U.S. Politics

[HanoiVillan]

35 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I was answering your post in which you suggest the 2nd and 3rd victims were “under the impression” he was an active shooter, which you wrote in response to AWOL “fixing” your post by adding in self-defence. So it sounded like you thought they were mistaken.

If you’re claiming you don’t think he did act in self-defence in the first incident, then that changes everything. At that stage they’re not just under the impression that he’s an active shooter, he IS an active shooter. 

I think we're talking past each other a bit. I agree with you that after shooting the first victim, he was an active shooter. I clearly caused some confusion by using the phrase 'under the impression' - I don't think they were mistaken, all I mean is, at that point the crowd realised somebody had been shot, realised it was the small kid with the large gun who did it, and chased him. They didn't just attack him out of nowhere, they were clearly trying to take the gun off him. That was my point in response to the other poster adding 'in self defence' to my previous post (which was completely unnecessary) - that 'self defence' is a tricky concept, beyond the narrow legal question; Rittenhouse was found to have acted in self-defence because in each case he was being chased, struck or had a gun pointed at him, but there's also a defence of the people around us when someone poses (proven) lethal danger as well. It seems ironic to me that some of those who are gloating about the verdict would probably, if the situation were not politicised, be cheering people taking it into their own hands to stop an active shooter. That doesn't mean I agree they should have done so, or with the way they tried to do it. 

As to the first shooting, it has been ruled self-defence by the court. He was being chased; a bag of groceries was thrown at him; shots were fired in the air; the first victim (who appeared very aggro) tried to wrestle the gun off him. 

My opinion is that there are no heroes in this story. 

[villakram]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

The way America thinks about firearms is utterly insane to people from the UK, or I'd guess most countries. 

@Vancvillan the differentiation between automatic and semi-automatic guns and the way that differentiation is treated by the law and indeed by people who live under that law is so alien to us that I can understand how to you our reactions seem to lack objectivity, personally I don't think they do.

For us, it translates to the idea that there's a social feeling in the US that the bloke wandering around a shopping centre waving a six inch knife is a perfectly acceptable and sensible citizen, but the bloke waving the eight inch knife is a dangerous psycho that needs to be apprehended immediately. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

in the UK, the moment Rittenhouse takes possession of a gun; whether that's a revolver, an automatic pistol, a rifle, a semi-automatic rifle, an automatic rifle, a machine gun or a personal anti-tank rocket launcher, he's a criminal liable for a minimum sentence of three to five years. I like that. It's good sensible law making. It means that it's illegal to possess a machine that's purpose is killing people, it's not complicated logic.

Personal gun ownership, where a person gets to keep a machine designed for killing things in their house or car is an horrendous idea in a modern society. Open carry is madness. You get a sterner punishment in some US states for crossing the road in the wrong place than you do for carrying a machine designed to kill things in open sight - objectively it's almost impossible to justify that.

America encourages a debate around different types of gun ownership, different regulation on gun ownership and different rules on storage and transportation - it's a debate designed to obfuscate the idea that there is no justification for a citizen of a free democratic country to have a firearm in their individual possession - it's a machine designed to kill things, that's what it does, no one should have that.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the current covid "fascism"  is only entrenching and re-enforcing the 2A freedom against tyranny argument for the gun folks and anyone who is sympathetic to them. 

No chance of change in the short to medium term.

[villakram]

23 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think we're talking past each other a bit. I agree with you that after shooting the first victim, he was an active shooter. I clearly caused some confusion by using the phrase 'under the impression' - I don't think they were mistaken, all I mean is, at that point the crowd realised somebody had been shot, realised it was the small kid with the large gun who did it, and chased him. They didn't just attack him out of nowhere, they were clearly trying to take the gun off him. That was my point in response to the other poster adding 'in self defence' to my previous post (which was completely unnecessary) - that 'self defence' is a tricky concept, beyond the narrow legal question; Rittenhouse was found to have acted in self-defence because in each case he was being chased, struck or had a gun pointed at him, but there's also a defence of the people around us when someone poses (proven) lethal danger as well. It seems ironic to me that some of those who are gloating about the verdict would probably, if the situation were not politicised, be cheering people taking it into their own hands to stop an active shooter. That doesn't mean I agree they should have done so, or with the way they tried to do it. 

As to the first shooting, it has been ruled self-defence by the court. He was being chased; a bag of groceries was thrown at him; shots were fired in the air; the first victim (who appeared very aggro) tried to wrestle the gun off him. 

My opinion is that there are no heroes in this story. 

One of the things lost in this is the role of the local government. They essentially stood down the police, such that small business were having to camp out in their businesses overnight with their own guns to protect their livelihood, as so many buildings were being burned/looted. This happened for long enough, that out of state militia/patriot types volunteered to come and assist. Hence, Mr. Rittenhouse.

The motivations of the other chaps could be described as BLM protesting, but rioting also works. Again, had the police been deployed to enforce the law, these lads would have been at home acting like clowns in moms basement.

Hopefully, local electorates will take note in coming years. 

[HanoiVillan]

Some talk that the Kennedy-waiters are in danger of going full cultist:

Linked article says of one cultist that she 'has so far handed over about $200,000 to the group, and is being forced to drink a hydrogen peroxide solution and take “bio pellets” to ward off COVID-19 and stay healthy. Her phone calls and messages are also being monitored, according to Garner [her sister], who believes her sister will never return.'

They also seem to have visited Waco recently, possibly to meet the guy who took over the Davidians after the unpleasantness. 

[OutByEaster?]

7 minutes ago, villakram said:

No chance of change in the short to medium term.

Nope, it certainly looks like there's no chance of change, or even a will toward it. 

It's a strange country.

[Davkaus]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

in the UK, the moment Rittenhouse takes possession of a gun; whether that's a revolver, an automatic pistol, a rifle, a semi-automatic rifle, an automatic rifle, a machine gun or a personal anti-tank rocket launcher, he's a criminal liable for a minimum sentence of three to five years. I like that. It's good sensible law making. It means that it's illegal to possess a machine that's purpose is killing people, it's not complicated logic.

 

I was surprised to read recently of just how many lawfully held guns there are in the UK, there are something like 2m guns held by 750,000 people in the country, most (about 2/3) of which are shotguns, yet despite there being a reasonably large number, I've never even seen one, and the idea of someone carrying it outside of an incredibly limited set of circumstances is absolutely unthinkable. 

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, villakram said:

One of the things lost in this is the role of the local government. They essentially stood down the police, such that small business were having to camp out in their businesses overnight with their own guns to protect their livelihood, as so many buildings were being burned/looted. This happened for long enough, that out of state militia/patriot types volunteered to come and assist. Hence, Mr. Rittenhouse.

The motivations of the other chaps could be described as BLM protesting, but rioting also works. Again, had the police been deployed to enforce the law, these lads would have been at home acting like clowns in moms basement.

Hopefully, local electorates will take note in coming years. 

Yes, you make some fair points. Protesters who are quick to turn to arson on the one hand, and callow vigilantes with guns and nervous temperaments on the other, are an obviously risky mix. Protests in America just seem bigger in every possible way than they are here. 

Not that I'm trying to deflect blame from local government - I don't know what they told police to do in this case - but American police departments also have a really bad track record of responding to criticism by essentially doing the barest minimum or not even that. 

[bobzy]

18 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Some talk that the Kennedy-waiters are in danger of going full cultist:

Linked article says of one cultist that she 'has so far handed over about $200,000 to the group, and is being forced to drink a hydrogen peroxide solution and take “bio pellets” to ward off COVID-19 and stay healthy. Her phone calls and messages are also being monitored, according to Garner [her sister], who believes her sister will never return.'

They also seem to have visited Waco recently, possibly to meet the guy who took over the Davidians after the unpleasantness. 

Bit of a rabbit hole off that, but man some of those videos are insane.  That's a very dangerous cult right there.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

2 hours ago, bobzy said:

Que?  

It was a joke.

I’ve clearly been away too long. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think we're talking past each other a bit. I agree with you that after shooting the first victim, he was an active shooter. I clearly caused some confusion by using the phrase 'under the impression' - I don't think they were mistaken, all I mean is, at that point the crowd realised somebody had been shot, realised it was the small kid with the large gun who did it, and chased him. They didn't just attack him out of nowhere, they were clearly trying to take the gun off him. That was my point in response to the other poster adding 'in self defence' to my previous post (which was completely unnecessary) - that 'self defence' is a tricky concept, beyond the narrow legal question; Rittenhouse was found to have acted in self-defence because in each case he was being chased, struck or had a gun pointed at him, but there's also a defence of the people around us when someone poses (proven) lethal danger as well. It seems ironic to me that some of those who are gloating about the verdict would probably, if the situation were not politicised, be cheering people taking it into their own hands to stop an active shooter. That doesn't mean I agree they should have done so, or with the way they tried to do it. 

As to the first shooting, it has been ruled self-defence by the court. He was being chased; a bag of groceries was thrown at him; shots were fired in the air; the first victim (who appeared very aggro) tried to wrestle the gun off him. 

My opinion is that there are no heroes in this story. 

I don’t think that at all though and neither does the law. I think he acted in self defence in the first instance, then the second and third victims may have *thought* he was an active shooter, but they were mistaken. And I say may, we don’t actually know what they thought hence we can only rely on the hard evidence.

For what it’s worth, the law is clearly a mess as is the United States attitude towards guns both socially and legally. But we mustn’t get into the habit of convicting people of a crime they did not commit just because it doesn’t feel right, either in the court of law or the court of public opinion.  

Edited November 23, 2021 by dont_do_it_doug.

[HanoiVillan]

4 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I don’t think that at all though and neither does the law. I think he acted in self defence in the first instance, then the second and third victims may have *thought* he was an active shooter, but they were mistaken. And I say may, we don’t actually know what they thought hence we can only rely on the hard evidence.

For what it’s worth, the law is clearly a mess as is the United States attitude towards guns both socially and legally. But we mustn’t get into the habit of convicting people of a crime they did not commit just because it doesn’t feel right, either in the court of law or the court of public opinion.  

Okay, thanks for clarifying. We'll have to agree to disagree. 

[Vancvillan]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

The way America thinks about firearms is utterly insane to people from the UK, or I'd guess most countries. 

@Vancvillan the differentiation between automatic and semi-automatic guns and the way that differentiation is treated by the law and indeed by people who live under that law is so alien to us that I can understand how to you our reactions seem to lack objectivity, personally I don't think they do.

For us, it translates to the idea that there's a social feeling in the US that the bloke wandering around a shopping centre waving a six inch knife is a perfectly acceptable and sensible citizen, but the bloke waving the eight inch knife is a dangerous psycho that needs to be apprehended immediately. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

in the UK, the moment Rittenhouse takes possession of a gun; whether that's a revolver, an automatic pistol, a rifle, a semi-automatic rifle, an automatic rifle, a machine gun or a personal anti-tank rocket launcher, he's a criminal liable for a minimum sentence of three to five years. I like that. It's good sensible law making. It means that it's illegal to possess a machine that's purpose is killing people, it's not complicated logic.

Personal gun ownership, where a person gets to keep a machine designed for killing things in their house or car is an horrendous idea in a modern society. Open carry is madness. You get a sterner punishment in some US states for crossing the road in the wrong place than you do for carrying a machine designed to kill things in open sight - objectively it's almost impossible to justify that.

America encourages a debate around different types of gun ownership, different regulation on gun ownership and different rules on storage and transportation - it's a debate designed to obfuscate the idea that there is no justification for a citizen of a free democratic country to have a firearm in their individual possession - it's a machine designed to kill things, that's what it does, no one should have that.

 

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

Let me start by saying I agree with everything except the bit in bold. It's worth mentioning that I was born in the UK and lived there (mostly) until I was 26, so I grew up in that culture. I now live in Canada, where firearm possession is much more common, but I'd still say the majority of Canadians again agree with your thoughts above too (again, excluding the bit in bold).

Why does anyone need a firearm? The most common answer here would be hunting. In the UK that means a bunch of dukes in red coats, sat on horses chasing a fox.  In Canada, 90% of the country is wild public lands. I get why hunting doesn't happen in England - it's because there is nowhere to actually hunt.

Two counterpoints usually come up at this point:

1. "Why hunt? Why not buy your meat from the supermarket / butcher, or go vegan if you care that much?" I can go into more detail if you like, but I've done a fair bit of research on farming a slaughter houses, and after spending a couple of years living on a low meat diet and considering veganism, I reached a point where I realised that even a plant-based diet inflicts a lot of suffering on the environment,  animals, and their habitat. Hunting, combined with meat from a regenerative agriculture farm is the best I felt I could do in my circumstance. For others the best they can do is go vegan. Some people don't think about it at all - and that's their choice and I'm fine with that.

2. "Why use firearms? That's not fair." The short answer is efficacy. Its important to me to have the best chance for a clean and ethical kill, and a 30 calibre bullet is the best tool for that job on large game.

I can go further into any of the above and please understand this is a place I came to that I felt was the best I could do in the environment I live in - everyone makes their own choices and that won't hurt my feelings if they're very different. It's not the easiest choice either - hunting is hard and the learning curve was steeper than anything else I've ever done.

Hopefully that explains why I own firearms, and given that I have two small children why I'm so invested in laws around acquisition, possession and storage.

As a final note - throwing around untrue info can lead to bad public policy. The Canadian government banned the AR-15 two years ago, and is implementing a $750m buy-back plan. Great news, right? Except the law was designed to pander to people who don't understand anything about firearms. It banned the AR-15 (and others) by name rather than action and calibre - meaning that you can still buy a semi-automatic rifle that shoots 223 Rem with a five shot magazine (by far the most common AR-15 set up), as long as it's not called "AR-15". People who don't own guns cheered - but it's just a waste of time and money. Why not ban all centrefire semi-automatic rifles? Answer - because it's a riskier political move. But I say do something with conviction, not rhetoric, and then let the people decide come election time.

It'd be like introducing a low carbon bill that bans the Ram Pickup truck (and spends public money buying them back) but not the Grand Cherokee or Durango, which use the same 5.7 Hemi engine. Ban all non-commercial vehicles over a certain displacement and everyone knows where they stand - whether you agree with it or not is a matter for the polls.

If someone wants to ban all guns that's fine with me - as long as they understand the ramifications and do it with conviction.

[villakram]

2 hours ago, Vancvillan said:

Thanks for your thoughts.

Let me start by saying I agree with everything except the bit in bold. It's worth mentioning that I was born in the UK and lived there (mostly) until I was 26, so I grew up in that culture. I now live in Canada, where firearm possession is much more common, but I'd still say the majority of Canadians again agree with your thoughts above too (again, excluding the bit in bold).

Why does anyone need a firearm? The most common answer here would be hunting. In the UK that means a bunch of dukes in red coats, sat on horses chasing a fox.  In Canada, 90% of the country is wild public lands. I get why hunting doesn't happen in England - it's because there is nowhere to actually hunt.

Two counterpoints usually come up at this point:

1. "Why hunt? Why not buy your meat from the supermarket / butcher, or go vegan if you care that much?" I can go into more detail if you like, but I've done a fair bit of research on farming a slaughter houses, and after spending a couple of years living on a low meat diet and considering veganism, I reached a point where I realised that even a plant-based diet inflicts a lot of suffering on the environment,  animals, and their habitat. Hunting, combined with meat from a regenerative agriculture farm is the best I felt I could do in my circumstance. For others the best they can do is go vegan. Some people don't think about it at all - and that's their choice and I'm fine with that.

2. "Why use firearms? That's not fair." The short answer is efficacy. Its important to me to have the best chance for a clean and ethical kill, and a 30 calibre bullet is the best tool for that job on large game.

I can go further into any of the above and please understand this is a place I came to that I felt was the best I could do in the environment I live in - everyone makes their own choices and that won't hurt my feelings if they're very different. It's not the easiest choice either - hunting is hard and the learning curve was steeper than anything else I've ever done.

Hopefully that explains why I own firearms, and given that I have two small children why I'm so invested in laws around acquisition, possession and storage.

As a final note - throwing around untrue info can lead to bad public policy. The Canadian government banned the AR-15 two years ago, and is implementing a $750m buy-back plan. Great news, right? Except the law was designed to pander to people who don't understand anything about firearms. It banned the AR-15 (and others) by name rather than action and calibre - meaning that you can still buy a semi-automatic rifle that shoots 223 Rem with a five shot magazine (by far the most common AR-15 set up), as long as it's not called "AR-15". People who don't own guns cheered - but it's just a waste of time and money. Why not ban all centrefire semi-automatic rifles? Answer - because it's a riskier political move. But I say do something with conviction, not rhetoric, and then let the people decide come election time.

It'd be like introducing a low carbon bill that bans the Ram Pickup truck (and spends public money buying them back) but not the Grand Cherokee or Durango, which use the same 5.7 Hemi engine. Ban all non-commercial vehicles over a certain displacement and everyone knows where they stand - whether you agree with it or not is a matter for the polls.

If someone wants to ban all guns that's fine with me - as long as they understand the ramifications and do it with conviction.

To add to this, in the US one can ask a general/average gun owner and they would have little problem with large weapons that are not non-cartridge vanilla rifles or shotguns being banned.

Handguns are a different discussion (and the most problematic thing imho), as they are easy to bring into a personal safety/emotive discussion, e.g., I believe Chicago is up to ~4000 shooting incidents so far this year and are on track for record homicides too. The year 2020 had a very high number of homicides nationally and a record in recent decades, though with population growth, the percentage growth may not have been so drastic. During the large scale "mostly peaceful" protests last year, there were record numbers of applications for pistol background checks from new applicants. 

  

[Davkaus]

4,000 shooting incidents, in a single city, in less than a year? I'd guess the vast majority of those were accidental, but what a price for your "freedom"  

[villa4europe]

3 hours ago, Davkaus said:

I was surprised to read recently of just how many lawfully held guns there are in the UK, there are something like 2m guns held by 750,000 people in the country, most (about 2/3) of which are shotguns, yet despite there being a reasonably large number, I've never even seen one, and the idea of someone carrying it outside of an incredibly limited set of circumstances is absolutely unthinkable. 

I know a guy who has about 12 of them

He takes it super seriously, does deer stalking up in the Highlands, spends a fortune on it, been on a game drive with him 

Brother in law hunts too, went hunting wild boar with him last month 

I get it, I get owning one and hunting, I get owning one and going down a range and shooting shit

What I don't get is the protecting the family stuff, how can you live a life like that where you consider it a necessity, my front door isn't even locked, I'm not sleeping with a gun under my pillow waiting for the robbers, rapists and murderers to come get me, or my countries enemies to attack me on the street, its an utterly bizarre outlook on life

The idea that you need a gun on you in case something happens... How can Americans believe that to be an acceptable way to live in a modern society? 

[Chindie]

3 hours ago, Davkaus said:

4,000 shooting incidents, in a single city, in less than a year? I'd guess the vast majority of those were accidental, but what a price for your "freedom"  

There's a reason Chicago has the nickname Chiraq.

[HanoiVillan]

6 hours ago, Davkaus said:

4,000 shooting incidents, in a single city, in less than a year? I'd guess the vast majority of those were accidental, but what a price for your "freedom"  

Maybe not a 'vast' majority. Two different counts linked on Wiki suggest something in the region of 700-750 homicides last year, and from previous years it looks like around 80% of homicides involve a firearm, so that's 550-600 homicides involving a firearm. It also looks like there are around 10 non-fatal firearm incidents for every 6 or 7 fatal ones, so that's another 1000 or so non-fatal shootings. Then there will be some where nobody was hurt but someone discharged a weapon deliberately. Then the big decision is how suicide by gunshot is classified, don't know if that's in the 4000 but if so that'll be a big part which isn't 'accidental'.

Edited November 24, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[TheAuthority]

12 hours ago, villakram said:

One of the things lost in this is the role of the local government. They essentially stood down the police, such that small business were having to camp out in their businesses overnight with their own guns to protect their livelihood, as so many buildings were being burned/looted. This happened for long enough, that out of state militia/patriot types volunteered to come and assist. Hence, Mr. Rittenhouse.

The motivations of the other chaps could be described as BLM protesting, but rioting also works. Again, had the police been deployed to enforce the law, these lads would have been at home acting like clowns in moms basement.

Hopefully, local electorates will take note in coming years. 

It's interesting that no-one is talking about what actually led to the unrest/rioting/looting/protesting/rallying - take your pick on whatever narrative you want to spin.

The role of local government and the police is what you lead with. Well, Robert Blake was shot 7 times (3 times in the side and 4 in the back) by a Kenosha cop. He is African American, is now paralyzed for life and for the rest of his days will shit into a colostomy bag. This was during a time social unrest in the US due to the rise of far-right extremism and a spate of shootings of African Americans by white cops. It was another hideously violent end to yet another white police officer dealing with a black man in the US (whatever you may or may not read into Blake's criminal past from what we in the public know of it.)

The local government have not charged the cops involved and they both returned to duty in April 2021.

I would say that the role of local government and the police departments is beyond negligent and is criminal. The catch all police departments in the US are undertrained/underfunded/corrupt/dysfunctional/full of white supremacists - take your pick on whatever narrative you want to spin.

It just isn't working right now, hasn't been for decades and sensible conversations need to be had about retraining and creating other departments that react to crime and poverty.

[TheAuthority]

9 hours ago, Davkaus said:

4,000 shooting incidents, in a single city, in less than a year? I'd guess the vast majority of those were accidental, but what a price for your "freedom"  

It's slightly misleading but equally depressing. The shooting and homicide is very localized to the South Side of Chicago. It's always been the "meanest part of town" as Sinatra sang, but since the 60's starting back with the Dan Ryan Expressway, red lining and on and on, it's been made and kept a ghetto.

[A'Villan]

1 hour ago, TheAuthority said:

It's interesting that no-one is talking about what actually led to the unrest/rioting/looting/protesting/rallying - take your pick on whatever narrative you want to spin.

The role of local government and the police is what you lead with. Well, Robert Blake was shot 7 times (3 times in the side and 4 in the back) by a Kenosha cop. He is African American, is now paralyzed for life and for the rest of his days will shit into a colostomy bag. This was during a time social unrest in the US due to the rise of far-right extremism and a spate of shootings of African Americans by white cops. It was another hideously violent end to yet another white police officer dealing with a black man in the US (whatever you may or may not read into Blake's criminal past from what we in the public know of it.)

The local government have not charged the cops involved and they both returned to duty in April 2021.

I would say that the role of local government and the police departments is beyond negligent and is criminal. The catch all police departments in the US are undertrained/underfunded/corrupt/dysfunctional/full of white supremacists - take your pick on whatever narrative you want to spin.

It just isn't working right now, hasn't been for decades and sensible conversations need to be had about retraining and creating other departments that react to crime and poverty.

Police in the USA have quotas, the prison system is run for profit, and the leading national security agencies have made it their agenda to illegally commit murder, assassinate, disrupt, discredit, suppress, oppress, and countless other acts of evil against sections of their own population and communities. It's beyond the rich telling the middle class to blame the poor. It's callous and cold blooded dehumanisation and you wonder why so many Africans identify with thuggery and a life of crime, what hope for any other life does the system offer them?

Edited November 24, 2021 by A'Villan