Silver Lifetime
- Messages
- 42,854
- Reactions
- 111,306
‘You shouldn’t have to shoot someone.’ SC could change ‘stand your ground’ law
The bill is the latest attempt to expand gun rights in South Carolina.
www.yahoo.com
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What? Common sense???‘You shouldn’t have to shoot someone.’ SC could change ‘stand your ground’ law
The bill is the latest attempt to expand gun rights in South Carolina.www.yahoo.com
There's a reason that statistics regarding defensive uses of firearms vary so widely; the instances where no shots are fired still count but aren't necessarily reported to police. I mean, why WOULD you?
Yes, you sometimes have to.‘You shouldn’t have to shoot someone.’ SC could change ‘stand your ground’ law
The bill is the latest attempt to expand gun rights in South Carolina.www.yahoo.com
And most common folks who would defend themselves dont pull out phones and start filming, its the people who want to push a narrative.
Just like that drill Sargent charged with assault.
Where's the video of why he confronted the guy in the first place
This is not too different from our laws in Oregon, would you agree? Basically if you point a weapon at someone, you'd better shoot to kill and be able to specifically articulate a lethal threat... or a threat of great bodily harm.‘You shouldn’t have to shoot someone.’ SC could change ‘stand your ground’ law
The bill is the latest attempt to expand gun rights in South Carolina.www.yahoo.com
This is not too different from our laws in Oregon, would you agree? Basically if you point a weapon at someone, you'd better shoot to kill and be able to specifically articulate a lethal threat... or a threat of great bodily harm.
Yeah, can't argue with that. Makes sense.I think they are trying to clarify the intention of the law so some overzealous DA and/or judge doesn't use it to railroad someone into prison. Ideally the intention of SYG/etc. laws would cover someone who chose not to shoot (yet) in addition to someone who did, but given today's DAs, judges and juries, it is best to have the intention clearly spelled out. "Loopholes" work both ways.
Other reasons for reporting the event include that the bad guy may be caught if reported immediately, or you consider that the bad guy may present immediate danger to others. I've experienced four situations that required me to draw a gun on a bad guy. Two home invasions, one accidentally surprising a robber, and one stopping a would-be rapist who assaulted a young woman in the parking lot behind my apartment building. All ended by bad guy fleeing when presented with gun. I reported only two. One of the home invasions involved someone who was clearly enraged/deranged/semi-suicidal/zonked on drugs. I thought it likely deranged guy would attack anyone else in his path after I got him out of my house. So I called cops to protect my neighbors. And I reported the robber because I had complete description and thought cops might be able to catch robber. They didn't catch robber, but did catch fence and recover stolen goods.One reason comes to mind - some snowflake or criminal reports you for displaying your gun, and lies about the circumstances. It is probably better in most circumstances that you get your report in first and tell your side of the story?
I'm not sure, but it looks like you misspelled "anti-gun, pro-communist front group" there.From the article "
The South Carolina chapter of Moms Demand Action, a nationwide volunteer advocacy group that champions legislation to cut down on gun violence, took a stance against it ... "It would give people carte blanche to escalate situations to potentially deadly ones by brandishing firearms whenever they feel threatened, which is the last thing we need," Shelley said.
That IS the point of carrying a firearm. Only it's about reality, not feelings.
You sure got that right! My goodness, we've destroyed a global economy to combat a virus with a 99.8% survival rate. And I say this having lost a friend to it...Crises, such as losing a child, always and everywhere, lead to bad law. The hackneyed plea of "If we can save even one life" ultimately justifies total enslavement of society.
The amoral press jumps at the chance to exploit grieving family members.
And what happened to the flu? It seems to have fled the planet! The old leftist mantra of "Never waste a crisis" is indeed true.You sure got that right! My goodness, we've destroyed a global economy to combat a virus with a 99.8% survival rate. And I say this having lost a friend to it...