What is this country coming to?

Maybe the kind of person who recognizes that it's not a real-life self-defence situation.

Some fake guns cannot be distinguished from a real one (well, unless you fire it). The power of a gun is seldom shown by the killing it does, but by knowing that thing can kill you therefore posing a threat. The idea is that the threat alone should would keep dangerous people away from you.

Point is, with firearms being outlawed or not, using one only to pose a threat is still a threat and a death threat, which is always seen as the worst kind of threat.

So yes, a fake gun in order to defend yourself can make sense. It's also for this reason that fake firearms are outside the U.S. just as much outlawed as their real counterparts are (unless there can be no doubt about it at all, that the firearm is really a toy).

Here (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGijzeling_in_NOS-gebouw_op_29_januari_2015) is an automated translation from Dutch of a Wikipedia article about a guy who managed to take the studio of the Dutch news hostage with a fake gun. Even though the gun he used was fake, he was still charged for the possession of illegal weapons, (along with taking hostages, and threatening). Now I must say that the fake he used looked so well crafted that the cops could only find out it was fake after a thorough investigation of the weapon. Even the experts in this fields did at first think it was real until thorough inspection proved otherwise. This shows that a fake gun can still be dangerous. It poses the same threat as a real gun, as long as your victims do not know the gun you hold is fake (and in the case of that news hostage situation, when even the experts cannot tell before good examination, how could non-experts tell?)

What really bothers me a lot here - besides the Republicans elevating this disturbing behavior - is the pointing of a real gun at people.

Pointing a gun at somebody for whatever reason is always a death threat. A kind of way of saying "you obey me now, or I'll shoot/kill you". I mean, how else can I interpret it? Can't think of any other interpretation.

Now if you are in real danger a threat with a weapon can be justified, even in the Netherlands, where I live, where gun regulation is very extremely strict (although you can still be sued for the fact you had that weapon in your possession, unless you have license). However, I've been told that these people were never in a threatening situation, at least, not until they showed their guns (since the normal reaction to a threat is aggression. In fact, aggression is a natural instinct to deal with mortal danger), and then the threat is no longer a defensive action, but a provocation.

Yes, I've seen the video "They call us criminals" as it was shown on the Dutch news, as well, and I didn't need the Dutch translation subtitle to understand what they were saying (the NL doesn't redub foreign languages, but provide translations in subtitles in stead). And since all information I have about that particular incident points to a provocation rather than an act of defense, it being used in a political campaign is indeed disturbing at best.

Indeed pointing a real gun at people is not something to be taken lightly. Besides it being a death threat, it's also dangerous. If you accidentally fire the gun, you can still kill somebody, as the bullets don't care if they were supposed to be fired or not. Plus, rule of gun fight is, when you cock your gun at somebody you give them the right to shoot you as well (not a legal rule, but an unwritten rule), and the worst part is, your opponent can then say it was self defense. You cocked your gun first, after all. And as far as I heard the woman's gun was fake, but the man's gun was not. I'm glad I was not there at that particular time.

Having a gun is legal in the U.S. Threatening people with a gun is not, as far as I know.

Cops are always in a different rule set when it comes to the usage of violence and threats, and therefore also when it comes to gun usage (although countries were cops are unarmed (at least the ones you find surveying the streets) do exist).

Cops, soldiers and based on the clearance locals laws extend to private security guards, have been professionally trained not only in the usage of guns, but also in the ethics in how and when to use them. Of course, the incident on the photo I'm aware of, and although I cannot be sure I've seen all the information I need, my first impression is at least that it's another case of a cop not acting by the protocol (and that once again the one getting hurt is black).

However in the pure point of the case, what the cops are allowed to do and what not is not really of importance of the gun usage of that couple (not even with the George Floyd case starting it all). In the end every civilian is in a free nation (which the U.S. claims to be) responsible for their own actions. Cops have certain clearances in this field granted by their profession, civilians (or cops not on duty) do not. And although it appears a bit tempting to ignore the law when cops are not obeying their own protocols either (making the law lose some credibility in the process). Fact remains that they did threaten with a gun. And the information I've been given (could be wrong, I know, all I can do is rely on the information given to me) that couple was not even in real danger, until the demonstrators took their gun threat as a direct offense (which anybody in their right mind would do). And if that information is correct, then they are indeed committing a crime, as they brought danger themselves in that case, regardless of what cops do, as that is a different story which should be judged separately.

Yeah, I know I hate these kind of legal complex rules too, but if you value justice, you need to think a bit further, I'm afraid.

That image did not make a point in this particular case. So that meme reply is making even less sense.

and your dumb ass excuses and victim blaming is why towns are going to continue to burn. At least when Biden is potus the issues will be addressed in a manner to stop the protests.... you dont f**king get it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-17878180

and you are why we need riots. I was in LA in 1992... it was hella vicious.. and it worked. piss off nitwit.

wtf does that have do with the effectiveness of riots? you dont even get the point. Obviously you went to a shitty school, something else we can get fixed with decent people in charge instead of bankrupt moronic game show hosts and idiot family, friends and donors like Betsy DeVose.. Tell me, though obviously you have no idea, what is Betsies qualifications to be in charge of education?

Trump wants the suburbs to become the new Belfast.