Stephen Colbert wants to change self-defense laws

[Tguns]

@Scratch

He was in the middle mob that was rioting, they weren’t normal people.

We can certainly agree on that, not normal people. Violent deranged misfits sure, certainly not normal.

@Scratch

To use your rape example…It would be like a woman going to hang out with a group of known rapists, what did she think was going to happen?

So, in your mind, it’s the woman’s fault.

Ok, you go with that.

[Scratch]

@Tguns

So, in your mind, it’s the woman’s fault.

If she goes to hang out with a group of known rapists? You actually think she should take no responsibility for putting herself in that situation?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@WuWei

@Supreme_War_Pig

I predict more people will be armed, there will be more confrontations, and ultimately more shootings.

In spite of all evidence to the contrary. Hear! Hear!

Well, there’s only 15 states with Constitutional Carry. Let’s see what happens when it’s all 50.

But hey, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong.

[Tguns]

@Scratch

If she goes to hang out with a group of known rapists? You actually think she should take no responsibility for putting herself in that situation?

I tend to lay the blame on the person who commits the heinous act, not the victim of the act.

But hey, I’m a bit old school like that…maybe I’m not woke enough?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Tguns

Yes, Aubery’s murderers were set to walk away…until reality contradicted the feels.
No system is perfect and yes, sometimes we have to rely on biased testimony. Of course if that biased testimony doesn’t line up with physical evidence, we go with the physical evidence.

I agree, likely more people armed, possibly more confrontations. But eventually as stupid takes it’s toll, confrontational people will weed themselves out.

Are you kidding? Nobody loses money betting on the continued stupidity of the American people.

By your faulty logic, gang shooting shootings should be down, year over year, as they atrit out.

It isn’t happening.

[WuWei]

You’ve been wrong for 17 years. Scientifically.

Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2005)

For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. 17 years ago. And still, they come…

[zantax]

@TheRedComet

Most murders where the perpetrator doesn’t know the victim begin as property crimes.

The vast majority of murders are crimes of passions, where the murderer and victim have some sort of relationship or at least know each other.

Murders where the perpetrator doesn’t know the victim or victims usually start as break ins. They aren’t going to there to commit murder, but they end up doing so for one reason or another.

So yes. Property crime is inherently life threatening because you cannot know what their other intentions are.

By the way, the cops weren’t doing their jobs in this circumstance. Rittenhouse shouldn’t have had to put out a fire. The cops should have been doing their ■■■■■■■ jobs and getting the riot under control.

Not just the cops but every law abiding man in the community should have been out there with him.

[zantax]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@Tguns

Yes, Aubery’s murderers were set to walk away…until reality contradicted the feels.
No system is perfect and yes, sometimes we have to rely on biased testimony. Of course if that biased testimony doesn’t line up with physical evidence, we go with the physical evidence.

I agree, likely more people armed, possibly more confrontations. But eventually as stupid takes it’s toll, confrontational people will weed themselves out.

Are you kidding? Nobody loses money betting on the continued stupidity of the American people.

By your faulty logic, gang shooting shootings should be down, year over year, as they atrit out.

It isn’t happening.

Actually, sociology believes it is. We have essentially domesticed ourselves.

How Humans Domesticated Themselves

[Tguns]

@Supreme_War_Pig

Are you kidding? Nobody loses money betting on the continued stupidity of the American people.

True, stupidity seems to be a perpetual problem in this country. And I’m I not saying more guns would solve this problem, but perhaps it would provide idiots a bit more pause to reflect on their stupidity before acting on it.

@Supreme_War_Pig

By your faulty logic, gang shooting shootings should be down, year over year, as they atrit out.

It isn’t happening.

Oh, come on now…it’s not like gangbangers rely on constitutional or ANY legal form of carry to wander the streets strapped. Making it easier for decent normal people to carry will have no effect on gangbangers or other misfits who ignore laws…outside of giving their victims better odds.

[Scratch]

@Tguns

perhaps it would provide idiots

Those same idiots will also have guns.

[Tguns]

@Scratch

Those same idiots will also have guns.

Considering gangbangers and other criminally minded violent misfits, those idiots already have guns. Take for instance that chucklehead Grosskreutz, good thing Rittenhouse also had a gun or that clown may have killed him.

[Tguns]

Getting back to the topic of Colberts playing to his dullard base in saying we need to change self defense laws.
Can someone explain how changing such law will discourage violent miscreants from attacking otherwise innocent people?
Or, would this just encourage these misfits to act out their rage knowing their victims may be more hesitant to act in self defense.

I’m of the latter belief, is there anyone of the former belief?

[Samm]

@Scratch

Apparently Zimmerman and Martin did.

No. Apparently you are completely ignorant of the facts in that case.

[Samm]

@Scratch

@gooddad409

I think some are truly disturbed about that.

No…some are truly disturbed by people trying to play cop and taking the law into their own hands… Zimmerman, Rittenhouse and those 3 rednecks are perfect examples…

Neither the Zimmerman, nor the Rittenhouse incidents bear any resemblance to the “three rednecks” incident. You should just walk away.

[Samm]

@Supreme_War_Pig

According to Z. Which again, is the point: the survivor tells the tale, and is incentivized to lie.

No … according to the physical evidence collected by the police investigators.

[Samm]

@Scratch

@zantax

Not familiar with that one.

Texan fatally shoots man who had pulled into his driveway

“He got a handgun and ran outside, according to the affidavit. According to the account he gave the police, the car had its headlights on at that point and began rapidly backing out of the driveway; he chased after it, “struck the front driver’s-side door window twice with his handgun” and then fired the gun, striking the driver.”

You seem to have missed this part:

"A Texas man is facing a first degree murder charge … :

[Samm]

@tnt

@WuWei

He was running away.

He was repositioning himself. His weapon is effective at longer ranges. The guy with the skateboard’s weapon was effective at close range. Rittenhouse was trying to reposition himself to make his opponents weapon less effective so he could use his weapon on him.

And no, I don’t think that’s the case. But it could have been.

We don’t convict people on “could have been.”

[Samm]

@tnt

Of course you do.
Rittenhouse was afraid the guy with the skate board was going to severely hurt or kill him so he got to kill him.

No. It goes well beyond fear. The skate board guy hit him in the head with the edge of the board. His intent to cause physical harm was well established at that point.

[Samm]

@tnt

Offend?

Just wondering what an active shooter would look like and wondering why the dead people don’t get to claim they were afraid for their lives and the lives of others and were trying to neutralize an active shooter

Except of course for the fact that they are dead.

They established that they were not afraid for their lives when they pursued the suspected “active shooter” instead of speaking cover. From where they were on the street, they could clearly see that he was running with his arms up (not holding the gun in a threatening manner) directly at the police line.

Why do you think that following the shooting (which they witnessed) that the police ignored Rittenhouse and ran past him toward the protesters?

[Samm]

@tnt

I’m not offended. Having a discussion about self defense laws.

No you’re not. You’re just making ■■■■ up as you go along.