Kyle Rittenhouse and Julius Jones

[Carrie12345]

9 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

s.  I'd like to think we could make some sensible adjustments to the laws, but the far left and the far right are are always too caught up in their politics to look at the obvious middle road that would satisfy the majority of Americans.

Are we though? Or is that a line we all fall for?

Asking as a pretty radical leftist with no desire to see all guns banned from all people. 

[Syllieann]

21 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

Are we though? Or is that a line we all fall for?

Asking as a pretty radical leftist with no desire to see all guns banned from all people. 

Well, idk for sure, but here is a recent pew survey.  Scroll down to number seven.  Those are things we could probably fix it it weren't for them trying to attach all sorts of other things to it.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

[AnotherNewName]

1 hour ago, lauraw4321 said:

Open carry should be a provocation, IMO.  I'm appalled daily by the weapons I see around me and always feel threatened by them.  Always.

How can a legal act be a provocation?  (Keep in mind that I don't agree with open carry laws but that is just a ridiculously bad take.)

[WildflowerMom]

1 hour ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I don't understand why people open carry. We don't have guns in our house and I didn't grow up around guns. I have some family members who open carry and all of them have had some kind of gun incident. 

Idk either.  I don’t know anyone who open carries, but pretty much everyone I know owns guns.   
I think the goal with open carry is intimidation and attention-seeking behavior.    I think there’s a lot of insecurity and fear with people who open carry.   Just my guess, obviously.   

[livetoread]

2 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Are we though? Or is that a line we all fall for?

Asking as a pretty radical leftist with no desire to see all guns banned from all people. 

Yeah, gotta admit my eyebrows went up at that, too. There are certainly some gov't failings that can be blamed on both sides, but lack of sensible gun control isn't one of them.

[lauraw4321]

3 hours ago, AnotherNewName said:

How can a legal act be a provocation?  (Keep in mind that I don't agree with open carry laws but that is just a ridiculously bad take.)

I understand that it’s not a provocation under the law as it exists. I understand what he did (open carry) was legal. I’m talking about how I wish the world operated, not how it does operate. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, lauraw4321 said:

I understand that it’s not a provocation under the law as it exists. I understand what he did (open carry) was legal. I’m talking about how I wish the world operated, not how it does operate. 

It was only legal because there’s a carve out in Wisconsin law for long guns primarily used by white people/hunters. Open carrying shorter barrel handguns is prohibited for people his age. #inconvenientCRTtruths. Inequity is baked into the system.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Sneezyone

[KidsHappen]

On 11/18/2021 at 1:03 PM, Fritz said:

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-medias-verdict-on-kyle-rittenhouse

And yes, it is written by Bari Weiss.

NM

Edited November 20, 2021 by KidsHappen

[Carrie12345]

(Quote didn’t attach.)

Walking around on a busy trick or treating street, when I see a masked man carrying a large knife over his head, I instinctively believe him to be participating in a cultural norm with a rubber model of a weapon.
If I go to the mall and see a masked man carrying a large knife over his head on a Wednesday in May, I would 100% instinctively seek to protect myself and others.  As someone who does not carry a gun, that obviously won’t mean shooting the guy, but what if I DID carry? Or what if someone else is carrying? (And *someone would be.)

Two identical images provoke two entirely different responses.

Locally, we have a police shooting from last year back in the news. It has been ruled justified because the many authorities on location believed their lives to be in danger. From a knowingly suicidal man. Holding a FAKE gun. (Well, a pellet gun.) Never aiming it. Hands in air. But the findings certainly tell us that *professionals with guns* were (felt/believed/etc.) PROVOKED. If they were, how in the world is a layperson supposed to NOT be?

Humans assess their surroundings constantly, and context matters.

I live where hunting is the norm and target shooting is incessant. At home, the sound of gun shots barely phases me, but I’d hit the ground immediately in a commercial area. One day, I saw a man walking down the road with a rifle strapped to his back and it did freak me out for a minute before I assessed he was very likely shortcutting it to another area of the woods. But it was odd because I don’t recall ever seeing a hunter outside of the woods with their gun not in its bag or case. It’s simply not usually done (these days.) So the sight alarmed me at first.

Fully exposing a gun in public without the intent to shoot or intimidate is pretty rare, even for the US. Pubic-public, like a street or a store. I’m not talking in the woods or on grandpa’s porch. The exceptions are… exceptions. In almost all areas, it’s an action that, at minimum, puts bystanders on edge, questioning their safety. That’s provocative.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Carrie12345

[Carrie12345]

9 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Are we though? Or is that a line we all fall for?

Asking as a pretty radical leftist with no desire to see all guns banned from all people. 

 

9 hours ago, Syllieann said:

Well, idk for sure, but here is a recent pew survey.  Scroll down to number seven.  Those are things we could probably fix it it weren't for them trying to attach all sorts of other things to it.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

I’m not up to date on all “official” proposals, let alone all “official” conversation. Have there been opportunities to add some legislation that democrats have rejected because they didn’t go far enough, in their opinions? Because many of the numbered points make it appear that republicans would agree to some important things.

Of course, that’s “just” an assessment of the public. I wonder what the answers look like for the people actually making the decisions. Because most of them don’t really care what we think.

[Terabith]

[Lady Florida.]

23 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

 

It doesn't appear that the State proved its case beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not fair that Rittenhouse got off while Julius Jones will be in prison until he dies. It isn't fair. But that still doesn't mean that the jury should have convicted Rittenhouse if the State didn't prove its case. 

 

I learned when I served on a jury that shadow of a doubt is for tv and movies. The prosecution only has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course reasonable doubt is really unquantifiable but if the jury cannot reasonably say the person is guilty based on the facts. It's a tricky issue and even SCOTUS has struggled to define the term.

19 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I don't understand why people open carry. We don't have guns in our house and I didn't grow up around guns. I have some family members who open carry and all of them have had some kind of gun incident. 

My stepfather was a cop in an urban area in northern NJ. He passed away long before open carry became a common thing but I know he would be horrified at the idea if he was still alive. 

[Carol in Cal.]

13 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

It was only legal because there’s a carve out in Wisconsin law for long guns primarily used by white people/hunters. Open carrying shorter barrel handguns is prohibited for people his age. #inconvenientCRTtruths. Inequity is baked into the system.

No, what is baked into the system is the norm that hunting is enjoyable, necessary in some cases, and that it starts at a fairly early age.  It's that early training that keeps Wisconsin as safe as it is despite the plethora of rifles there.  Parents start teaching their children that you NEVER point a gun at someone else even if you 'know' it's not loaded very, very early there--I've seen it said to 4 year olds.  (Whereas growing up in CA my only exposure to guns was on TV, where right or wrong they were ALWAYS pointed at someone.)  That deeply ingrained sense is exactly why so many were utterly shocked at the prosecutor for pointing a gun at the jury during closing arguments. 

[gardenmom5]

9 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, what is baked into the system is the norm that hunting is enjoyable, necessary in some cases, and that it starts at a fairly early age.  It's that early training that keeps Wisconsin as safe as it is despite the plethora of rifles there.  Parents start teaching their children that you NEVER point a gun at someone else even if you 'know' it's not loaded very, very early there--I've seen it said to 4 year olds.  (Whereas growing up in CA my only exposure to guns was on TV, where right or wrong they were ALWAYS pointed at someone.)  That deeply ingrained sense is exactly why so many were utterly shocked at the prosecutor for pointing a gun at the jury during closing arguments. 

You never ever point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, and you don't shoot something you don't intend to kill.  I didn't grow up around guns - but I've since been exposed.  Cub Scouts shot BB guns - and parents were allowed to have a turn. They absolutely drill gun safety into their heads, with multiple trained adults watching the boys like hawks when the guns were out.

There was someone (I've tried to remember whom) who was talking about gun safety and how you never even put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot.  The writer was commenting how comfortable John Wayne was handling a gun in movies - but he couldn't keep his finger off the trigger. (which goes against gun safety.)

[Wheres Toto]

2 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

I learned when I served on a jury that shadow of a doubt is for tv and movies. The prosecution only has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course reasonable doubt is really unquantifiable but if the jury cannot reasonably say the person is guilty based on the facts. It's a tricky issue and even SCOTUS has struggled to define the term.

My stepfather was a cop in an urban area in northern NJ. He passed away long before open carry became a common thing but I know he would be horrified at the idea if he was still alive. 

Open carry still isn't a thing in NJ.   Neither is concealed carry.  

[mom2scouts]

21 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I don't understand why people open carry. We don't have guns in our house and I didn't grow up around guns. I have some family members who open carry and all of them have had some kind of gun incident. 

I know several people who open carry and have never had any kind of incident. Many of them open carry because it's a legal way to carry without having to get a concealed carry permit. They don't want to deal with the government to exercise their right to carry.

On that matter, constitutional carry just passed in my state and is being introduced in many other states this year.

[Sneezyone]

3 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, what is baked into the system is the norm that hunting is enjoyable, necessary in some cases, and that it starts at a fairly early age. 

If that were the case, and ONLY the case, there would be no issue with people having handguns on their person, even at an early age too. The length of the barrel wouldn't matter. People don't hunt only with long guns and youth education re: gun safety isn't confined to long guns either. This is the kind of thing people tell themselves to justify blatant disparities in our laws.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

3 hours ago, Lady Florida. said:

I learned when I served on a jury that shadow of a doubt is for tv and movies. The prosecution only has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course reasonable doubt is really unquantifiable but if the jury cannot reasonably say the person is guilty based on the facts. It's a tricky issue and even SCOTUS has struggled to define the term.

I read an opinion piece earlier today that talked on this point. All they had to prove was that a “reasonable person“ might have feared for their life. It doesn’t even have to have been a valid fear for their life, just something that a “reasonable person“ might have felt. I think it’s problematic to have laws that both allow people to carry weapons around and have that standard for what is justifiable in taking another person’s life. If people weren’t carrying weapons around, fewer people would be afraid for their lives. And to be legally able to take another life when it turns out it wasn’t even a justified fear just seems wrong. If people want to pretend race had no factor in this particular case, they’d have to have heavy blinders on.
 

How on earth are people supposed to determine a “good guy with a gun” from “a bad guy with a gun”? If I’m in Starbucks and someone comes in with an AR-15 held across their front, I’m not waiting around to find out if they are an active shooter or if they just like to impress people with their weapons. 
 

I’m also noticing that in these discussions (not necessarily here, but in general, people of  Rittenhouse defenders ilk have started erroneously melding antifa and Black Lives Matter into one bogeyman, when they hold completely different purposes and use completely different tactics. It seems clearly an attempt to smear BLM as a force to oppose, by lumping them with the more destructive antifa movement. 

[TravelingChris]

On 11/18/2021 at 11:45 AM, GoodnightMoogle said:

This isn’t necessarily directed at you Scarlett, but just in general so please don’t take this as an attack, but I really wish people wouldn’t post opinions about a court case if they haven’t actually followed the court case (or even watched the video of the incident, in regards to Rittenhause). 

If you get all your info from headlines, five minute news sound-bits, and hearsay, your opinion can’t be informed. Ultimately, you just end up spreading even more information which leads to more mob mentality about a case.

For example, I just saw a tweet of a person condemning defense of Rittenhause, along the lines of “It wouldn’t even be a question of murder if the boys he had shot were white!!”

Yeaaah..every person involved was white. But you see how hearsay has already warped the topic in the minds of many. Headlines like “traveled over state lines,” while technically true, leave you with a different impression than if you actually research how very close Kyle lived to the place. It’s just frustrating that so many people who don’t follow the case are shouting “innocent!” Or “Guilty!” When they couldn’t even tell you what happened 

I saw some coverage of the case on several news stations.  But them ai started researching.  I saw video of Rittenhouse and some others cleaning graffiti on a business wall earlier in the day.  I found out that his  father lived in Kenosha.  I looked at lots of videos.  It was especially interested in the Huber homicide because I wasn't hearing anything about that homicide.  After looking at lots of videos from manyangles, I know that Rosenbaum, the mentally ill child molester, was chasing him and the prosecution witness said Rosenbaum grabbed his gun.  I know that the wounded guy, who has quite a criminal record and probably wasn't allowed to have guns, pointed his 40 caliber handgun at him first as he testified to that.  Finally, Huber was beating Rittenhouse on the head w a skateboard.  I completely agree w the verdict and I wasn't sure about the case before the trial.

Ad to the Asbury case before n Georgia where at least one of them is coming self defense, I saw parts of the  testimony of the young guy who did the shooting.   This is really a case of someone definitely looking for trouble.

Even if that young black man had wandered the construction area, that is at most a trespassing issue and no one reason at all to chase the guy and end up shooting him.

 

 

 

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, KSera said:

I read an opinion piece earlier today that talked on this point. All they had to prove was that a “reasonable person“ might have feared for their life. It doesn’t even have to have been a valid fear for their life, just something that a “reasonable person“ might have felt. I think it’s problematic to have laws that both allow people to carry weapons around and have that standard for what is justifiable in taking another person’s life. If people weren’t carrying weapons around, fewer people would be afraid for their lives. And to be legally able to take another life when it turns out it wasn’t even a justified fear just seems wrong. If people want to pretend race had no factor in this particular case, they’d have to have heavy blinders on.
 

How on earth are people supposed to determine a “good guy with a gun” from “a bad guy with a gun”? If I’m in Starbucks and someone comes in with an AR-15 held across their front, I’m not waiting around to find out if they are an active shooter or if they just like to impress people with their weapons. 
 

I’m also noticing that in these discussions (not necessarily here, but in general, people of  Rittenhouse defenders ilk have started erroneously melding antifa and Black Lives Matter into one bogeyman, when they hold completely different purposes and use completely different tactics. It seems clearly an attempt to smear BLM as a force to oppose, by lumping them with the more destructive antifa movement. 

Apparently, we're supposed to deduce that from the length of the barrel (unless it's aimed at school children at school vs. off school grounds) and the color of the shooter's skin.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Sneezyone

[hshibley]

13 minutes ago, KSera said:
 

How on earth are people supposed to determine a “good guy with a gun” from “a bad guy with a gun”? If I’m in Starbucks and someone comes in with an AR-15 held across their front, I’m not waiting around to find out if they are an active shooter or if they just like to impress people with their weapons

I always assume they are a threat. I didn’t even realize I lived in an open carry state until the pandemic and started seeing this guy open carrying at stores around my neighborhood. If I see him at the gas station etc open carrying I wait outside until he’s out. I just assume all people open carrying are unstable and a threat. Just my not so humble opinion.

[Sneezyone]

22 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I saw some coverage of the case on several news stations.  But them ai started researching.  I saw video of Rittenhouse and some others cleaning graffiti on a business wall earlier in the day.  I found out that his  father lived in Kenosha.  I looked at lots of videos.  It was especially interested in the Huber homicide because I wasn't hearing anything about that homicide.  After looking at lots of videos from manyangles, I know that Rosenbaum, the mentally ill child molester, was chasing him and the prosecution witness said Rosenbaum grabbed his gun.  I know that the wounded guy, who has quite a criminal record and probably wasn't allowed to have guns, pointed his 40 caliber handgun at him first as he testified to that.  Finally, Huber was beating Rittenhouse on the head w a skateboard.  I completely agree w the verdict and I wasn't sure about the case before the trial.

Ad to the Asbury case before n Georgia where at least one of them is coming self defense, I saw parts of the  testimony of the young guy who did the shooting.   This is really a case of someone definitely looking for trouble.

Even if that young black man had wandered the construction area, that is at most a trespassing issue and no one reason at all to chase the guy and end up shooting him.

 

 

 

His name is Ahmaud Arbery and the assailants chased him down in their confederate flag bedecked truck, blocked his exit, and shot him in the street like a dog with a (wait for it) LONG gun. The case isn't getting near as much attention, particularly on those stations covering Rittenhouse, because the shooters and their attorneys have adopted a blatantly racist approach to jury selection and courtroom behavior. So bad that the judge has acknowledged it and admonished the attorneys in open court. After that, the LEOs who responded LET THE SHOOTERS GO HOME without rendering any aid to the victim. After that, the prosecuting attorneys in TWO neighboring counties conspired to ensure the shooters weren't charged. It's an uncomfy lens through which to view justice in America.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The case isn't getting near as much attention, particularly on those stations covering Rittenhouse, because the shooters and their attorneys have adopted a blatantly racist approach to jury selection and courtroom behavior.

I was just wondering yesterday why I hadn't heard much about it lately. I'm not online a lot right now, so I'm just seeing blips of whatever comes through on my daily news summaries, and it had slipped my mind the Arbery case was actively in process since I hadn't heard anything about it since a week or so ago when the defense complained about not wanting anymore Black pastors in the courtroom. It's on my to do list while I'm here online to look up the current status of it. Doesn't sounds like it's going any better than last I heard ☹️.

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by KSera
typo

[Sneezyone]

Just now, KSera said:

I was just wondering yesterday why I hadn't heard much about it lately. I'm not online a lot right now, so I'm just seeing blips of whatever comes through on my daily news summaries, and it had slipped my mind the Arbery case was actively in process since I hadn't heard anything about it since a week or so ago when the defense complained about not wanting anymore black pastors in the courtroom. It's on my to do list while I'm here online to look up the current status of it. Doesn't sounds like it's going any better than last I heard ☹️.

 

I don't think the jury will buy it but you never know. They were able to get two local prosecutors to try to coverup this murder so maybe that sentiment runs deeper in the community than I imagine.

[TravelingChris]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

His name is Ahmaud Arbery and the assailants chased him down in their confederate flag bedecked truck, blocked his exit, and shot him in the street like a dog. The case isn't getting near as much attention, particularly on those stations covering Rittenhouse, because the shooters and their attorneys have adopted a blatantly racist approach to jury selection and courtroom behavior. So bad that the judge has acknowledged it and admonished the attorneys in open court. After that, the LEOs who responded LET THE SHOOTERS GO HOME without rendering any aid to the victim. After that, the prosecuting attorneys in TWO neighboring counties conspired to ensure the shooters weren't charged. It's an uncomfy lens through which to view justice in America.

I completely agree that case is a travesty.  And yes, I do think that both racism and I think the dad of the shooter being  retired law enforcement contributed to the appaling conduct I'm that case.

[WildflowerMom]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

I don't think the jury will buy it but you never know. They were able to get two local prosecutors to try to coverup this murder so maybe that sentiment runs deeper in the community than I imagine.

 

please don’t quote….  
thanks!! 

Edited November 21, 2021 by WildflowerMom

[Sneezyone]

22 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

deleted

I hope you're right. I have many friends that live in ATL and they aren't nearly so sure. The threat we feel from our rural neighbors is real.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Sneezyone

[WildflowerMom]

Don’t quote.
Thanks!! 

Edited November 21, 2021 by WildflowerMom

[lauraw4321]

1 hour ago, hshibley said:

I always assume they are a threat. I didn’t even realize I lived in an open carry state until the pandemic and started seeing this guy open carrying at stores around my neighborhood. If I see him at the gas station etc open carrying I wait outside until he’s out. I just assume all people open carrying are unstable and a threat. Just my not so humble opinion.

Yup, same. 

[Sneezyone]

28 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

Don’t quote.

I appreciate that you feel this way but the only reason these people will be convicted, *if* they are convicted, is because of the video and the fact that the attorneys haven't been subtle enough. Without the video bubba 3 recorded and shared b/c he thought (erroneously) it exonerated him, their self defense/citizens arrest argument might well carry the day. Neighbors testified on the assailants' behalf. That's reality. Closing arguments start on Monday. We shall see.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Sneezyone

[WildflowerMom]

14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I appreciate that you feel this way but the only reason these people will be convicted, *if* they are convicted, is because of the video and the fact that the attorneys haven't been subtle enough. Without the video bubba 3 recorded and shared b/c he thought (erroneously) it exonerated him, their self defense/citizens arrest argument might well carry the day. Neighbors testified on the assailants' behalf. That's reality. Closing arguments start on Monday. We shall see.

Yes, the video is damning.  Thank God.  
Rod’s idiotic attorney almost seems like he wants R to be convicted.  I mean, surely there can’t be an attorney that stupid, right?   But maybe so?    And Travis on the stand was just horrid for his defense.  Good grief, talk about stupidity.   They deserve a cell.  

[Sneezyone]

7 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

Yes, the video is damning.  Thank God.  
Rod’s idiotic attorney almost seems like he wants R to be convicted.  I mean, surely there can’t be an attorney that stupid, right?   But maybe so?    And Travis on the stand was just horrid for his defense.  Good grief, talk about stupidity.   They deserve a cell.  

I do not want to live in a country in which the presumption of rightness is automatically invested in white people and yet that's what Kizer's/Arbery's case reflects. I don't want to rely on God for man's justice. There's a distinct generational difference between my father and myself on that one. The Rittenhouse case exposes problems with state statutes (I readily admit there were issues with the prosecution's case too) but the Arbery case exposes fundamental issues with our justice systems that go beyond the letter of the law to prosecutorial discretion/presumptions and the exercise thereof - basically - PEOPLE. These issues need to be addressed too.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[TravelingChris]

5 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, what is baked into the system is the norm that hunting is enjoyable, necessary in some cases, and that it starts at a fairly early age.  It's that early training that keeps Wisconsin as safe as it is despite the plethora of rifles there.  Parents start teaching their children that you NEVER point a gun at someone else even if you 'know' it's not loaded very, very early there--I've seen it said to 4 year olds.  (Whereas growing up in CA my only exposure to guns was on TV, where right or wrong they were ALWAYS pointed at someone.)  That deeply ingrained sense is exactly why so many were utterly shocked at the prosecutor for pointing a gun at the jury during closing arguments. 

Yes, lots of states, including mine, have a carve out for long guns being legal at a younger age than handguns.  Mine has 21 for a handgun.  We have fairly easy concealed permits and as of January, we will be able to have permanent concealed carry permits.

Now I have never seen open carrying here and can't remember if I ever saw it any other place.  I know that when those open carry people went to the legislative body somewhere in the north Midwest and everyone was talking about it, I looked up my state's law and you can't carry open house in lots of places including capital buildings and I believe that you alsi carry concealed guns to protests, marches, etc

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

Yes, lots of states, including mine, have a carve out for long guns being legal at a younger age than handguns.  Mine has 21 for a handgun.  We have fairly easy concealed permits and as of January, we will be able to have permanent concealed carry permits.

Now I have never seen open carrying here and can't remember if I ever saw it any other place.  I know that when those open carry people went to the legislative body somewhere in the north Midwest and everyone was talking about it, I looked up my state's law and you can't carry open house in lots of places including capital buildings and I believe that you alsi carry concealed guns to protests, marches, etc

Can you provide any rational reason for the barrel of a gun being a determining factor in whether guns should be in the hands of juveniles? I'm seriously waiting for anyone to engage with that issue. Either kids are too young/immature to exercise gun safety or they're not; either they're responsible and use it for protection/hunting or they don't. The length of the barrel should have no bearing on that policy choice. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[TravelingChris]

32 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

Yes, the video is damning.  Thank God.  
Rod’s idiotic attorney almost seems like he wants R to be convicted.  I mean, surely there can’t be an attorney that stupid, right?   But maybe so?    And Travis on the stand was just horrid for his defense.  Good grief, talk about stupidity.   They deserve a cell.  

The ADA in Kenosha demonstrated supreme stupidity.  Having all these prosecution witnesses turn out to actually bolster the defense version, trying to slam Rittenhouse for not waiving  5th amendment rights, and pointing a gun at people with him s hand on the trigger???? There is much more stupidity done by that ADA too.

But I agree that the lawyer for the defense in the Arbery case is dumb too

 

 

 

 

 

[Syllieann]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Can you provide any rational reason for the barrel of a gun being a determining factor in whether guns should be in the hands of juveniles? I'm seriously waiting for anyone to engage with that issue. Either kids are too young/immature to exercise gun safety or they're not; either they're responsible and use it for protection/hunting or they don't. The length of the barrel should have no bearing on that policy choice. 

People hunt with rifles mostly or shotguns for birds.  I have never heard of anyone hunting with a pistol, but I suppose it could be done.  Farmers need to protect their livestock and crops, so those kids learn pretty young.

[TravelingChris]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Can you provide any rational reason for the barrel of a gun being a determining factor in whether guns should be in the hands of juveniles? I'm seriously waiting for anyone to engage with that issue. Either kids are too long to exercise gun safety or they're not, either they're responsible and use it for protection/hunting or they don't. The length of the barrel should have no bearing on that policy choice. 

I assume it has to be w hunting and not protection.  I think that the only  ones under  21 who can own a handgun are law enforcement and my military.

 

 

[Sneezyone]

20 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

People hunt with rifles mostly or shotguns for birds.  I have never heard of anyone hunting with a pistol, but I suppose it could be done.  Farmers need to protect their livestock and crops, so those kids learn pretty young.

Presumably doesn't mean actually. DH grew up country, country in rural Arkansas and learned (young) to shoot with a pistol because that's what his Dad had and they needed it for household protection. Again, what does the length of the barrel have to do with the competence of the shooter or their ability to exercise good judgment with a weapon? Purpose isn't a justification for disparate laws...unless you're arguing that feeding your family with game is more important than protecting it from intruders?

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Frances]

9 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

People hunt with rifles mostly or shotguns for birds.  I have never heard of anyone hunting with a pistol, but I suppose it could be done.  Farmers need to protect their livestock and crops, so those kids learn pretty young.

I grew up in the rural Midwest and had friends and family with farms in IA, MN, and WI. Guns simply weren’t part of that culture in my experience. I don’t doubt some farmers there own guns, but none of my friends or cousins were learning about guns or shooting guns on their farms.

However, I knew lots of people who owned guns for hunting, including some relatives. Interestingly, in my experience there was very little overlap between hunters and farmers. But I’m sure that varies by area.

[Syllieann]

Using a gun for self defense requires way more skill and higher order thinking.  When you are hunting deer or turkey you are aiming at something that isn't going to kill you regardless of whether you want too long or aim just right.  A lot of states have step-up style driving lisences.  At 16 you can drive, but not with other minors who might distract you.  At 17 you can drive with other minors but only during daylight.  It's kind of like that.  As lower level functioning becomes more automatic you can devote more brain power to the next step.

I'm just trying to explain the reasoning for the barrel difference.  I'm not saying Rittenhouse should have been walking around with an AR15, because I don't think he should have.  This is one place I think the majority of Americans both left and right could agree.  Assault style rifles need a separate category with a higher age.

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

Using a gun for self defense requires way more skill and higher order thinking.  When you are hunting deer or turkey you are aiming at something that isn't going to kill you regardless of whether you want too long or aim just right.  A lot of states have step-up style driving lisences.  At 16 you can drive, but not with other minors who might distract you.  At 17 you can drive with other minors but only during daylight.  It's kind of like that.  As lower level functioning becomes more automatic you can devote more brain power to the next step.

I'm just trying to explain the reasoning for the barrel difference.  I'm not saying Rittenhouse should have been walking around with an AR15, because I don't think he should have.  This is one place I think the majority of Americans both left and right could agree.  Assault style rifles need a separate category with a higher age.

Tell that to people who hunt and eat wild boar or take their teens to hunt lions and tigers. I appreciate your attempt at an explanation. I just don't think it holds water. I do not think *ANY* minor should be using guns in the absence of a parent/guardian regardless of the length of the barrel. I do not understand, nor can I justify, the discrepancy when we know long guns are also used to kill people in "self defense". These are precisely the kinds of legal issues CRT draws attention to.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

Using a gun for self defense requires way more skill and higher order thinking.  When you are hunting deer or turkey you are aiming at something that isn't going to kill you regardless of whether you want too long or aim just right.  A lot of states have step-up style driving lisences.  At 16 you can drive, but not with other minors who might distract you.  At 17 you can drive with other minors but only during daylight.  It's kind of like that.  As lower level functioning becomes more automatic you can devote more brain power to the next step.

The long barrel gun can be used to kill a person just as much as a pistol though, which makes it not make sense to me. I don't understand why someone is deemed mature enough to have a gun if that gun is a kind often used by hunters, but not mature enough to have a gun if the gun is not the kind typically used by hunters. It would only make sense it the law was written such that the context was what mattered: a youth who was out in the woods hunting could have a gun, but not one walking around the city streets. That would make a lot more sense than barrel length. To me that would mean parents needing to keep those weapons locked up when not supervising minors hunting, though.

[WildflowerMom]

When I was in high school (90s), kids would come to school with their rifles behind the seat because they were going to hunt as soon as school let out.  They weren’t adults, but I guess it was legal for them?    
 

Personally, I also don’t think minors should be using any kind of gun without an adult.   

[Syllieann]

2 minutes ago, KSera said:

The long barrel gun can be used to kill a person just as much as a pistol though, which makes it not make sense to me. I don't understand why someone is deemed mature enough to have a gun if that gun is a kind often used by hunters, but not mature enough to have a gun if the gun is not the kind typically used by hunters. It would only make sense it the law was written such that the context was what mattered: a youth who was out in the woods hunting could have a gun, but not one walking around the city streets. That would make a lot more sense than barrel length. To me that would mean parents needing to keep those weapons locked up when not supervising minors hunting, though.

I agree, the context should be what matters.  That's another thing your probably get both sides to agree on.  I don't think most republicans want 16 year olds to take their rifles to the grocery store.  I know different states are different, but here my ds12 is allowed to hunt with a rifle if he is within arms length of a mentor.  It would be totally illegal for him to have unsupervised control of it.

[Sneezyone]

14 minutes ago, KSera said:

The long barrel gun can be used to kill a person just as much as a pistol though, which makes it not make sense to me. I don't understand why someone is deemed mature enough to have a gun if that gun is a kind often used by hunters, but not mature enough to have a gun if the gun is not the kind typically used by hunters. It would only make sense it the law was written such that the context was what mattered: a youth who was out in the woods hunting could have a gun, but not one walking around the city streets. That would make a lot more sense than barrel length. To me that would mean parents needing to keep those weapons locked up when not supervising minors hunting, though.

The problem is that this metric substitutes an ostensibly race-neutral means test that isn't actually neutral in practice. We know more non-white people live in urban environs. So, no, it doesn't actually make more sense unless you value one purpose (hunting) over the other (protection). I'm with Ksera on age/maturity alone being a determinant. Young hunters are no more discerning than young urban youth. You're old enough/mature enough to carry solo or you're not. Remove the disparity.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

Even my husband, a huge gun enthusiast who target shoots as a hobby, hunts, and is probably always carrying(I don’t really ask) is very much against open carry.  He believes it’s just inviting trouble and making others uncomfortable.  He’s considered buying an AR-15(the NY legal ones that are adapted) but it’s a sport to him; he goes to the gun range and target shoots and hangs out with friends.  I cannot imagine him just carrying it into Walmart or whatever. 
But if we lived someplace where open carry was the cultural norm, maybe he’d feel different? I don’t know.  He has a criminal justice degree and has treated an awful lot of gun shooting victims, one or two that were innocent bystanders, and that’s colored his views for sure.

[Xahm]

I've only been hunting once in my life and didn't fire my weapon, so very much nott an expert, but those I know well enough to know what guns they use carry both a rifle and a pistol into the woods. The pistol, from what they said, is to finish off a wounded animal at close range if needed and, according to one friend's dad, to protect himself from a pack of coyotes that was getting too bold for his comfort.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Xahm
Typos

[Syllieann]

1 minute ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Even my husband, a huge gun enthusiast who target shoots as a hobby, hunts, and is probably always carrying(I don’t really ask) is very much against open carry.  He believes it’s just inviting trouble and making others uncomfortable.  He’s considered buying an AR-15(the NY legal ones that are adapted) but it’s a sport to him; he goes to the gun range and target shoots and hangs out with friends.  I cannot imagine him just carrying it into Walmart or whatever. 
But if we lived someplace where open carry was the cultural norm, maybe he’d feel different? I don’t know.  He has a criminal justice degree and has treated an awful lot of gun shooting victims, one or two that were innocent bystanders, and that’s colored his views for sure.

What does he think of self defense rounds?  Because I think that's another sensible thing that would make using guns for self defense safer without violating anyone's ability to defend themselves, hunt, or form a militia if we're invaded.  Just keep self defense rounds in pistols.  Easy.

[Katy]

DH says he doesn’t remember when, he thinks it was in anti-crime movements of the 80’s in 90’s when pistols and revolvers started to be treated differently than rifles, mostly because handguns are more easily concealed. He first said 1985 but then said he wasn’t sure.

For longer distances, such as for hunting or war, longer barrels are more accurate.

Apparently in Wisconsin it wouldn’t have mattered if KR had a handgun.  The only thing that matters is a short barrel rifle, which has extra regulations because it’s more easy to conceal. 

[KSera]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The problem is that this metric substitutes an ostensibly race-neutral means test that isn't actually neutral in practice. We know more non-white people live in urban environs. So, no, it doesn't actually make more sense unless you value one purpose (hunting) over the other (protection). I'm with Wildflower Mom on age/maturity alone being a determinant. Young hunters are no more discerning than young urban youth. You're old enough/mature enough to carry solo or you're not. Remove the disparity.

I actually totally agree with this and don't think young people should have guns period. I was just saying that if the reason for the law was because it was considered so important for minors to be able to hunt with guns, then the context should matter, which it doesn't as currently written. Rittenhouse clearly wasn't hunting with his AR-15, so why does that law get him off? I don't actually think that should be the standard at all, though.