the general requirement for any person confronted by another to first retreat.  Some States inside the USA have modified this requirement to retreat, otherwise incumbent on everybody, to where a citizen has the option to "stand in place" and then if further attacked, to fire upon the attacker.  That option, and you find that in places such as Florida, applies also to non-home locations.  You can be on the public sidewalk or in a shopping mall and if attacked, you then have the legal option to resist with force including deadly force if attacked personally.  You are then "standing your ground."

No such privilege extends to property. If someone is stealing your motorboat from your dock you are not entitled to go run out of your house with a shotgun and start blasting away.  Irrational, emotionally charged and  hysterical people write that they can, and will, and that is a good reason to keep guns out of the hands of those people.  An irresponsible, untrained, hysterical person with a loaded gun is a menace to society.  That always, always goes wrong. 

International readers may also take note that America is awash with guns.  As a practical matter all proposals to restrict guns are doomed to fail, it is now far too deeply ingrained in the society.  Americans pay a huge price for that, of course, as the total number of (internal USA) gun deaths since the jihadists knocked down the World Trade Center buildings inside New York now exceeds the number of US combat deaths in all of WWII.  Those deaths are just Americans shooting themselves or each other, forget about the Muslims, those are basically inconsequential.   It rather reminds me of that line in Casablanca, where Mr. Rick says (with dry intonation) to Major Strasser,when the new German Commandant suggests the Wehrmacht will go to New York:  

 Well, there are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade.

Note to international readers: This guy is once again posting false and misleading information. He categorically states no use of deadly force extends to property. This is incorrect. It is especially egregious in this case as it can have life changing consequences. Whether you can use deadly force to protect your property depends on the state and the interpretation of a prosecutor or judge. In Texas generally you can use force to protect property but not deadly force. There are important exceptions however.

1. You must be justified in using force;

2. Must only be to the degree you reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent:

a. the imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
b. Someone fleeing from those things; or

3. To the degree that you reasonably believe that

a. The land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, or
b. Using a lesser force would expose you or someone else to the substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

You can see from this language where the interpretation comes in. What if that guy stealing your boat from the dock turned out to be armed and on drugs. Now use of deadly force may be considered justified even if you did not know he was armed before you shot him. In a state like Texas I doubt you'd be prosecuted. Now what if he was stealing that boat from an attached garage but wasn't going into the house proper. Doesn't matter according to Texas law. That attached garage was part of your home so even though he was only trying to steal your property, the boat, he entered your home and deadly force may be authorized.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Note to readers:  watch out for people who go and post things from Texas websites that seek to foment the use of guns. 

No Texas law, indeed no State, provides for an individual to go shoot someone dead when they are stealing property.  While in certain parts of Texas you might not be prosecuted  (and in other parts you would be charged with manslaughter), the so-called "castle rule" simply does not provide for shooting anyone who you "reasonably think" is wrongfully in or on your property. The "castle rule" provides that, if you are inside your home and someone has broken in, then you may "use force" to stop him from hurting you and you no longer are obliged to flee out the back door  (which you do have to do in many States, unless you cannot flee further). 

Crazies with guns who think they can play lawyer are dangerous to society. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Jan van Eck

[shadowkin + 584]

5 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Note to readers:  watch out for people who go and post things from Texas websites that seek to foment the use of guns. 

No Texas law, indeed no State, provides for an individual to go shoot someone dead when they are stealing property.  While in certain parts of Texas you might not be prosecuted  (and in other parts you would be charged with manslaughter), the so-called "castle rule" simply does not provide for shooting anyone who you "reasonably think" is wrongfully in or on your property. The "castle rule" provides that, if you are inside your home and someone has broken in, then you may "use force" to stop him from hurting you and you no longer are obliged to flee out the back door  (which you do have to do in many States, unless you cannot flee further). 

Crazies with guns who think they can play lawyer are dangerous to society. 

yup Texas website from a Texas law firm quoting Texas law I'm sure they know it better than a foreigner

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 minutes ago, shadowkin said:

yup Texas website from a Texas law firm quoting Texas law I'm sure they know it better than a foreigner

There are cases out there, including one from a  policeman, who came into an apartment, found a man inside, and shot him dead - to be charged with manslaughter.  Turns out the policeman was confused and had entered the man's apartment instead of her own, on the next floor up.

Tell you what: go on out there in your beloved Texas and go shoot someone who, after a night of drinking, went onto your lawn and took a whizz against some tree  (or maybe the wheel on your boat trailer,hey why not). He's dead, and you feel better, because you defended "your castle."  Let us know how the legal system deals with you; pop us a memo from jail. 

[shadowkin + 584]

3 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

There are cases out there, including one from a  policeman, who came into an apartment, found a man inside, and shot him dead - to be charged with manslaughter.  Turns out the policeman was confused and had entered the man's apartment instead of her own, on the next floor up.

Tell you what: go on out there in your beloved Texas and go shoot someone who, after a night of drinking, went onto your lawn and took a whizz against some tree  (or maybe the wheel on your boat trailer,hey why not). He's dead, and you feel better, because you defended "your castle."  Let us know how the legal system deals with you; pop us a memo from jail. 

Neither this policeman example or your hypothetical situation have anything to do with deadly force in protection of property

[jaycee + 348]

1 hour ago, shadowkin said:

Neither this policeman example or your hypothetical situation have anything to do with deadly force in protection of property

I remember a very disturbing story of an Aberdonian oil worker  shot in Houston a few years ago. He was wandering about lost and as you do in any civilised country he knocked on a house door to ask directions the couple inside did not understand him correctly as he had a Scottish accent so instead of opening the door the husband shot him dead with a magnum through the door. He was found not guilty. I still don't understand how killing someone for knocking on your door is threatening. If you don't want visitors put up a gate dont shot them.

Edited December 13, 2018 by jaycee
typo

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

15 hours ago, Illurion said:

Unfortunately,  the facts seem to indicate that many of the rioters are NOT the native-French,  but are the INVADING IMMIGRANTS instead.

Not a good thing.

 

ps:  in defense of my friends,  they tell me they would have stayed if THERE HAD NOT BEEN SO SO MANY OF THE MUSLIM MIGRANTS MOVE  IN SO SUDDENLY.   They say that is THE MAJOR SCREW-UP BY THE GOVERNMENT,  NOT JUST LETTING THE HORDES IN,  BUT LETTING IN SO MANY, SO FAST, THAT THE NATIVE FRENCH ARE OUTNUMBERED,  AND MUST RETREAT.

I'm still not seeing what you are seeing with regards to the "facts seem to indicate that many of the rioters are NOT the native-French,  but are the INVADING IMMIGRANTS instead."  People protesting against their government are typically scared of repercussions from that same government, or their employers, neighbors, etc. and therefore wear masks.  Also, France has had many ethnicities for generations and just because they look foreign would not necessarily mean they ARE foreign; they could be 3rd or 4th generation French.  Are there credible reports that you can share on this?

Your second point is, I think, indisputable.  I grew up in a town of roughly 1,000 people and if you brought in 500 migrants, or they brought themselves in, the people in town would have had one hell of a hard time dealing with it and many most likely would have moved away, first to neighboring towns and then further away if necessary.  A few would no doubt have taken defensive measures, and that I guarantee you would not have been bloodless.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Dan Warnick

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, jaycee said:

I remember a very disturbing story of an Aberdonian oil worker  shot in Houston a few years ago. He was wandering about lost and as you do in any civilised country he knocked on a house door to ask directions the couple inside did not understand him correctly as he had a Scottish accent so instead of opening the door the husband shot him dead with a magnum through the door. He was found not guilty. I still don't understand how killing someone for knocking on your door is threatening. If you don't want visitors put up a gate dont shot them.

I don't know whether the shooting was justified or not, but I have tried to understand a few Scots in the wee hours of the morning (5 a.m. according to the UK Independent) myself, unsuccessfully. 

Deciphering The Scottish Accent

And then there are the reports from U.S. papers, which are quite different to the reports in UK and Scottish papers.  We've had quite a lot of two-sided stories reported in the same way about incidents that have happened here in Thailand as well.  Most recently about a young lady from England that claimed she was raped while on holiday in Thailand only to later be proven a, well, less than truthful storyteller, shall we say.  Anyway, the report in the LA Times says the boys, well read this quote:

"HOUSTON — A grand jury Wednesday refused to indict a homeowner who shot and killed a Scottish businessman who was banging on his back door in the middle of the night.

Andrew De Vries, 28, was shot Jan. 7 in an affluent Houston neighborhood. Homeowner Jeffrey Agee told police that he opened fire because he feared that De Vries was a burglar.

The Harris County grand jury deliberated for less than 30 minutes before announcing its decision.

Gelt and Fiona De Vries, who traveled from Scotland to seek answers in their son's death, said they were outraged and refused Agee's request to meet with them.

"I think the whole bunch are cowards," De Vries said. "We're disgusted," Mrs. De Vries added.

According to police, De Vries rang Agee's doorbell twice, hiding each time that Agee came to the door. He then jumped a back yard fence and banged on glass doors. Agee fired three times through the doors, hitting De Vries twice."

 

That last sentence is rather telling, especially since the incident happened at 5 a.m. and quite different to the story about them being "businessmen" as reported in the UK Independent:

 

"A SCOTTISH businessman visiting Houston, Texas, was shot dead by a householder after being mistaken for a prowler.

Andrew De Vries, 28, from Aberdeen, was shot at about 5am local time after he knocked on the back door of a house, apparently seeking a taxi for himself and a Scottish colleague, Sydney Graves, 42. The owner fired through the door.

The men, employed by the international oil company Nowsco, were in the US for a training programme. Police said the shooting happened in an area of the city that had suffered 'home invasions' in which robbers batter down doors and steal property. They said it was unlikely the householder would be charged.

One report said the Scots had met two other men, but left their car after becoming uneasy about their new companions, and were hoping to call a taxi or get a lift.

Mr De Vries had only recently joined Nowsco, and had arrived in Houston earlier this week. He lived with his wife Alison in Aberdeen. There are no children.

A Nowsco spokesman said: 'The company management in Aberdeen has met with Mrs De Vries and informed her of the incident. I haven't spoken to her myself, but you and I can both imagine how upset she is.' He described the death as 'tragic' and added: 'We have no experience of this kind of incident.'

 

[jaycee + 348]

56 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

According to police, De Vries rang Agee's doorbell twice, hiding each time that Agee came to the door. He then jumped a back yard fence and banged on glass doors. Agee fired three times through the doors, hitting De Vries twice."

 

That last sentence is rather telling, especially since the incident happened at 5 a.m. and quite different to the story about them being "businessmen" as reported in the UK Independent:

So killing someone is justfied even though they have not gained entry to your property and had posed not risk? As for the hiding bit there is something not right perhaps he was round the other side of the house looking to see if there was anyone in as the time to answer the door was so long who knows. Anyway shooting somebody twice for no reason when posing no threat is hard to understand, at least in the UK you have to actually enter the house and pose a threat before justifiable homicide/self defence can be plead and we dont have guns!

I have had the argument many times on American gun laws with Americans even an NRA member recently and know its pointless, Americans want to shot each other for no reason fine but understand the rest of the world are amazed at the logic that believes citizens killing citizens is a good thing and will lead to a peaceful society.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

49 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

 

"HOUSTON — A grand jury Wednesday refused to indict a homeowner who shot and killed a Scottish businessman who was banging on his back door in the middle of the night.

 

According to police, De Vries rang Agee's doorbell twice, hiding each time that Agee came to the door. He then jumped a back yard fence and banged on glass doors. Agee fired three times through the doors, hitting De Vries twice."

 

 

Readers note:  in Texas  (as in most States) the prosecution of a crime can pass via through two channels.  One, the police make an arrest, and the prosecutor's office decides whether or not to prosecute.  If the police have not made an arrest, but have only collected information and handed that to the prosecutor, then the prosecutor has to seek an Indictment from the Grand Jury, which is a special jury of empaneled citizens.  The idea behind the Grand Jury system is to act as a check on prosecutors abusing authority to start criminal proceedings based on "I don't like you, so I will do a criminal prosecution on whatever I can find, just to try to hurt you."  

In this Houston case, it is apparent that the homeowner had committed a crime, specifically manslaughter.  The Grand Jury however refused to start the judicial machinery by refusing to Indict the felony crime, thus preventing the prosecutor's office from launching the prosecution.  You may think of this as "Jury Nullification."  The Grand Jury does not issue reasons for its decisions, and its deliberations are in secret, so nobody can ever determine what the reasoning was.  But keep in mind the context:  Houston is a city totally awash in guns, murder is notorious, and there is a vast criminal component in Houston, acting as parasites on the citizens. Just about everybody in Houston has been robbed at gunpoint at one time or another.  

So the Grand Jury simply refuses the prosecutor's office's request for an indictment, so that the manslaughter charges can be prosecuted. What it comes back to is: too many crazies out there with too many guns.  You also see this phenomenon in South Africa, incidentally  (perhaps even worse). 

None of this changes that shooting someone dead through a locked door is a felony crime.  It is.  The door is your protection from whatever mayhem lies outside.  The homeowner had the option of sitting inside (with his gun, of course) and calling the police, and waiting it out.  He chose not to.  That decision would send him to jail for at least ten years in other jurisdictions.  In Texas, he was shielded by the Grand Jury (not the police nor the prosecutors, who treated it as a murder).  He was also not being shielded by the "castle doctrine," notwithstanding what other posters here might try to persuade you to believe; there is no "castle doctrine" applicability as the perpetrator, whatever his intentions, was outside a locked building.  Trust this explains. 

[Illurion + 894]

8 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Note to international readers:  there is NO place inside the USA where anyone is allowed to "kill to protect our property."   What are known as "stand your ground" laws are modifications of the general requirement for any person confronted by another to first retreat.

As usual,  you are wrong.

The "Stand Your Ground" law in the State of Florida states that the citizen "DOES NOT HAVE TO RETREAT",  and we "ARE ALLOWED TO KILL FOR OUR PROPERTY AS LONG AS WE FEEL OUR LIVES ARE IN DANGER."

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, jaycee said:

So killing someone is justfied even though they have not gained entry to your property and had posed not risk? As for the hiding bit there is something not right perhaps he was round the other side of the house looking to see if there was anyone in as the time to answer the door was so long who knows. Anyway shooting somebody twice for no reason when posing no threat is hard to understand, at least in the UK you have to actually enter the house and pose a threat before justifiable homicide/self defence can be plead and we dont have guns!

I have had the argument many times on American gun laws with Americans even an NRA member recently and know its pointless, Americans want to shot each other for no reason fine but understand the rest of the world are amazed at the logic that believes citizens killing citizens is a good thing and will lead to a peaceful society.

JC, there is no logic and apparently the Scot was being a drunken jerk.  And that happens: alcohol can bring out seriously bad behavior.  That said, this killing was not justified and was a crime.  That a crime is not prosecuted through a returned Indictment does not mean there was no crime, it is instead an unpunished crime, and there is no record outside of the police reports that a crime was committed. (See my other post on this matter). 

[Illurion + 894]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Crazies with guns who think they can play lawyer are dangerous to society. 

correction:

"crazies with keyboards in chat rooms who think they can play lawyer are dangerous to society."

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, Illurion said:

As usual,  you are wrong.

The "Stand Your Ground" law in the State of Florida states that the citizen "DOES NOT HAVE TO RETREAT",  and we "ARE ALLOWED TO KILL FOR OUR PROPERTY AS LONG AS WE FEEL OUR LIVES ARE IN DANGER."

Your life is not even remotely in danger because you have the walls of your house between you and whoever that is outside.  

You, specifically, as a person who should never, ever be allowed to be anywhere near any gun nor any ammunition.  You are precisely the reason the gun-abolition lobby continues to have steam.  It is your irresponsible thinking that so contributes to gun deaths inside the USA. 

[Illurion + 894]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

There are cases out there, including one from a  policeman, who came into an apartment, found a man inside, and shot him dead - to be charged with manslaughter.  Turns out the policeman was confused and had entered the man's apartment instead of her own, on the next floor up.

Tell you what: go on out there in your beloved Texas and go shoot someone who, after a night of drinking, went onto your lawn and took a whizz against some tree  (or maybe the wheel on your boat trailer,hey why not). He's dead, and you feel better, because you defended "your castle."  Let us know how the legal system deals with you; pop us a memo from jail. 

?

You make no sense.

Apples and oranges.

The TX officer has been charged with murder as she should be.

Stand Your Ground,  or the Castle Doctrine do not even come into play.

As for someone peeing on someone else's grass,   Don't tell me,   you do that all the time,  AS YOU SEEM TO THINK IT IS OK.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, Illurion said:

As for someone peeing on someone else's grass,   Don't tell me,   you do that all the time,  AS YOU SEEM TO THINK IT IS OK.

There is something seriously wrong with you.  Your constant barrage of personal attacks, now at the level of claiming I urinate on my neighbor's lawns, is profoundly disturbed.  I suggest you discontinue posting on Oilprice and move on to some other forum, such as Yahoo.com. 

[Illurion + 894]

4 hours ago, jaycee said:

I remember a very disturbing story of an Aberdonian oil worker  shot in Houston a few years ago. He was wandering about lost and as you do in any civilised country he knocked on a house door to ask directions the couple inside did not understand him correctly as he had a Scottish accent so instead of opening the door the husband shot him dead with a magnum through the door. He was found not guilty. I still don't understand how killing someone for knocking on your door is threatening. If you don't want visitors put up a gate dont shot them.

Under Texas, and Florida law (and most other states) ,  if the person felt their life was in danger,  they are allowed to kill to protect themselves.

As for the case you mention,  you conveniently forgot to mention that the guy "was beating on their door,  yelling at them,  and was drunk,  and that they had yelled back at him to leave or they would shoot."

The guy didn't leave, continued to beat on the door, and the people thought he was trying to break in,  so they shot him.

It was a "good kill."

It is the law.

[Illurion + 894]

2 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I'm still not seeing what you are seeing with regards to the "facts seem to indicate that many of the rioters are NOT the native-French,  but are the INVADING IMMIGRANTS instead."  People protesting against their government are typically scared of repercussions from that same government, or their employers, neighbors, etc.  Also, France has had many ethnicities for generations and just because they look foreign would not necessarily mean they ARE foreign; they could be 3rd or 4th generation French.  Are there credible reports that you can share on this?

Your second point is, I think, indisputable.  I grew up in a town of roughly 1,000 people and if you brought in 500 migrants, or they brought themselves in, the people in town would have had one hell of a hard time dealing with it and many most likely would have moved away, first to neighboring towns and then further away if necessary.  A few would no doubt have taken defensive measures, and that I guarantee you would not have been bloodless.

As i mentioned,  the videos show most of the people wearing masks.

BUT,  some of the more violent videos i heard  "audio" with the people yelling,  and it sounded like arabic,  definitely not French.

Edited December 13, 2018 by Illurion

[Illurion + 894]

24 minutes ago, jaycee said:

So killing someone is justfied even though they have not gained entry to your property

In the State of Florida,   the Stand Your Ground law is about YOU.

THE LAW EXISTS WHERE EVER YOU ARE.

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE ON YOUR PROPERTY TO SHOOT TO KILL TO PROTECT YOURSELF.

example:   A man and his girlfriend are arguing on a sidewalk,  next to a busy street.   The man strikes, and kicks the girlfriend.  A driver passing by,  sees the attack on the girlfriend,  and stops, gets out of his car,  and confronts the man telling him to stop.  The man then attacks the good Samaritan,  who then pulls his own legally licensed to carry gun,  and shoots the man in self defense.   The whole thing was filmed on cctv camera.  The good Samaritan was not charged.

[Rodent + 1,424]

First, everybody needs to take a beat and settle the heck down.

Staunch gun supporters are not going to be swayed into believing guns are evil. Likewise someone who comes from a country that does not bear arms is very unlikely to become a staunch  NRA supporter. 

as someone earlier pointed out, American gun laws vary by state. and also as someone had pointed out, how those laws are enforced vary even more state by state. 

on top of that, local nuances have a profound effect on which laws are enforced to the letter and which laws are bent. you may very well find someone out in Hicksville is prosecuted to a much lesser extent when protecting life in Liberty and property then someone in a big city. those in the big city do not understand what it means when someone comes to your door late at night. likewise, Hicksville residents are unlikely to comprehend what it means when someone comes knocking on your door in the middle of the night in the big city. When in Rome....

I do not expect anybody outside the United States to understand or comprehend American sentiment regarding gun rights, and I doubt a debate on that issue serves the oil price forum. let's move on, shall we?

further hostilities will be removed from the thread. I do not see any value in repetitive insistence that someone is right and someone else is wrong. 

 

[Illurion + 894]

26 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Your life is not even remotely in danger because you have the walls of your house between you and whoever that is outside.  

You, specifically, as a person who should never, ever be allowed to be anywhere near any gun nor any ammunition.  You are precisely the reason the gun-abolition lobby continues to have steam.  It is your irresponsible thinking that so contributes to gun deaths inside the USA. 

THE LAW IS CLEAR.   AND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS CONTRARY TO IT...

[Illurion + 894]

20 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

There is something seriously wrong with you.

Look in the mirror.

When you wrote:   "Note to international readers:  there is NO place inside the USA where anyone is allowed to "kill to protect our property."   

YOU WERE CALLING ME A LIAR.

When ,  in fact,  IT WAS YOU THAT WAS LYING.

The laws exist exactly as i have described them.

The fact that you do not like them is irrelevant.

And if you don't want to have your "peeing" stories thrown back into your face,  then don't write them in the first place...!

You seem to feel that YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT,  BUT THAT NO ONE ELSE CAN....

You seem to feel that YOU CAN CRITICIZE ANYONE YOU WANT,  BUT THEY CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES BY RETURNING THE FAVOR AND CRITICIZING YOU.

 

perhaps it is YOU that should stop posting,  since you are writing such false information.

[Illurion + 894]

21 minutes ago, Rodent said:

First, everybody needs to take a beat and settle the heck down.

Staunch gun supporters are not going to be swayed into believing guns are evil. Likewise someone who comes from a country that does not bear arms is very unlikely to become a staunch  NRA supporter. 

as someone earlier pointed out, American gun laws vary by state. and also as someone had pointed out, how those laws are enforced vary even more state by state. 

on top of that, local nuances have a profound effect on which laws are enforced to the letter and which laws are bent. you may very well find someone out in Hicksville is prosecuted to a much lesser extent when protecting life in Liberty and property then someone in a big city. those in the big city do not understand what it means when someone comes to your door late at night. likewise, Hicksville residents are unlikely to comprehend what it means when someone comes knocking on your door in the middle of the night in the big city. When in Rome....

I do not expect anybody outside the United States to understand or comprehend American sentiment regarding gun rights, and I doubt a debate on that issue serves the oil price forum. let's move on, shall we?

further hostilities will be removed from the thread. I do not see any value in repetitive insistence that someone is right and someone else is wrong. 

 

agreed

[jaycee + 348]

31 minutes ago, Illurion said:

The guy didn't leave, continued to beat on the door, and the people thought he was trying to break in,  so they shot him.

It was a "good kill."

It is the law.

Did he enter the house or pose a threat? He stayed as he needed help as he was lost. Being drunk is not a crime. We could go on for ever but I know how Americans think on this, killing people is good justice, cowboy stuff fine that's your nation's culture but other far more violent cultures have worked out people carrying weapons causes more problems so have banned them.