Danforth shooting

[jc100]

Hoffman discovered LSD in 1938. It’s amazing how much staying power that discovery has had.

 

[J_F]

I will Genesis
you survived on an R6 by watching youtubes
Florida should be a piece of cake
plenty of other states where they aren't so crazy
did you see the vid where the meth head ate the other dude's face off?

 

[Genesis]

I will Genesis
you survived on an R6 by watching youtubes
Florida should be a piece of cake
plenty of other states where they aren't so crazy
did you see the vid where the meth head ate the other dude's face off?

Lol I did. Oh! Wasn't it bath salts or something? Turns people into zombies that looks like something out of World War Z. Running naked down the highway

Sent from my SM-G955W using GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app

 

[Roadghost]

We don't know about registered gun owners who sell their guns and pretend it was stolen, and the crimes that result from it.

LOL. So much fail in your post.

Then why do we have a Canadian handgun registry? Anyone who buys a handgun is required to register it. If that person is a straw purchaser for criminal gangs, then the police are quickly able to tell by looking at the number of handguns purchased and/or stolen. Why have there been almost no arrests of licensed owners for illegally selling handguns? Could it be that the handgun registry, like the long-gun registry, is useless?

All guns start off legally owned. So sensible restrictions on legal owners, and penalties like Brian suggests, will inevitably restrict illegal ones.

We already have incredibly restrictive laws on handgun ownership. You can't even leave your house without an Authorization to Transport and you can only go to a range at which you must be a member. And no, all guns do not necessarily start off legally owned in Canada. The stats vary, but 50-90% of illegal handguns in Canada are smuggled, if you believe police statistics. Those police numbers are estimates, not hard data because most guns are untraceable with the serial numbers filed off.

Besides, since you can surely find many cases in the US where someone shot the wrong person thinking they were trying to kill them, unlike Canada, and since there have certainly been several home invasions in the US that ended badly for the victims (including homes with guns), just like Canada, doesn't that indicate there's no upside to having less strict gun regulations? The other argument, to have guns to defend from a tyrannical government, is also retarded.

You would be shocked at just how many criminals of all types are shot by residents in their own homes in the United States. But the United States is not Canada. Our culture has always (at least until the mass waves of refugees) been much more passive. Even prior to 1993 when the Firearms Act came into effect there was very little need for anyone to shoot anybody, even though they owned guns. Ever thought about that? Prior to 1979 you could walk into a sporting goods store, buy a rifle and walk home with it, nothing required. A handgun merely had to be registered at the store. That's it. The murder rate was almost the same. So here we are 40 years later with a lot of very expensive gun control legislation and little to show for it. And yet, hysterical neurotics on the left still want more. Once again, it's not going to stop criminals from plying their trade.

The real explanation is an underlying psychology behind some people's unjustified support for guns which has more to do with their unrealistic sense of their own unlimited potential. They figure they can be relied upon to handle and safeguard guns responsibly, and use them against others only when there is no other option. Their purity and goodness, along with a gun, is all that's needed to triumph over darkness and evil. And while this description may very well be TRUE for a large number of people, it isn't true for many more, and it doesn't change the demonstrable fact that allowing more guns in society makes us all less secure overall.

Gun owners are statistically less likely to commit a crime than non gun owners. That's a proven fact. So the reality is already proving you wrong. It is criminals - those who obtain handguns illegally - who are killing people, and mainly each other. Only a tiny fraction of gun murders involve innocent bystanders or random shootings. Again, you have bought into the hysteria of the left who want to dupe the public into outlawing guns, because they just plain don't like the people who own them.

The smallest personal sacrifice of registering long guns for example, enables significant benefits to society. Such a rule is exactly why we call ourselves one nation; to benefit everybody by enforcing standards that we all share anyways. There's no reason for anyone to have a moral objection to gun registries, but people make that claim, hiding behind paranoid arguments of government oppression and tyranny, or about their need to arm themselves against hypothetical intruders who want to kill them.

What "benefits to society" did the long gun registry create? Peer reviewed study after study proved it did nothing to help public safety:

https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Langmann-Report.pdf

It did cost Canadian taxpayers $2billion to set up and maintain. What did we get for that? Nothing. Yet, even in the registry's dying days Wendy Cukier and the Liberal government funded Coalition for Gun Control tried to force the government to keep it with a lawsuit. They lost and the court concluded that if anything, the removal of the long gun registry was followed by a DROP in gun homicides. That's reality. The science is on our side.

If someone wants to kill you and they expect that you're armed, they just won't give you a chance to shoot! This isn't brain surgery. All we'd accomplish by having more guns is cause the violence of criminal acts to escalate proportionally. Again, look to the south.

In fact, U.S. studies show that criminals always take the path of least resistance. That means if they know a household has firearms, they'll rob the one that doesn't have them. Again, in Canada we have never really bought firearms specifically for home defence. It just wasn't necessary until the past 20 years when home invasions and murders became more common. There have been a recent number of cases where Canadians have defended themselves with firearms from armed criminals. For defending themselves and their families they have gone through hell in courts and been portrayed as villains while the criminals are treated like victims. That is a perversion we've inherited from the British and I would like to see it sent back to that authoritarian dump.

It's a shame that this thread, which is about the murder of two innocent kids and assault on many others and has shed absolutely no new light on the subject of guns, has turned into another dumb pro/anti gun argument. The thread is full of lies and distortions that I've ignored until now because honestly, nothing more needed to be said after the second post.

It wasn't gun owners who made the first move. The bodies were still warm when that idiot John Tory was covering his arse by diverting attention from deep police staffing cuts and an absolute unwillingness to address ethnic gang violence in Toronto. There was no stopping Faisal Hussein. He obtained a gun illegally. That gun was absolutely smuggled by a gun runner. The details of that are strangely suppressed in Canadian media, but appeared in the New York Post and other U.S papers for some reason.

RIP Reese and Julianna.

Yes, I agree. It was horrible for them and the other people who were shot. But I'm not sympathetic to the professionals gun control agitators who are pushing feel-good anti-gun laws as a false solution. They did the same thing after the Ecole Polytechnic massacre. It changed nothing, and the Danforth shooting proves it.

 

[Genesis]

LOL. So much fail in your post.

Then why do we have a Canadian handgun registry? Anyone who buys a handgun is required to register it. If that person is a straw purchaser for criminal gangs, then the police are quickly able to tell by looking at the number of handguns purchased and/or stolen. Why have there been almost no arrests of licensed owners for illegally selling handguns? Could it be that the handgun registry, like the long-gun registry, is useless?




We already have incredibly restrictive laws on handgun ownership. You can't even leave your house without an Authorization to Transport and you can only go to a range at which you must be a member. And no, all guns do not necessarily start off legally owned in Canada. The stats vary, but 50-90% of illegal handguns in Canada are smuggled, if you believe police statistics. Those police numbers are estimates, not hard data because most guns are untraceable with the serial numbers filed off.



You would be shocked at just how many criminals of all types are shot by residents in their own homes in the United States. But the United States is not Canada. Our culture has always (at least until the mass waves of refugees) been much more passive. Even prior to 1993 when the Firearms Act came into effect there was very little need for anyone to shoot anybody, even though they owned guns. Ever thought about that? Prior to 1979 you could walk into a sporting goods store, buy a rifle and walk home with it, nothing required. A handgun merely had to be registered at the store. That's it. The murder rate was almost the same. So here we are 40 years later with a lot of very expensive gun control legislation and little to show for it. And yet, hysterical neurotics on the left still want more. Once again, it's not going to stop criminals from plying their trade.



Gun owners are statistically less likely to commit a crime than non gun owners. That's a proven fact. So the reality is already proving you wrong. It is criminals - those who obtain handguns illegally - who are killing people, and mainly each other. Only a tiny fraction of gun murders involve innocent bystanders or random shootings. Again, you have bought into the hysteria of the left who want to dupe the public into outlawing guns, because they just plain don't like the people who own them.



What "benefits to society" did the long gun registry create? Peer reviewed study after study proved it did nothing to help public safety:

https://firearmrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Langmann-Report.pdf

It did cost Canadian taxpayers $2billion to set up and maintain. What did we get for that? Nothing. Yet, even in the registry's dying days Wendy Cukier and the Liberal government funded Coalition for Gun Control tried to force the government to keep it with a lawsuit. They lost and the court concluded that if anything, the removal of the long gun registry was followed by a DROP in gun homicides. That's reality. The science is on our side.



In fact, U.S. studies show that criminals always take the path of least resistance. That means if they know a household has firearms, they'll rob the one that doesn't have them. Again, in Canada we have never really bought firearms specifically for home defence. It just wasn't necessary until the past 20 years when home invasions and murders became more common. There have been a recent number of cases where Canadians have defended themselves with firearms from armed criminals. For defending themselves and their families they have gone through hell in courts and been portrayed as villains while the criminals are treated like victims. That is a perversion we've inherited from the British and I would like to see it sent back to that authoritarian dump.



It wasn't gun owners who made the first move. The bodies were still warm when that idiot John Tory was covering his arse by diverting attention from deep police staffing cuts and an absolute unwillingness to address ethnic gang violence in Toronto. There was no stopping Faisal Hussein. He obtained a gun illegally. That gun was absolutely smuggled by a gun runner. The details of that are strangely suppressed in Canadian media, but appeared in the New York Post and other U.S papers for some reason.



Yes, I agree. It was horrible for them and the other people who were shot. But I'm not sympathetic to the professionals gun control agitators who are pushing feel-good anti-gun laws as a false solution. They did the same thing after the Ecole Polytechnic massacre. It changed nothing, and the Danforth shooting proves it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Sent from my SM-G955W using GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app

 

[raginduck]

LOL. So much fail in your post.



In fact, U.S. studies show that criminals always take the path of least resistance. That means if they know a household has firearms, they'll rob the one that doesn't have them. Again, in Canada we have never really bought firearms specifically for home defence. It just wasn't necessary until the past 20 years when home invasions and murders became more common. There have been a recent number of cases where Canadians have defended themselves with firearms from armed criminals. For defending themselves and their families they have gone through hell in courts and been portrayed as villains while the criminals are treated like victims. That is a perversion we've inherited from the British and I would like to see it sent back to that authoritarian dump.



It wasn't gun owners who made the first move. The bodies were still warm when that idiot John Tory was covering his arse by diverting attention from deep police staffing cuts and an absolute unwillingness to address ethnic gang violence in Toronto. There was no stopping Faisal Hussein. He obtained a gun illegally. That gun was absolutely smuggled by a gun runner. The details of that are strangely suppressed in Canadian media, but appeared in the New York Post and other U.S papers for some reason.

First... You can't name more than 1 recent incident where a homeowner defended against an armed intruder. The other two your thinking of weren't armed when they were shot... and in that 1 incident.. the homeowner claimed the shooting was an accident...

Second, the gun used in Danforth shooting was stolen from a gun shop in Sask...

Talking about fail in a post!? It would be easy to tear into more of your post.
Some of the crap the pro-gun guys spew is just a skewed as the anti-gun crap.

 

[TwistedKestrel]

We already have incredibly restrictive laws on handgun ownership. You can't even leave your house without an Authorization to Transport and you can only go to a range at which you must be a member. And no, all guns do not necessarily start off legally owned in Canada. The stats vary, but 50-90% of illegal handguns in Canada are smuggled, if you believe police statistics. Those police numbers are estimates, not hard data because most guns are untraceable with the serial numbers filed off..

Think you deployed the LOL incorrectly here. fastar1 said and meant that all guns start off legally owned i.e. at their point of origin. Someone had to buy the gun from the manufacturer, whether it was Joe American or Joe Government

 

[Shwarider]

These gun threads are right up
There with those oil threads


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hack]

These gun threads are right up
There with those oil threads


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're more like threads on religion...
Futile.
Whatever "side" people are on they're very unlikely to change their mind/position.

Personally I side with the "guns are inanimate objects" and "Legal owners are not the problem". I'm also suspicious of governments that strive to ban guns.
Here's a news flash... Gov't doesn't give a **** about public safety unless it can use the excuse to further impose it's will.

If the public knew who's allowed to walk our streets they'd realize how little concern there is for public safety.

 

[pfbmgd]

First... You can't name more than 1 recent incident where a homeowner defended against an armed intruder. The other two your thinking of weren't armed when they were shot... and in that 1 incident.. the homeowner claimed the shooting was an accident...

Second, the gun used in Danforth shooting was stolen from a gun shop in Sask...

Talking about fail in a post!? It would be easy to tear into more of your post.
Some of the crap the pro-gun guys spew is just a skewed as the anti-gun crap.

I can assure you guns are used in rural areas for defense . But people have learned not to call the police to report such events . As they will become a victim of the system .

 

[Roadghost]

First... You can't name more than 1 recent incident where a homeowner defended against an armed intruder. The other two your thinking of weren't armed when they were shot... and in that 1 incident.. the homeowner claimed the shooting was an accident...

That failsafe you put in there 1 "recent" incident is hilarious. There have been more than that, and even more over the last 5 years. Plus a few dead unarmed people in home invasions. Do a search, I'm not doing it for you.

Second, the gun used in Danforth shooting was stolen from a gun shop in Sask...

That was the first story that came out. Then they said it came from a gun runner in Saskatchewan (busted for possessing 33 smuggled guns) who sold it to Faisal's comatose brother. Again, what has been reported of late from a source is that it came from the U.S. Obviously, they're having trouble tracing it, or they have, but they don't want to elaborate further.

Talking about fail in a post!? It would be easy to tear into more of your post.
Some of the crap the pro-gun guys spew is just a skewed as the anti-gun crap.

Go ahead. Tear away. I like a good verbal scrap every once in awhile. But be warned, I'll answer everything with hard facts and statistics. All you anti-gun types are going to have is shaky media reports and misinformed political hyperbole, as always.

 

[jc100]

Facts and statistics from most of the sources you posted before are actually opinions. All most (not all, many owners seem content with what we have in Canada) of you pro gun types have is opinions since the facts from non biased sources don’t back up what you’re trying to say. There is a reason why there’s sensible controls in places around the world and it’s not because “the feds are controlling the sheeple”, it’s because the actual facts and statistics make sensible gun control the common sense choice.

 

[raginduck]

That failsafe you put in there 1 "recent" incident is hilarious. There have been more than that, and even more over the last 5 years. Plus a few dead unarmed people in home invasions. Do a search, I'm not doing it for you.



That was the first story that came out. Then they said it came from a gun runner in Saskatchewan (busted for possessing 33 smuggled guns) who sold it to Faisal's comatose brother. Again, what has been reported of late from a source is that it came from the U.S. Obviously, they're having trouble tracing it, or they have, but they don't want to elaborate further.



Go ahead. Tear away. I like a good verbal scrap every once in awhile. But be warned, I'll answer everything with hard facts and statistics. All you anti-gun types are going to have is shaky media reports and misinformed political hyperbole, as always.

Coulten Boushie... Is the only one where you can consider the intruder armed... and that's a real stretch in that incident. There was busted .22 in the SUV and if I remember right, Gerald didn't even know it was there until after the fact.
Name another... It should be easy for someone with all the facts. Go back 10 years, or more if you need.
I'm not anti gun... far from it.

 

[Roadghost]

Coulten Boushie... Is the only one where you can consider the intruder armed... and that's a real stretch in that incident. There was busted .22 in the SUV and if I remember right, Gerald didn't even know it was there until after the fact.
Name another... It should be easy for someone with all the facts. Go back 10 years, or more if you need.
I'm not anti gun... far from it.

Did this one slip your mind?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...3D38AE099F81F6F99D663D38AE099F81&&FORM=VRDGAR

How's this for blaming the victim?

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1487818-break-in-suspect-shot-man-in-home-charged

Or this?

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...p-on-murder-charges-for-shooting-home-invader


Or this?

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/7411253-hamilton-man-charged-in-shooting-defending-home-son/

Or this?

https://www.mississauga.com/news-st...er-kill-armed-intruder-back-on-canadian-soil/

Man, I can't remember them all. There was a guy 3 years ago in NWT who was chased into his home. They were kicking down his bedroom door brandishing clubs when he got out his SKS and shot them dead. That seems to have disappeared.

This is just a cursory search. There's more, you're just not reading about them in the media. It might change opinions you know?

 

[raginduck]

Although the older white man did not need to shoot, there's nothing wrong with the video.
I have a shard of sympathy for the man who was shot, but I wont let that blind and obscure my vision.

In the real world, there is no natural law that says if I push you, you are limited to only pushing me back. Such laws of equal force are artificially created to simulate a world of "fairness" (contrary to the real world).

In reality, the black man did not know if the man he pushed had physical vulnerabilities such as recovery after surgery, bad hip, susceptibility to knee dislocation, a bad spine, etc. A simple push to you that throws a man to the ground could mean alot more to the fallen man. When you engage a stranger and escalate the situation to physical warfare, you must be ready to expect the possibility of an unrestricted human reaction that may result in an attempt to take life.

The mans death should serve as a lesson and grow society to a matured state which allows people to understand that we are not in grade 10 anymore. We dont have a teacher to separate us. Unfortunately because of the media and dominant political agenda, instead of learning the lesson they get you to focus on victimhood. There's a powerful lesson to be learned here. If you threaten a man physically, especially one that probably won't win, you are risking your life. That should be a universal law in my opinion.

Can you imagine...say I was a family man with a wife and a bunch of kids. Problems ensue, initiated by the aggressor. I have to duke it out equally to see who'd win? No...bud.

This Stand Your Ground Law is one of the closest laws that simulate reality. It does not cater to "should and shouldn'ts", but rather allows nature to take it's course.

If the Law allowed someone to shoot pre-emptively, I would have a problem. But that's not the case.

Yes, sad I accept a degree of reality for what it is.

I think I'll be moving to Florida soon.

Sent from my SM-G955W using GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app

The recent Florida incident...

One could argue the black guy was defending his family from an aggressor when he pushed the guy.
Regardless, that was a chicken **** shooting... done by a coward that was out looking for a confrontation. He was not handicapped and has a history of approaching people that park in handicap spots and causing confrontations.
The black guy didn't make any threatening moves or advance towards the guy once he was on the ground... not even when he slowly and sloppily pulled out his pistol.
Shootings like that.. and many more.. are the east reason I don't want stand your ground laws in Canada.
There are numerous cases in Canada of homeowners defending themselves against intruders and not being convicted... including a homeowner killing a cop and shooting others that he thought were intruders.
There's also lots of other cases where someone shot and killed or wounded another and were found not guilty because they were 'defending themselves'.

 

[raginduck]

Did this one slip your mind?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...3D38AE099F81F6F99D663D38AE099F81&&FORM=VRDGAR

How's this for blaming the victim?

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1487818-break-in-suspect-shot-man-in-home-charged

Or this?

https://nationalpost.com/news/canad...p-on-murder-charges-for-shooting-home-invader


Or this?

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/7411253-hamilton-man-charged-in-shooting-defending-home-son/

Or this?

https://www.mississauga.com/news-st...er-kill-armed-intruder-back-on-canadian-soil/

Man, I can't remember them all. There was a guy 3 years ago in NWT who was chased into his home. They were kicking down his bedroom door brandishing clubs when he got out his SKS and shot them dead. That seems to have disappeared.

This is just a cursory search. There's more, you're just not reading about them in the media. It might change opinions you know?

I knew of all of those to some degree, except one.
I donated to the defence fund for one of those cases.
Each incident has it's own circumstances and will be scrutinized by a court.

 

[raginduck]

It might change opinions you know?

My postings probably lead you to think I'm an anti gun type... But am actually more of the opposite. My thinking is probably inline with yours for the most part. My concern isn't guns... It's people.
I'm all for self defence... but what probably does differ.. is our opinions of what we consider acceptable self defence.
Shooting over head to repel an intruder with a Molotov cocktail... IMO is self defence.. you didn't just what was necessary to repel the threat...
Grabbing a shotgun, going outside, sneaking up behind intruder, calling out to them and shooting them as they turn around... I don't agree that is self defence... for numerous reasons.
Shooting "as the intruder fled".. is not self defence. That is the aggravating circumstance in at least one, and probably more, of the incidents you posted in your last post.

 

[Roadghost]

My postings probably lead you to think I'm an anti gun type... But am actually more of the opposite. My thinking is probably inline with yours for the most part. My concern isn't guns... It's people.
I'm all for self defence... but what probably does differ.. is our opinions of what we consider acceptable self defence.
Shooting over head to repel an intruder with a Molotov cocktail... IMO is self defence.. you didn't just what was necessary to repel the threat...
Grabbing a shotgun, going outside, sneaking up behind intruder, calling out to them and shooting them as they turn around... I don't agree that is self defence... for numerous reasons.
Shooting "as the intruder fled".. is not self defence. That is the aggravating circumstance in at least one, and probably more, of the incidents you posted in your last post.

Wait a minute. I thought you said this stuff doesn't happen in Canada? That nobody needs to protect themselves? Now you're saying you are familiar with all these cases, yet you pretended they don't exist? I see you've chosen the event in NWT for the example? The one where two morons were trying to kill a man who ran into his house. They ran like hell when they saw him with the gun, and he shot them as they were running away in front of his house. Did you stop to think how it would have turned out if he didn't have that SKS?

If you're going to try to tell me "Oh he should have just called the police", or that "Oh well, he didn't need to shoot them" you probably haven't lived in a northern community where it takes an hour for the RCMP to get to your home, and by that time these guys have come back with their own .308 hunting rifles to finish the job. No, I don't like these stories either. I wouldn't have shot them. But do you presume to judge this man who was justifiably terrified for his life? Are you sure you know how you would have reacted? What about the other cases? In my book, if you enter a man's house armed with intent to terrify and do harm to someone you're completely responsible for whatever comes next. Whether that person dies of a heart attack, or he pulls out a shotgun and lets you have it, you are accountable. I'm not one for this perverted blame the victim nonsense. If these guys had stopped chasing the SKS owner when HE was running away they would still be alive.

Anyway, this thread has pretty much run its course. I'm outta here.

 

[raginduck]

Wait a minute. I thought you said this stuff doesn't happen in Canada? That nobody needs to protect themselves? Now you're saying you are familiar with all these cases, yet you pretended they don't exist? I see you've chosen the event in NWT for the example? The one where two morons were trying to kill a man who ran into his house. They ran like hell when they saw him with the gun, and he shot them as they were running away in front of his house. Did you stop to think how it would have turned out if he didn't have that SKS?

If you're going to try to tell me "Oh he should have just called the police", or that "Oh well, he didn't need to shoot them" you probably haven't lived in a northern community where it takes an hour for the RCMP to get to your home, and by that time these guys have come back with their own .308 hunting rifles to finish the job. No, I don't like these stories either. I wouldn't have shot them. But do you presume to judge this man who was justifiably terrified for his life? Are you sure you know how you would have reacted? What about the other cases? In my book, if you enter a man's house armed with intent to terrify and do harm to someone you're completely responsible for whatever comes next. Whether that person dies of a heart attack, or he pulls out a shotgun and lets you have it, you are accountable. I'm not one for this perverted blame the victim nonsense. If these guys had stopped chasing the SKS owner when HE was running away they would still be alive.

Anyway, this thread has pretty much run its course. I'm outta here.

I never said this stuff doesn't happen.
I don't know anything about the SKS in NWT incident... and made no reference to it. Read the other articles you posted.
How many of those incidents you linked have made their way through a court and have actually been ruled as self defence?
I don't think I should be using open cases as examples for debate... I have no idea of the details or what the outcome will be once those incident are scrutinized by the court and ruled on.

 

[raginduck]

Although the older white man did not need to shoot, there's nothing wrong with the video.
I have a shard of sympathy for the man who was shot, but I wont let that blind and obscure my vision.

In the real world, there is no natural law that says if I push you, you are limited to only pushing me back. Such laws of equal force are artificially created to simulate a world of "fairness" (contrary to the real world).

In reality, the black man did not know if the man he pushed had physical vulnerabilities such as recovery after surgery, bad hip, susceptibility to knee dislocation, a bad spine, etc. A simple push to you that throws a man to the ground could mean alot more to the fallen man. When you engage a stranger and escalate the situation to physical warfare, you must be ready to expect the possibility of an unrestricted human reaction that may result in an attempt to take life.

The mans death should serve as a lesson and grow society to a matured state which allows people to understand that we are not in grade 10 anymore. We dont have a teacher to separate us. Unfortunately because of the media and dominant political agenda, instead of learning the lesson they get you to focus on victimhood. There's a powerful lesson to be learned here. If you threaten a man physically, especially one that probably won't win, you are risking your life. That should be a universal law in my opinion.

Can you imagine...say I was a family man with a wife and a bunch of kids. Problems ensue, initiated by the aggressor. I have to duke it out equally to see who'd win? No...bud.

This Stand Your Ground Law is one of the closest laws that simulate reality. It does not cater to "should and shouldn'ts", but rather allows nature to take it's course.

If the Law allowed someone to shoot pre-emptively, I would have a problem. But that's not the case.

Yes, sad I accept a degree of reality for what it is.

I think I'll be moving to Florida soon.

Sent from my SM-G955W using GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45174654