Gun culture and laws: USA vs. European Union

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.

Of course you do, but unknown didn't do it that way... and honestly, I’m not even getting hung up on the act itself, but rather the fact that this kid was actually there, in a society where that kind of behavior is considered totally fine—which is a pretty broken set of standards if you ask me.

Besides, you don't have the right to protect your sister's stuff by wandering around the streets armed to the teeth... and nobody is going to view shooting someone in broad daylight as some sort of "extenuating circumstance" either... (and again—I think the kid is innocent, but that's not the point here).

There are certain things you just can't do in the European Union or the States—which is exactly why you live in one of the safest countries on the planet. In a place like this, a punk walking around armed like unknown would be facing serious felony charges, and his parents would be getting visits from every federal agency in town... (even though, let's face it, something like that almost never happens here...).

frozendrifter7 said:🙏
Oh, brilliant. Truly a stroke of pure genius on your part.

And you can stop playing dumb now. It doesn't hurt.

frozendrifter7 said:Under which law, precisely? I’m all ears—do tell.

I already quoted him on the previous page.
The Second Amendment in the USA.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Of course you do, but unknown didn't do it that way... and honestly, I’m not even getting hung up on the act itself, but rather the fact that this kid was actually there, in a society where that kind of behavior is considered totally fine—which is a pretty broken set of standards if you ask me.

Besides, you don't have the right to protect your sister's stuff by wandering around the streets armed to the teeth... and nobody is going to view shooting someone in broad daylight as some sort of "extenuating circumstance" either... (and again—I think the kid is innocent, but that's not the point here).

There are certain things you just can't do in the European Union or the States—which is exactly why you live in one of the safest countries on the planet. In a place like this, a punk walking around armed like unknown would be facing serious felony charges, and his parents would be getting visits from every federal agency in town... (even though, let's face it, something like that almost never happens here...).

Down in Rhode Island, there is such a thing as a concealed carry permit, yet neither you, nor Bubimir, nor the rest of this crowd seem to grasp the most critical nuances of the law. Open carry, concealed carry, and several other vital legal distinctions are flying right over your heads because you all tend to lump everything together... which is a massive mistake.

frozendrifter7 said:Down in Rhode Island, there is such a thing as a concealed carry permit, yet neither you, nor Bubimir, nor the rest of this crowd seem to grasp the most critical nuances of the law. Open carry, concealed carry, and several other vital legal distinctions are flying right over your heads because you all tend to lump everything together... which is a massive mistake.

Man, the nonsense you're spewing is honestly unreal.

What does even that have to do with what we were talking about?

Even if you do have your permit—it doesn't mean you can just go blasting someone because they're smashing up a 7-Eleven. You keep jumping from one topic to the next like they're all the same thing... they aren't... not even close... and then you have the nerve to claim that other people are "missing the important details." 🤣 ...for crying out loud...

unknown said:If some mob started torching stuff in a neighborhood in Washington, D.C., I’d totally get why a guy from Des Moines would show up where his old man lives just to protect what those rioters are trying to wreck.

Des Moines is a long drive.

It's more like someone from Newark or a suburb would be heading into D.C.

denijama said:I honestly think Boldan is at the very heart of this whole "misunderstanding" we’re having. It isn’t about the right to protect property—I mean, everyone has a fundamental right to defend their own stuff and themselves, period. But whether a specific action is actually "understandable" is a completely different conversation. Defending your home when the local authorities are basically sitting on their hands? Yeah, that's understandable. I think we can all get behind that.

But it makes zero sense that Kyle was specifically there... just like it wouldn't be remotely sensible or understandable if something like this went down in a place like Austin, and some teenager from a tiny town like Spokane or an unknown suburb decided he was 100% committed to going out there to "defend" things. It just doesn't pass the smell test.

What part of this isn't understandable? The kid's entire family lives in Kenosha. That's his home. He goes there every single day and even volunteers as a lifeguard.

He had been there since the day before, crashing at a friend's place just so he could wake up early and clean up the mess left behind by last night's protests. He spent the whole day before the chaos started doing exactly that. That is his community.

So what's the issue? I have relatives who flew in from Germany to help out during the floods back in the Midwest just because they were originally from a small town nearby, even though they were born abroad.

When the big earthquake hit San Francisco, half the construction crews from the South flew up there to fix chimneys and lend a hand without being asked—I personally know a ton of them.

It was the exact same thing when the tremors hit the outskirts of the valley...

If you can't wrap your head around that, that's your problem, though I'd go as far as to say it's your shame.

The fact that Kyle's attempt to help ended in tragedy for several people is the result of a suicidal individual's actions and the people who let him loose on the streets. It's also the direct consequence of political paralysis that allowed criminals—who are easy enough to identify—to hijack nighttime protests.

You can't just keep drawing these constant equivalencies. Having a right to self-defense doesn't mean it was a rational decision for Kyle to be there...

Honestly, I think all of you digging your heels in like this just proves how little you're willing to sacrifice for your own community, or really for anything broader than yourselves. And then you have the nerve to insult those who actually do step up. That’s your shame, truly. By all means, keep going.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Man, the nonsense you're spewing is honestly unreal.

What does even that have to do with what we were talking about?

Even if you do have your permit—it doesn't mean you can just go blasting someone because they're smashing up a 7-Eleven. You keep jumping from one topic to the next like they're all the same thing... they aren't... not even close... and then you have the nerve to claim that other people are "missing the important details." 🤣 ...for crying out loud...

I really need to start using diagrams here. Do you honestly not grasp that shooting someone isn't the only way to utilize a firearm for self-defense?

hiddeneagle98 said:What part of this isn't understandable? The kid's entire family lives in Kenosha. That's his home. He goes there every single day and even volunteers as a lifeguard.

He had been there since the day before, crashing at a friend's place just so he could wake up early and clean up the mess left behind by last night's protests. He spent the whole day before the chaos started doing exactly that. That is his community.

So what's the issue? I have relatives who flew in from Germany to help out during the floods back in the Midwest just because they were originally from a small town nearby, even though they were born abroad.

When the big earthquake hit San Francisco, half the construction crews from the South flew up there to fix chimneys and lend a hand without being asked—I personally know a ton of them.

It was the exact same thing when the tremors hit the outskirts of the valley...

If you can't wrap your head around that, that's your problem, though I'd go as far as to say it's your shame.

The fact that Kyle's attempt to help ended in tragedy for several people is the result of a suicidal individual's actions and the people who let him loose on the streets. It's also the direct consequence of political paralysis that allowed criminals—who are easy enough to identify—to hijack nighttime protests.

You can't just keep drawing these constant equivalencies. Having a right to self-defense doesn't mean it was a rational decision for Kyle to be there...

Honestly, I think all of you digging your heels in like this just proves how little you're willing to sacrifice for your own community, or really for anything broader than yourselves. And then you have the nerve to insult those who actually do step up. That’s your shame, truly. By all means, keep going.

You have to be freaking stupid to compare volunteering during a flood or an earthquake to walking around armed in the middle of a riot.

Yeah, sure, the Bad Boys and NFL fans have stepped up in plenty of ways and they deserve credit, but that doesn't mean if a protest turns into a riot in Washington, D.C., it's "justified" or "smart" for some 17-year-old kid from the Bad Boys to show up armed with a rifle.

You guys are clueless... it's unbelievable that some people just don't get it and try to draw comparisons between two things that are completely different.

And you're talking about shame? Give me a break... it's hilarious. A kid like Kyle was part of the problem there (not his fault, obviously), not part of the solution...

(And for the record—you have zero clue what I or anyone else actually did during the earthquake, so quit with the childish commentary...)

addx said:just saying, if I were out helping during a flood in the States, I’d probably be doing it armed too.

honestly, just sit down and shut up, it's embarrassing.

Regarding this... I have no desire to be protected by armed militias.
I don't want to live in a city or country where those people are the ones enforcing law and order.
I appreciate the sentiment of their humanity, but no thanks.
The USA has its Second Amendment, which in my opinion, is a bad thing.

rowdytiger13 said:I already quoted him on the previous page.
The Second Amendment in the USA.

rowdytiger13, please tell me you aren't an attorney.

Where, specifically, does the law state that I am prohibited from legally defending someone else's property—any way I see fit—within the USA? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the property isn't even mine, but belongs to a close family member, and it's located in a different city than where I live.

frozendrifter7 said:rowdytiger13, please tell me you aren't an attorney.

Where, specifically, does the law state that I am prohibited from legally defending someone else's property—any way I see fit—within the USA? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the property isn't even mine, but belongs to a close family member, and it's located in a different city than where I live.

I'm no lawyer, but if you actually try to pull that off... well, what can I say.

frozendrifter7 said:rowdytiger13, please tell me you aren't an attorney.

Where, specifically, does the law state that I am prohibited from legally defending someone else's property—any way I see fit—within the USA? Let’s say, for the sake of argument, the property isn't even mine, but belongs to a close family member, and it's located in a different city than where I live.

So someone tries to torch a house and you put them down for it? IMO, if you get lucky, they'd charge you with manslaughter.

Christian Torres3 said:So someone tries to torch a house and you put them down for it? IMO, if you get lucky, they'd charge you with manslaughter.

It’s entirely possible, I agree. But would they convict me?

Here are three hypothetical scenarios—including yours.

You and I live in the same city—let’s say, Boise. You invite me over to your apartment on Maui for a few weeks because your place is top-tier, and I’m a friend of yours who happens to have a concealed carry permit. I head out there, bring along a small gun safe where I keep my pistol when I'm not carrying, and everything is fine—right up until 5:00 AM, when I hear glass shattering and two muffled voices coming from the next room. Since I know I should be alone, I grab the pistol from the safe, load it up, and head into the living room where I see broken glass and then, around the corner, two young guys attempting to rip a 60" TV off the wall. I point the gun at them, shout, and they bolt through the kitchen and out the back... I don't shoot; I see they've left, and I call the police to come over.

Will I face criminal charges? And if so, for what? I’m defending someone else's property, carrying a firearm outside my primary residence, and I didn't feel physically threatened since I was armed and clearly more capable than those two scrawny kids.

Scenario No. 2

Let's say my brother lives in Indianapolis and calls me to stay with him for a few days while he's away on business because he doesn't want his wife and kid home alone. There are massive protests happening in the city, some break-ins in the neighborhood, and general chaos in the streets, so he tells me to bring my gun. Permits, holster, safe, ammo, and the pistol in the car—driving straight to Indianapolis—which law am I breaking? To take it further, I walk around the house and the neighborhood with the pistol tucked in a holster under my jacket, and during one of these walks, I run into a group of suspicious-looking young men. 😁 We exchange a few words; I tell them to watch what they're doing and not to cause trouble like those savages did last night, noting that plenty of people around here are armed and things could get ugly, and people have had enough of the chaos. They give me a sour look, we part ways peacefully with pleasantries—they go one way, I head toward my brother's house—and that's it. A quiet, pleasant night in the neighborhood.

What laws did I violate?

Scenario Number 3—your scenario:

Suppose there has been major civil unrest in the city for several days now, and the police are doing little to nothing to stop it. I'm sitting in my house when a group of strangers passes by my front door, shouting things—some are being a bit rowdy, yelling, making general threats, lighting torches here and there... the standard scenery of a riot at 10:00 PM.

An hour later, a brick comes flying through my living room window, accompanied by the usual screaming and mayhem that follows unrest. I grab a pistol or a shotgun from the closet—whichever is closest—load it, and step into the dark living room, slowly circling the window. Outside, I see a guy about seven or eight meters away who is laughing and yelling, while another stands beside him holding a bottle with a lit wick sticking out. The second guy laughs to the first, saying this house is about to have a "cocktail" just like that shop did last night; he pulls a lighter from his pocket, lights the wick, and tosses the bottle toward the broken window and the room where I'm standing.

The moment the second guy throws the flaming bottle, I shoot him, hitting him twice in the chest, and he dies on the spot. The bottle enters my living room, shatters, and starts a fire.

I'll certainly be detained, but what else?

I'm glad you spoke up; if I recall correctly, you mentioned somewhere before that you used to be a police officer.

Example 1, absolutely nothing happens. Example 2, if you have a permit to own a gun but not to carry it and you get caught carrying, you’re getting reported—everything else is a wash. Example 3, excessive force or manslaughter.

2. I am well aware—which is precisely why I took the liberty of drafting those permits myself.

3. I’m also fully cognizant that the criminal complaint will likely follow that exact pattern; regarding that Vinkovčanin fellow I mentioned earlier—he actually ended up in court under different circumstances and walked away completely acquitted.

Now, Bubimir and Brenda Murphy3 are both insisting that in the first and second scenarios, I somehow violated the laws of America 😁 Fortunately, neither of them works for the Department of Justice.

N/A is just the icing on the cake here.

frozendrifter7 said:2. I am well aware—which is precisely why I took the liberty of drafting those permits myself.

3. I’m also fully cognizant that the criminal complaint will likely follow that exact pattern; regarding that Vinkovčanin fellow I mentioned earlier—he actually ended up in court under different circumstances and walked away completely acquitted.

Now, Bubimir and Brenda Murphy3 are both insisting that in the first and second scenarios, I somehow violated the laws of America 😁 Fortunately, neither of them works for the Department of Justice.

The devil is in the details. Big time.

And now, those guys are claiming I broke America laws in both scenarios. 😁 Luckily, they don't work for the Department of Justice.

If you'd actually pulled a gun from your holster and flashed it, then they'd have a point.

I am well aware—and if memory serves, I’ve already laid this exact argument out right here before. 😁

When it comes to self-defense and the fundamental right to protect yourself, your family, and your property, I honestly feel like the USA still maintains a basic sense of common-sense justice, whereas we over here have completely lost our way.

This is an old case, but it serves as yet another reminder that the right to self-defense in our neck of the woods is a massive, ongoing issue. It’s because they’ve taken the difficulty of proving self-defense to such an absurd extreme.
Now, look, if someone just steps one inch onto your lawn, obviously you don't have the right to open fire on them. But that doesn't mean someone can jump at your throat and start beating the hell out of you without you having the right to defend yourself in kind.

frozendrifter7 said:2. I am well aware—which is precisely why I took the liberty of drafting those permits myself.

3. I’m also fully cognizant that the criminal complaint will likely follow that exact pattern; regarding that Vinkovčanin fellow I mentioned earlier—he actually ended up in court under different circumstances and walked away completely acquitted.

Now, Bubimir and Brenda Murphy3 are both insisting that in the first and second scenarios, I somehow violated the laws of America 😁 Fortunately, neither of them works for the Department of Justice.

No, I'm not claiming that... and if I'm following correctly, neither is unknown... where on earth are you even getting these conclusions?

Besides, the whole argument isn't even about whether what unknown did was technically legal; it's about whether his actions were actually understandable, reasonable, or just plain normal.

(You're just trying to mock people while spouting total nonsense and making comparisons that don't hold water... plus, you're insisting on things that nobody ever said, wrote, or even thought, let alone believes.