Look at the comment from ZeroGravitas. Even if you insist on asking the question which I don’t see why, just prefacing it with what he wrote would completely transform what it was. The issue may not even be the question but the lack of context/explanation before sharing it.

Thanks, fixed :)

A conversation yes, just not a productive one. It may have done more damage than good, since many people now associate this issue with the ragebait and don’t take it seriously.

Here’s my take: the bear thing is causing such a visceral reaction that it is very hard to take a step back, not take it personally and have a rational discussion about it.

Imo the bear thing was phrased in a way to cause that visceral reaction. It was intended to be antagonistic. If the same point was phrased the way you phrased it above, I want to believe we would have much more civil discussion about it. But instead, the posts put many male readers on the defensive and those that tried to explain were seen as defending this antagonistic stance.

That is no excuse for DM harassment or harassment on other posts, just my take on the reason the discussion turned so uncivil.

Could be social commentary on what passes as “science” on social media these days. 🤣 That’s what made me laugh.

Science is feelings

Typo? 🤣

Oh no, a teenager faces zero consequences for vaping. We are doomed! /s

That being said, you are right that the allegations should not be taken as facts, especially considering they came from the same source as those deepfake lies.

… and you have a strange way of arguing your point.

That’s the issue, I am not arguing any point other than the main post is misleading. US gun laws are absolutely stupid. You desperately need a reform. I never disagreed with that. Sure, more people die of heart disease but that is much harder to fix than gun laws.

You are just projecting shit onto my comments that was never there and then get confused when I don’t disagree in the way you expect.

Yeah, deleted the comment immediately when I realized it was poorly written. My stupid habit of pressing send before proof reading.

That being said, you may want to read again yours as well. Since when does calling lies lies means I support anything?

Oh no, kids are dying. Quickly tell everyone nothing ever happened in Tiananmen Square because spreading misinformation will help apparently.

Surely only people who want kids dead would point out misinformation. /s

deleted by creator

It says “a leading cause”, not “the leading cause”. Depending on how long your list of leading causes is, anything could qualify.

English is not my native language but this sounds like it should not be a thing. Sounds like it was made for con artists…

On the whole population where they belong instead of a carefully selected subset.

deleted by creator

Link does not work

PS: Are you including suicides? If so, than maybe it is possible in the 1-19 age group you selected but incredibly misleading and still untrue in general population.

PS2: You can link to the data by clicking save in the top right.

… gun-related incidents, including accidents and mass shootings, have become a leading cause of death in the country.

What? Not even close.

Yes, as I wrote earlier it is theoretically possible.

That being said, the subjective here is subjective perception (what you see, hear, …), not subjective evaluation of that perception. So IMO perceiving that someone shot someone else without seeing what preceded that absolutely does not give you the right to shoot immediately. Objectively evaluating that perception, it could be a murderer, or self defense, or an undercover cop. You do not have the justification to fire unless you see them threatening you, or someone who you actually perceived to not be a threat.

The way I see it, appearing threatening goes with carrying a gun. If you choose to carry, you need to be responsible for your appearance to the surrounding. As an example, aim a gun at a cop and it does not matter whether it is intentional, unintentional or even outside your control due to a medical condition. You will likely be turned into swiss cheese. It is your duty not to point your gun at people. The duty comes with the right to carry a gun. If you are unable to do so, maybe consider not carrying.

Also, I personally like how many European nations only allow concealed carry. This way, you don’t create tense and possibly dangerous situations unnecessarily. You only reveal your weapon when you intend to use it.

Finally, what is the alternative to subjective perception? Oh, the terrorists gun was not loaded. You had no way to know but you go to jail, because objectively he was not a threat? That does not make sense.

Both subjective and objective evaluation of your subjective perception is the current requirement and IMO the reasonable one.

Of course, there are always details that could be improved.

You seem to be correct, I misremembered.

That being said, I don’t think he would have a valid self defense claim against Rittenhouse after running up to him with a gun and pointing it at him. But I am not sure on this one.

Absolutely no. Gaige Grosskreutz would not be able to claim self defense exactly for the reason I explained. You don’t get to claim self defense immediately after assaulting and battering someone. That counts as provocation.

That would be true even if Rittenhouse no longer had a claim of self defense (for example because Grosskreutz visibly stopped attacking), since as I wrote, those are two different things.

You are confusing two different questions here. Whether someone is justified to shoot the robber in the bank and whether the robber is justified to defend themselves if they are attacked (fired upon).

Yes, it would have to be armed robbery to justify shooting at the robber, and even then that alone may not be enough. (IANAL, depends on state, it’s complicated)

On the other hand, even in an unarmed robbery, the robber does not have a claim of self-defense if they injure/kill a guard trying to stop them.

I was talking about whether the delivery driver was allowed to return fire, not if the homeowner was allowed to shoot them, which is somewhat unexpectedly not the same thing.

By the way, another interesting and unintuitive law is felony murder. Lets say you rob a bank with a permanent marker, pretending it is a gun. You obviously do not intend to harm anyone. However, lets say a cop shoots at you thinking it is a gun, misses you and kills a bystander behind you. You can go to jail for felony murder, because you created the dangerous situation by committing a felony (the bank robbery) and the bystander died as a result of that dangerous situation.