Because that one party autocracy wants to fuck off from the rest of the world.

If they wiped out Israel there would still be Jews.

I’d honestly like to hear the councilman’s version of events, as in what he actually intended to do.

That said I agree with you it should likely be intent regardless of what you meant to do with it.

My guess would be he would argue he was just brandishing, or was aiming at the car.

I don’t like people being so casual with guns, its disturbing how widespread it is.

I see what you mean thats very insightful.

I was mainly wondering if there were laws in some states that explicitly state some sort of racism in the letter of the law.

Thats not to say thats a requirement to believe the things you said, I just thought at the very least racist laws were more indirect in how they are racist.

Sorry I meant that more as a generalization, its in these comments a ton.

I agree with you except there is no such thing as common sense. Everyone has to learn every single thing they know, none of it was a given. I don’t like saying common sense gun handling because it implies its so obvious it doesnt need to be taught, and it also detracts from the real answer which is removing guns from the public.

I’d argue they focus too little on the first 8 and too much on the last 2. Both would be an error in analysis of course.

Also it runs the risk of people applying statistics to individual cases, or groups too small to be statistically relevant.

Just bite the bullet already and say you don’t care.

Sort of like how a terrorist group killed a bunch of americans in new York, and then americans went to war with those terrorists, for the most part working with the local government and civilians.

Do you see how you can be at ear with a group rather than a nation?

Okay sure, thats likely the perspective he had. Its not the only one that exists though.

Share your drugs with the rest of us please.

The worlds middleman.

I think the only counter argument really is that if you protest like that, you can’t protest again in the future, usually.

I would hope that he could have done more net good with the remaining 80 years of his life if he had dedicated it to the causes he believes in.

They also run the risk of there being zero coverage when it happens, which makes it a regrettable decision. I didnt hear about the second person who did this, just the first and third.

Is killing civilians during war bad or not? Why?

Israel is supposed to be at war with Hamas not Palestine.

Sure that could happen, but then you never had those voters. At some point you have to lay the blame at the people who voted like this, if it happens.

This is like saying that getting a question wrong on a test can be the difference between pass and fail, and then picking a question at random and deciding to focus on that instead of the whole test.

You are right it could be enough people to match the difference in votes, but thats not the same as saying its essential we get that voter block no matter what. Theres a ton of things that make a difference, but its the collection of them that makes a candidate.

Are there states that actually code racism like that into law or does it just bear out with the statistics?

I only know my home state laws really, and its legal here to walk around with a rifle on your back. Although last time someone tried that in my town the police came and followed him for a few hours.

He intended to citizens arrest or something along those lines. He didnt intend to shoot though, which doesn’t change much, but I at least think an accident is different than on purpose.

Still guilty of something, and honestly wouldnt be too shocked if the charge was the same regardless.

We know what he said as the gun fired and how he reacted, based on the victims friends testimony. Its still awful, its just different awful. Like instead of just wondering why some psycho would shoot someone on sight, we should talk about how dangerous mistakes with a gun are, and how capable anyone is of making a fatal mistake.

Shout out your four rules all you want, they don’t keep anyone safe in the way y’all think they do. They are a morality test so those with guns don’t have to feel guilty for putting their entire family in danger just to puff up their ego.

You are right it doesnt change that the person is shot. Guilt and sentencing are separate things. I think this person is guilty of shooting someone, but as far as punishment goes, the intention does matter.

I agree with this morally. I think the law in america doesnt agree with that but I’m not a lawyer.

People open carry guns all over, including in ways that most would consider brandishing them.

I think the real takeaway from this shooting is that when accidents with guns happen, people can get hurt or die, and its impossible to make everyone accident less, so to even own one is inherently dangerous.

Because of that, you should have to have a real need to put that sort of danger on those around you.

Everytime this happens we have the same list of replies saying they were just a bad person with a gun, they should just allow good people to have guns. Funny how every single poster here is one of those good people based on their own analysis.