The possibility of varying levels of violent behavior in first world countries, is something that's been discussed before on this forum. FWIW, I think Americans are actually more violent then north-west Europeans and Canadians in general. Canada has relatively high gun ownership, but not much gun violence. The reason for this (besides less violent population) might be that Canadians are more conscientious then Americans, and that's why their gun regulation is effective. What do you supppose is the reason for that? Canada and the US are similar in their ethnic make-up, immigration, their form of government, standard of living, communications, etc. What would cause one country to be so much more violent than the other? That's the question to be asked and answered.Glorification of Cowboys, Gangsters, and the Military/War especially post WW2. And especially the latter. The MIC could never survive at the level it does without constant brainwashing of the citizenry as to the value of militarism and patriotism. mid atlantic - Don't be a jerk. Lois is one of the few posters in this forum who rarely writes a post that ISN'T inciteful." It does not change the fact that people can do bad stuff with legal, or illegal guns if they want, no matter what."But for some strange reason they don't do those things nearly so often in places like England or most of Europe or even across the border in Canada. People must have different natures in most parts of the civilized world. Isn't that odd? Lois
Personally DM, I think we shouldn’t take away the right to: Arm bears.
Cap’t Jack
Lois is one of the few posters in this forum who rarely writes a post that ISN'T inciteful.:lol: Yeah, you can say that again.
The possibility of varying levels of violent behavior in first world countries, is something that's been discussed before on this forum. FWIW, I think Americans are actually more violent then north-west Europeans and Canadians in general. Canada has relatively high gun ownership, but not much gun violence. The reason for this (besides less violent population) might be that Canadians are more conscientious then Americans, and that's why their gun regulation is effective. What do you supppose is the reason for that? Canada and the US are similar in their ethnic make-up, immigration, their form of government, standard of living, communications, etc. What would cause one country to be so much more violent than the other? That's the question to be asked and answered."Ethnic" make up is not similar. USA is far, far more racially/ethnically diverse then Canada. This makes things very different." It does not change the fact that people can do bad stuff with legal, or illegal guns if they want, no matter what."But for some strange reason they don't do those things nearly so often in places like England or most of Europe or even across the border in Canada. People must have different natures in most parts of the civilized world. Isn't that odd? Lois
Glorification of Cowboys, Gangsters, and the Military/War especially post WW2. And especially the latter. The MIC could never survive at the level it does without constant brainwashing of the citizenry as to the value of militarism and patriotism.It's not so much the glorification that matters, it's that many of the people are in fact "cowboys and gangsters".
mid atlantic - Don't be a jerk. Lois is one of the few posters in this forum who rarely writes a post that ISN'T inciteful.Maybe not to you.
He was out looking for trouble. He wanted a confrontation. There was a report on television that besides the gun, he had nunchucks and a silencer in his car. He wasn't carrying the gun for protection. He was carrying it because he wanted to use it. The big tough guy with a gun. There was also a report that he pulled up next to the car holding the kids when there were other spaces to park in. He complains about the music and parks as close to it as possible, looking for trouble. He belongs in prison. LoisIf I recall correctly, Dunn's neighbors called him a 'liar' and a 'bully'. It didn't help that the prosecutors were the same incompetent dolts who tried the Zimmerman/Martin case. I also think the mindset of the jurors will have to change. As long as people like Dunn are truly judged by a jury of their paranoid peers, the outcome of these trials will never change. Both the laws and people have to change.
And well he should. I suppose you heard about the nut in our area who killed two men with a sniper rifle because he "caught" them supposedly breaking into an outbuilding near his property. It was later discovered that the two men (both Black coincidently) had purchased the property and we're inspecting the building. It didn't even belong to the shooter. When the police arrested him they found over 50 guns in his home and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. He was very well armed. He's been charged with first degree murder. Cap't JackI'm waiting for him to claim he was 'standing his ground'. The 'threat' doesn't even have to be reasonable, only perceived and he will waltz away a free man...just like the others.
I’m waiting for him to claim he was ‘standing his ground’. The ‘threat’ doesn’t even have to be reasonable, only perceived and he will waltz away a free man…just like the others.Not in this case Asanta. Although WVa. Has a "stand your ground" law on the books it clearly states that you only have the right of self defense When you are defending your home from an intruder meaning you bodily harm And you have no means of escape. It's the "castle doctrine" again. What you don't have is the right to defend your property with deadly force, e.g. If you see someone stealing a rake off your lawn and you kill him then you've violated the law and you're going to prison for murder. This guy's probably getting life with no parole. A sentence he well deserves IMO. As this law varies from state to state one wonders how this will revive the vigilantism of yesteryear. It certainly opens the door. Cap't Jack