Gun culture and laws: USA vs. European Union

coastalgull9 said:Being truly invested in a cause makes all the difference.

He wasn't just wandering aimlessly; there were already plenty of armed groups stationed there, and he ended up being attacked during the day by the same guy he eventually killed.

If some mob started torching property in a neighborhood in Washington, D.C., I’d certainly understand a guy from Des Moines traveling all that way just to protect his father's home from people who think they have the right to destroy it.

No, they wouldn't, because that kind of thing isn't legal.
Just like how armed vigilantes didn't show up when Paris was burning.
If the police can't keep protesters in check, there are other legal avenues available, and we all know who makes those calls. For instance, Emmanuel Macron even threatened to deploy the Foreign Legion to the streets.

rowdytiger13 said:Some hyped-up teenager from the Proud Boys, carrying an illegally obtained weapon, travels to a completely different state just to defend property that doesn't belong to him and whose owners he isn't even acquainted with.
I can only hope that the whole ordeal served as some kind of wake-up call for him.

Does a guy from Miami really have any right to defend a Washington, D.C. resident's property if a portion of that Washingtonian actually wants to destroy and burn it down??
Perhaps California and Appalachia are such vastly different worlds that it’s considered dangerous to cross those lines—to even dare to feel any sense of kinship with someone from a part of the country where you don't live and attempt to stand up for them.

coastalgull9 said:Does a guy from Miami really have any right to defend a Washington, D.C. resident's property if a portion of that Washingtonian actually wants to destroy and burn it down??
Perhaps California and Appalachia are such vastly different worlds that it’s considered dangerous to cross those lines—to even dare to feel any sense of kinship with someone from a part of the country where you don't live and attempt to stand up for them.

No, they don't... legally speaking.
We all know exactly who has the authority to step in during situations like this.

rowdytiger13 said:No, they wouldn't, because that kind of thing isn't legal.
Just like how armed vigilantes didn't show up when Paris was burning.
If the police can't keep protesters in check, there are other legal avenues available, and we all know who makes those calls. For instance, Emmanuel Macron even threatened to deploy the Foreign Legion to the streets.

What does legality have to do with whether an action makes sense given the circumstances?

If some mob was threatening your father in a neighboring town and the cops were just standing there twiddling their thumbs, would you just sit at home because it’s technically illegal for you to step in, or maybe because you don't live in that specific municipality? Are you actually being serious right now?

Just like how armed vigilantes didn't come charging in when Paris was burning.

But why would they show up if the police were actually doing their jobs—or at least giving off the impression that they were actually trying to handle things?

If the police can't contain protests, there are other legal avenues available, and we know exactly who makes those calls. Emmanuel Macron, for instance, threatened to deploy the Foreign Legion to deal with them.

Emmanuel Macron was busy clearing out crowds with water cannons, something that would have sent the entire Democratic establishment in the US into a total frenzy if it had happened here.

If Trump had deployed the National Guard to "racial justice" protests without getting the green light from the mayor or the governor, we would have seen a full-blown civil war. And regardless, it didn't happen. So, what are you supposed to do when a mob is destroying your father's business—the very thing he relies on to survive? Are you going to write a letter of protest to Trump asking him to call in the National Guard, or whatever? Are you going to call your old man and tell him, "Sorry, I don't have the jurisdiction, and since you didn't pay your insurance premium, I might help you out if I weren't in a different state, but hey, I have to leave you to suffer because 'crossing state lines' is just too much media fodder for the pundits?"

rowdytiger13 said:No, they don't... legally speaking.
We all know exactly who has the authority to step in during situations like this.

Which specific law in America are we talking about here? I'm asking for the exact statute, article, and paragraph. Please.

frozendrifter7 said:Which specific law in America are we talking about here? I'm asking for the exact statute, article, and paragraph. Please.

I can't say that comes to mind right now.
Try showing up to a protest or a counter-protest armed, and I'm sure a judge will be happy to explain the law to you.

rowdytiger13 said:No, they don't... legally speaking.
We all know exactly who has the authority to step in during situations like this.

Look, when the law is completely ignored by a mob—and even worse, ignored by the very people inciting that chaos—then I guess you don't really have any choice left. You just have to defend yourself and the people who have absolutely nothing to do with that crowd.

Fine, here it is:

Article 35, Section 2 of the laws regarding weapon procurement and possession in America.

The use of weapons is prohibited in public spaces or any location where the safety of citizens could be compromised.

Brenda Murphy3 said:everyone has a right to defend their property and themselves

Wait, how can you say that now? It’s obvious—even Bubi is admitting there is no 😁

Bubi, do yourself a favor and actually look up who Dominick Black is.

Brenda Murphy3 As stated by:
No, that isn't what he said... honestly—I can't decide if half of you are just playing dumb for the sake of it, or if you genuinely fail to grasp some incredibly simple concepts.

What on earth?

coastalgull9 said:Does a guy from Miami really have any right to defend a Washington, D.C. resident's property if a portion of that Washingtonian actually wants to destroy and burn it down??
Perhaps California and Appalachia are such vastly different worlds that it’s considered dangerous to cross those lines—to even dare to feel any sense of kinship with someone from a part of the country where you don't live and attempt to stand up for them.

rowdytiger13 said:No, they don't... legally speaking.
We all know exactly who has the authority to step in during situations like this.

frozendrifter7 said:Which specific law in America are we talking about here? I'm asking for the exact statute, article, and paragraph. Please.

I mean, just look at that guy from that Suburban city who went off with an AK and started blasting at two people in his own bedroom. If I recall correctly, he basically walked away with a light sentence.

frozendrifter7 said:Wait, how can you say that now? It’s obvious—even Bubi is admitting there is no 😁

Bubi, do yourself a favor and actually look up who Dominick Black is.

I’ve pointed this out a few times already: US law operates differently than ours or most countries in the European Union. They don't have the concept of exceeding self-defense limits like we do.
If Rittenhouse were in America, he'd be facing charges, but in the USA, he's fine. That's why he wasn't convicted.

frozendrifter7 said:

Brenda Murphy3 As stated by:
No, that isn't what he said... honestly—I can't decide if half of you are just playing dumb for the sake of it, or if you genuinely fail to grasp some incredibly simple concepts.

What on earth?

See, this is exactly where you're missing the point...

"Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property"—that is absolutely NOT the same thing as someone being able to drive from Miami to Washington, D.C. just to play judge, jury, and executioner whenever they feel like settling a score on their own terms.

Do you honestly not see how those two things are worlds apart?

driftingtinker said:I mean, just look at that guy from that Suburban city who went off with an AK and started blasting at two people in his own bedroom. If I recall correctly, he basically walked away with a light sentence.

Well, look at the guy from Indianapolis—he used a rifle to kill one person and wound another. Honestly, I can't quite remember if it went down in a hallway or a bedroom... a free man, through and through. 👍

Brenda Murphy3 said:See, this is exactly where you're missing the point...

"Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property"—that is absolutely NOT the same thing as someone being able to drive from Miami to Washington, D.C. just to play judge, jury, and executioner whenever they feel like settling a score on their own terms.

Do you honestly not see how those two things are worlds apart?

So, what—you don't have the right to protect your sister's house, or your brother-in-law's, or even your mother's? I wasn't just talking for the sake of talking when I told Bubimir earlier to take a long, hard look at who Dominick Black is and where he actually calls home.

Brenda Murphy3 said:See, this is exactly where you're missing the point...

"Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property"—that is absolutely NOT the same thing as someone being able to drive from Miami to Washington, D.C. just to play judge, jury, and executioner whenever they feel like settling a score on their own terms.

Do you honestly not see how those two things are worlds apart?

We deal with people overstepping self-defense laws, which is pretty messed up when you're actually trying to protect yourself. That isn't an issue in the USA.
Armed militias are completely illegal here (they aren't in the USA).

rowdytiger13 said:I’ve pointed this out a few times already: US law operates differently than ours or most countries in the European Union. They don't have the concept of exceeding self-defense limits like we do.
If Rittenhouse were in America, he'd be facing charges, but in the USA, he's fine. That's why he wasn't convicted.

🙏
Oh, brilliant. Truly a stroke of pure genius on your part.

hiddeneagle98 said:He bought the weapon illegally because under federal law—and even according to state laws in Illinois and Wisconsin—no one under 18 is allowed to possess a firearm. So, he crossed over into another state.
The property isn't his, and he didn't know the owners.
What part of that is inaccurate?

Goebbels would be proud of this logic.

The kid was crossing that state line every single day just to volunteer as a lifeguard.

In that state, in that specific city, he’d previously been out there cleaning up the mess from New Year's Eve parties and scrubbing graffiti off buildings that also weren't his property, where he had zero connection to the owners.

He’s got an alcoholic father and lives with his mother; it looks like he basically found a surrogate father figure in the first responders.

That photo of him with the Proud Boys? That was staged by his former lawyer, the guy he actually fired because of the whole situation.
The kid never intended to play the role of some racist hero, and honestly, he’s clearly uncomfortable being associated with it.

frozendrifter7 said:So, what—you don't have the right to protect your sister's house, or your brother-in-law's, or even your mother's? I wasn't just talking for the sake of talking when I told Bubimir earlier to take a long, hard look at who Dominick Black is and where he actually calls home.

Are you playing dumb on purpose here?
No, you don't have the right to just grab a gun and drive to the next town to play hero for someone else. You call the police.
Even if you own a firearm legally, you don't have the right to travel to a different city to defend anyone.
I can't believe I even have to explain this.
I'm talking about the US.

Under which law, precisely? I’m all ears—do tell.