- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/2089998
Archived version: https://archive.ph/X5D30
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230830081318/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66654134
A lot of states with those laws probably also have “Stand Your Ground” laws and loose guns regulations, so really nobody should go there.
And as a blue blooded, god feering, gun toting, truck driving, steak eating, pussy grabbing, anti-woke, America first, patriot like myself that is exactly what we want. -s
The actual risk of being effected is still pretty low.
What exactly do you think these laws mean?
Trayvon Martin
What about him?
It eases the legal requirement to run away when someone attacks you, as opposed to fighting back.
Edit: Oh, that was rhetorical.
Those laws basically say it’s OK to shoot someone if you feel threatened. You can practically get away with murdering someone for looking at you the wrong way.
That’s not at all what they say. They “basically” say that you don’t have a duty to run away from someone who is actively attacking you.
Fine, maybe I misinterpreted why people think it’s OK to shoot at people for knocking on their door or pulling into the wrong driveway. I still don’t want to go to places where people are likely to do that.
That’s not a realistic fear. Certainly not something worth putting out a public notice about an entire country of 300 million people.
It happened several times in the last year, I’d mark it as realistic.
“Several times” across a country with 300 million people? That’s nothing but paranoia. You’re significantly more likely to be struck by lightning.
Do you routinely walk into open expanses during electrical storms?