Wow, Wow, Wow.....No Gun Zones, Gun Registration, Background Checks and now Micro-stamping again!

[Scootaloo]

63. Holy shit, you're presenting arguments!

Careful fella, you might lose your Gungeon membership for this

Why should you give way to "some sociopath"? First off, that seems like a pretty ego-driven argument to me. Maybe I'm just perceiving it badly, but it does seem like your argument there is "Why should I be the one to back off?" The answer I would give to that is that no matter how much it pokes your ego to back off, your ego isn't worth a human life. if some derp-eyed motherfucker is losing his shit and it's just you and him, back off. If he's committed to coming after you, hey, his own fault for what happens next, right?

Of course there ARE situations where backing off just isn't possible, or is itself unreasonable - say your derp-eyed motherfucker is menacing a pack of kids and you're the only capable person around? You don't say "Good luck kids!" you address the problem. However these are more often situational considerations rather than subjects that need complete changes to the laws on the books.

It gets a little surreal when a state like Florida has SYG laws on the books... but nonlethal use of a firearm for self-defense is still a criminal act. illicit discharge, or unlawful brandishing? Yeah that makes sense.

Also, in the immortal rhetoric of your fellow gungeoneers; show me someone who believes any form of self-defense is unreasonable. Please. Back up the statement, 'cause that sounds like BS.

With regards to burden of proof; no. The burden of proof has always been on the prosecutor. Always. You just fired off another of those talking points that just sounds so good when you hear it, but when you think about it... Just no. That's flat out NOT how our system works. The Prosecutor has to prove that the defendant did not attempt a reasonable retreat, it's never been up to the defendant to prove that they did - of course they can present their testimony and evidence to demonstrate such, but the burden of proof has always fallen on the prosecution.

And yes, actually, some of those sevenfold increases in not guilty verdicts probably are people getting away with murder (so to speak; murder being a legal term and yadda yadda) After all people are found not guilty when self-defense isn't even on the table. I don't think I need to mention the OJ trial in any detail, right? 'course not.

You're then falling back on your false assumption that the burden of proof is falling on the defendant... This seems to be the crux of your argument and it's just not true. SYG laws aren't removing any burden from defendants; they're simply adding more to prosecutors. Which again, is fine if your goal is to see an increase in legal homicide.