Quote (JessiWan @ Nov 3 2021 02:48pm)

I am not talking about the case in this thread. I am responding to the passage that you claim is in first page of the Canadian firearm course.

Quote (SBD @ Nov 3 2021 01:51pm)

This entire conversation is in context of this situation. That's why it's being posted in the thread dedicated to it.

You are honestly the slowest individual I have ever met on this forum. I mean that.

Quote (Santara @ Nov 3 2021 04:46pm)

I fully agree the shots were defensive in nature.

I don't necessarily agree that he can claim self defense when it can logically be asserted that "he went looking for trouble." He made a positive decision to put himself into a dangerous situation. I agree he has a right to defend himself, but I'm truly torn on a legal claim of self defense.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Nov 3 2021 03:41pm)

Yeah, you wouldn't. You make significantly more than average. This whole conversation is premised on not making as much as either of us currently do.

You're also underestimating the actual scenario. In 1980 the average household income was 20k. The average home price was 47k. In 2010 it was 50k and 230k (right after the housing bubble destroyed house prices. Average home price was 280k from ~2004 to 2008).

If you want to make your point you should be avoiding home cost as a metric at all cost. It's probably the most convincing point against your position.

Quote (cambovenzi @ Nov 3 2021 03:41pm)

I'm late to the party on this thread. Ill 'open fire' some thoughts on this idiocy.

Overwhelming evidence demonstrates self defense. The amount of video evidence and camera angles available for this case is truly impressive. There is no excuse to be running with the NPC talking points on this one.

No, the existence of the highly politically motivated and corrupt prosecution does not mean the case has merit.

Open carrying is not violence or an escalation of violence and is categorically different from drawing on someone in a fight.
That is absurd and calling it basic training doesnt make it true.

The 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms are not just for hunting.

There is no obligation to let rioters and child molesters kill you if you have a weapon.
Yes its still self defense if you use a firearm in self defense

Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 3 2021 03:57pm)

i literally said higher home costs and healthcare costs are the best points you have, i dont avoid things that conflict my point i counter them with what nuance there is.

Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 3 2021 04:57pm)

i literally said higher home costs and healthcare costs are the best points you have, i dont avoid things that conflict my point i counter them with what nuance there is.



quote me next time coward.

Quote (cambovenzi @ Nov 3 2021 01:55pm)

putting himself in a potentially dangerous situation is not an act of aggression or a crime.
there were thousands of people who put themselves in that dangerous situation and all of them retain their right to self defense if and when they are aggressed upon.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Nov 3 2021 03:59pm)

There's not much nuance there lol.

For the average income person things aren't as good as they were in the 80s. Things are better for everybody since probably the 60s unless you're not a white male.

Quote (cambovenzi @ Nov 3 2021 04:00pm)

i responded to numerous points by different people in a concise manner.
you see the post. your points were incredibly stupid and wrong. congrats.

Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 3 2021 02:06pm)

carrying a weapon is an escalation of force compared to not carrying a weapon, whether you're headed into a dangerous situation or a kwik trip.

Quote (JessiWan @ Nov 3 2021 04:08pm)

What if there is no "force" to begin with?

When a gun isn't being used to shoot people, it's just a tool, sitting there. There is no "escalation" of anything.