When did "white Christians", gay marriage and abortion come into play when talking about the second amendment?

Story 1: That guy most likely wouldn't have/pull a gun over something like that as long as there's a strict enough legal consequence.

Story 2: This is actually a great use case for guns. In a situation where someone kicks me from behind, I'm going to shoot them through the heart before any more words are exchanged. Because you weren't able to do that, you got beaten + robbed.

Tell me how America is not the most accepting nation? Because we want people to apply through the proper channels and don't want to take in potential criminals when they cannot be vetted? Because we want them to wait their turn? I am sorry if we don't just blindly allow any sob story through our borders like the wonderfully diverse European nations do. I heard that's working out real well for them.

Guess what, immigrants are expected to assimilate, not the natural born population. If you think that makes me a racist, you need to take a look in the mirror. You keep arguing ideals and the morality of issues instead of the substance. You provide nothing to substantiate your claims other than opinions.

Resorting to name calling and screaming fallacy's, nukes the conversation and you shut your own argument down.

2: Fuck me... seek help dude... because that's some pretty psychopath bullshit right there...

He was assaulted, stalked, ganged up on, beaten, and robbed. You still don't think that's a valid case to use a weapon?

In order to understand how to address gun crimes from in the USA, you need to look at where it's located, which is in large cities with high felon populations.

If previous felons are commiting the vast majority of these crimes, it would stand to reason that the simplest solution would be not releasing violent felons.

Broken windows policing/felonization of small crimes saved New York City from it's crime problems.

2: Fuck me... seek help dude... because that's some pretty psychopath bullshit right there...

He was assaulted, stalked, ganged up on, beaten, and robbed. You still don't think that's a valid case to use a weapon?

Tripping can easilly break bones/cause a death. As soon as someone assaults you, you should have a right to respond with however much force you want, because you have no way of knowing how far they're willing to take their violence, and you only know that they're violent.

That's not a psycopathic line of thought, it's common sense... You shouldn't have to contemplate how hard he's going to kick you the second time before you respond.

Broken windows policing/felonization of small crimes saved New York City from it's crime problems.

As soon as someone assaults you, you should have a right to respond with however much force you want, because you have no way of knowing how far they're willing to take their violence, and you only know that they're violent.

Whats worse is that I have been discussing this with Australians, New Zealanders, English and a Canadian. All of which live in countries where they have been raised to not be familiar with fire arms(except maybe Canada).

Tell me, do you ever do any research before posting? That is objectively wrong. There are heaps of guns in NZ, Canada, and Australia too. (There aren't many in the UK, but that's because the weather is fucking awful and shooting is mostly an outdoor thing). We just don't have "paranoid psychopath" levels of guns (i.e. more guns than people).

I know plenty of people that have guns, but funny thing, they generally tend to use them for shooting food or targets.

Oh, and one more thing, judging by the accidental gun death rate in the US, you aren't "familiar with firearms". You have one of the worst rates of accidental gun death in the developed world. This is you guys with guns.

Broken windows policing/felonization of small crimes saved New York City from it's crime problems.

Actually, there's almost zero evidence for that. It's a classic "correlation not causation" myth.

Tripping can easilly break bones/cause a death. As soon as someone assaults you, you should have a right to respond with however much force you want, because you have no way of knowing how far they're willing to take their violence, and you only know that they're violent.

That's not a psycopathic line of thought, it's common sense... You shouldn't have to contemplate how hard he's going to kick you the second time before you respond.

If the attacker isn't with a gun, how about using pepper spray or tasers to momentarily disable while you call 999/911

The police here in the UK largely use tasers and so far its been very successful

A particular kind of mindset > maximum defense-attack reaction to non-extreme crime < results in the instinct to shoot first at the first sign of attack even if the offender is not with a gun (a.k.a trigger happiness). The police in the US are trigger happy and its caused your country to be boiling with tension

But its clear (even from this thread and outside) that not all Americans have this mindset, the only thing is that the right-winged gun loving America seem to be louder, more powerful and more representative