![]() |
|
Imagine if Sarah Everard had have had a weapon like a legal gun? The roles would be reversed now. She would be living her life and that scum bag would be in her place.
There's pro's and cons for USA's second ammendment, and for me the pro's outweigh the cons. The cons are usually a result of poor education and upbringing. The pro's stop needless, tragic deaths to innocent people that don't deserve to happen. |
it's america and their concepts on gun control and self defence are completely alien to us here in the uk, so it's impossible for us to understand what went on there. It sounds horrendous, but then lawless rioting is horrendous too
|
Quote:
Quote:
Moreover, cops are trained to deal with guns, she wouldn't necessarily have the upper hand. BUT I do think it's ridiculous we can't legally carry non-lethals such as pepperspray or tasers. Self defence should be enabled for the most vulnerable, and all the weapons shouldn't be in the hands of criminals. |
Quote:
There would be abuses of that law too just like there are of guns in America, but again I think the pro's would outweigh the cons for that to be a deterent. |
Good news, justice is done
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But the Judge Excepted the Gun was used as protection. Case Closed. It USA Law, Adam nothing like our laws |
Quote:
What the MSM told you wasn't the evidence, it was them pushing an agenda to get you to hate. They're still lying about it right now. |
If nothing he might have learned shooting people isn't the best idea. Perhaps he'll just go back to beating up young girls to make himself feel tough.
|
There's a difference between morality and legality I think if what everyone needs to remember here. This case is of course HUGELY up for debate in terms of morality, you could philosophize over it for months.
In terms of the US legal system though? These states allow people to carry firearms, and they (often heavily) promote the ideas of full liberty of self/self defense by any means. Whatever the circumstances, he was at genuine physical risk and he used a firearm to defend himself. Legally, the US allows this. Thus, legally, it's the "correct" result. |
Ben fully exposing the left wing media who created this lie and perpetuated it
sickening what they did until the jury and the court did their duty |
Live Debate CNN HD
now |
|
I can see why the Jury
found him Not Guity. He was being Hunted Down they did not care about his Rifle Gun. They wanted to murder him. This is the Rage in the USA, right now it is a Split Nation. If you can, Watch Bill Mayer on Monday on SkyComedyHD Great Political Debates. |
Quote:
He is not Tough never will be. The Gun Rifle saved his life Jordan you are a Clever man. They were hunting him. The jury understood the truth. He will need to carry a Pistol the rest of his life That is what America is built on. I have Been In LA, NYC and Houston, and Toronto and Ottawa in Canada. America is a Great Place to Visit. Try and Visit Canada as well. |
It's really just that it's complicated, but also not, like I said...
Complicated: 1) He kinda seems like a piece of **** 2) There's no GOOD reason for him to have been there 3) There's no GOOD reason for him to have been armed 4) America's gun laws/gun problems are insane and NO ONE should be walking around armed like this 5) The whole situation shouldn't have been happening and is a political mess Not so complicated: 6) America's gun situation is what it is and isn't changing any time soon 7) He didn't fire when not at personal risk 8) He would, at the point of firing said gun, almost certainly have been seriously injured or killed if he hadn't used it. But for the purposes of the trial? Points 1 - 5 don't matter. The jury had to make the decision on points 6, 7 and 8. It was the only outcome that wouldn't have been extremely questionable legally. The thing people should be angry about, and the thing people should seek to change, is America's gun laws and gun culture. As it has been for ... well, since the US was the US. But that's a question for future incidents and future trials - you can't make up the rules as you go along and THEN say "these are the new rules now". This trial had to be answered based on how things stand today. Not how they "should be". |
in a lawless situation, americans always revert back to their right to basically protect themselves at all costs. By default, they have the means to do this by shooting people, it's embedded in their constitution.
We just cant view it from that perspective because we just don't have the same culture. Also, i think Biden has made a complete idiot of himself. He knows the law and he knows the judicial system |
TS
He wanted to Protect shops and windows Thats why he went there he was Armed as he knew his life would be in danger. That is what USA is. |
Deleted Post
|
Deleted Post
|
Quote:
1) white people 2) who were threatening his life? Given that it happened during a BLM riot, you'd think a racist murderer's kill list would look a little different! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Deleted Post
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.