Almost-all
I’m sure glad we have Jacob Blake’s family’s feelings about this documented, since they have exactly nothing to do with it. Rittenhouse was really on trial for Blake’s death(in case anyone thought someone cared about three white rejects).
Here’s some more…“This just isn’t an attack on African Americans… You can sit back and say it’s not your people and it’s not us and let the first domino fall, but this is a direct attack on our democracy…”-Blake’s uncle Justin (Thanks for letting us know that it’s not JUST an attack on “African Americans.” Now, can you show how it is in any way whatsoever an attack on “African Americans”?)
“Self-defense is when you’re protecting your home, your protecting your family,” Justin Blake said. “He in a dastardly way used the law. There was no self-defense.”
How many of these morons know that Rittenhouse didn’t shoot any black people?
More importantly, in their eyes, can Blake’s family profit from a case and incident that didn’t involve him? We’re all aware that long-lost family can profit from the death of someone with shared genes, but can non-family profit just because?
Edit: I love that “if we were talking about a black man, the conversation and outcome would be starkly different.” That’s true. Rittenhouse could write a book called, “If I did it: Confessions of a White Supremacist.”
2 Likes
This is getting close to what I think is the key point: Among people who acquire guns legally, the homicide rate is roughly on par with that Europe. Legal gun ownership is not what is driving our problem with violent crime.
1 Like
So reasonable that you’re around the only country in the world that has your specific set of laws… Aside from Yemen… To note, Yemen isn’t a beacon of freedom like the US is. They’re largely ungouverned, but different militias have a foothold over various regions.
It should be noted SOME government intervention re a citizens private life is required. You can’t have a free for all, because libertarian concepts fly out the window in a free for all. It’s interesting, as too much centralised control = Authoritarianism… No control also appears to = authoritarian constructs when groups/communities herd together and self govern. Don’t like what the group of powerful dudes has to say? Tough shit… What about the law? Decades old legislative documentation no longer matters, it’s now all about what these guys think at this very point in time. No due process …
Other countries that allow for permitless ownership of firearms typically restrict that to long arms or (sometimes) low calibre, single shot pistols. Something like this Hammerli 100 free pistol: Part 1 | Pyramyd AIR Blog
I’m not against allowing citizens to own guns now that I’ve looked more extensively into it. However I’d prefer there be a cap on “what type of gun can you own without a permit”. If you’re an ex special forces guy and you clear a background check + psych evaluation and want to own an assault rifle + a plethora of high calibre, easily concealed handguns… Sure… If you’re the gravy seal subtype? No… You cannot carry firearms in public without having taken numerous safety courses, need to have volunteered in some type of search and rescue/volunteer police style organisation.
In Israel to apply for a conceal carry license you need to either be 27 OR 18 yet you’ve served either in the millitary and/or you’ve served in a field that counts as millitary service. MDA, search and rescue divisions, civilian police force etc. Why? Because all of the aforementioned fields will teach you how to properly respect a firearm, and this can’t be taught overnight. You need to have a certain mentality seared in.
If you haven’t served, 27 is the age as a 27 y/old is more capable of making rational decisions relative to a 17y/old… And you need just cause, like a job at MDA, you’re a cop that wants to carry when off duty or you live in a dangerous neighbourhood.
In Israel (unlike America outside of high crime areas) it makes a lot of sense to have a population adopting conceal carry due to the ever omnipresent threat of terrorism. For the US, I think conceal carry us a good idea for veterans who aren’t riddled with intractable PTSD, off duty cops, marksmen etc.
For the US, I don’t think it’s a bad thing for the general population to be armed at home. I see that now to a degree after what has happened in Aus over the past two years. One could argue the government could still switch off electricity, wifi etc… I’d say “cellular data, many farmers can independently produce food and with the amount of wilderness here… Hunting to sustain”.
As to millitary intervention… Guerilla warfare by locals who know the land better. Sure, the military would probably wipe out resistance, but the degree of casualties would make this scenario highly undesirable. We would have never been able to strand citizens overseas for two years and eventuate the longest (and some of the harshest/most totalitarian) lockdowns in the world if say… 30-50% of all households had a gun… At least this is my opinion.
Before all of this I would have said “government becoming tyrannical? Are you insane!” The second amendment was created hundreds of years ago wherein this was actually possible… Now I think differently 
, it’s very possible for a bad government to quickly excise centralised control provided the democratic framework of a society is sufficiently flawed and/or radicalisation occurs.
Granted a scary scenario is… What if the armed portion of the population sides with a tyrannical government? From what I’ve seen unfold in Aus, people are easily manipulated. It didn’t stop at covid either, the systemic implementation of mass surveillance, warrantless data breaching and more has become the norm (either signed into law or implemented).
In Australia, Kyle would have been found guilty because he was the only armed individual in the crowd, possessing a firearm illegally.
However let’s alter the dynamics the case. Say Rittenhouse was a member of the ADF (Australian defence force) in NSW when Sydney deployed the millitary to the streets in totalitarian fashion to enforce covid restrictions over 500 cases/day.
Let’s say the same situation unfolded. One guy tried to grab his rifle after making threats of murder and was shot, another decked him with a skateboard, another pulled a pistol and was shot… Once again, he’d be found not guilty. I imagine the same had it been in the UK… Though the skateboard case would have been prosecuted because most millitary personnel (esp in riots) carry non lethal weapons that I don’t believe Kyle had on him. A baton round at close range would have likely taken the guy with a skateboard out.
Or let’s replace his weapon with a pocket knife (still ended up killing two and wounding one in self defence)… Not guilty.
Back to the guns thing. Look at Switzerland, greenland as to model I like. Israel is too strict, while the dynamics behind licensing may be far more liberal relative to Aus… Getting that license isn’t easy at all. However they HAVE to be that way, as there is quite a bit of Islamic extremism (I’ll be unapologetic about this). If it were easy for all civilians to acquire and conceal carry handguns, we’d see a lot of shootings, far more lethal combative situations etc. Violent extremism pertaining to Zionism also exists… But it’s very rare for this to cross over into the territory of some kid/young adult strapping a bomb to their waist and blowing themselves up and/or some kid running at people indiscriminately with a bladed weapon, or opening fire with a handgun.
There are various countries around the world wherein permitless possession of firearms is permitted of which have far lower firearm homicide rates.
However there is a degree of control imposed over “what kind of firearm”, the context by which public possession is permitted etc.
By and large I believe culture, engrained mentalities largely factor in.
In the states there are MANY who don’t appear to respect firearms. Many who harbour a gung ho mentality, there’s also gang culture and extreme ease of access to illicit firearms.
Yes, something needs to change. I’d be extremely in favour of federally mandated background checks. Disqualify those with a violent past from owning firearms, those with a record of involuntary institutionalisation within the past 20 years etc.
There is a middle ground, but the gun issue is politicised. As America is so divided at the moment, people are belligerently taking to sides and sticking to their side no matter what.
A middle ground is becoming harder to find. So you’ve got one crowd “stupid conservatives dismissing all rational arguments in favour of SOME restrictions. Let’s impose Australian style gun restrictions in a country where guns are literally everywhere… I.e let’s restrict access to criminals who can easily get them”. The other side is “fucking liberals ignoring all shortcomings associated with excess regulation. No restrictions… Ever”.
There’s a middle ground… I recall one parent who let his 13y/old sun sleep with a loaded revolver under his pillow. They lived in a high income neighbourhood and this parent was a paranoid, PTSD afflicted (I think) conspiracy nut… Nice guy, but he seemed like a ticking timebomb. I went shooting with them, his 13y/old sun at the time didn’t respect firearms… That’s for sure
Shooting the revolver sideways in rapid succession, throwing up gang signs at a joke etc.
Take away 3/5 U.S. gun deaths. And you can probably assume a large number of the rest are gang/drug-related B.S.
1 Like
This is true. When you look at suicides per capita, America doesn’t rank particularly high relative to most secular, democratic countries.
However firearm homicide mediated by gang activity and/or drug deals gone wrong doesn’t excuse the fact there there is, in fact a problem.
Largely cultural, but the large arsenal of easily acquired firearms at a criminals disposal also factors in. However America’s gun culture is rather unique (with Yemen being the exception), and placing restrictions on firearm ownership isn’t going to put a dent in the criminal aspect of it.
It shouldn’t have ever been able to get this point though. Why doesn’t (most) of Europe, Australia or the UK have swathes of heavily armed gangs, ghettos where people frequently fire shots in public?
All countries have their problems, America represents one of the better countries to live in but it is NOT perfect… No country is perfect.
America probably ranks as top 20 in the world regarding in terms of quality of living, opportunities granted etc… Provided you aren’t born into a ghetto with conditions on par with that of a South African township. What country is the “best country?”… I suppose that depends on your personal preferences.
Taking away guns isn’t the answer. It’s not a simple as “we pass a law and it goes away”… Look at the war on drugs for reference.
However the cultural elements that enable gang violence, mass shooting etc, these need to be and can be combated.
I don’t think anyone believes that it does. No question, we have serious problems here. Part of the issue is cultural; we have some subcultures where the ability to inflict violence on others is prized much more than educational attainment, if the latter is valued at all. We have subcultures that glorify violence, and music that celebrates murder and other antisocial behavior as the epitome of manhood. We’ve had decades of well-intentioned but poorly-conceived social programs that have disrupted family formation, resulting in large numbers of young men growing up without father figures teaching them how to be decent men. We have an elite culture that has nothing but contempt for the “bourgeois values” that have enabled countless past generations to move from poverty into the middle class through education, work, and self-discipline. To the contrary, our elite emphatically pushes a victim culture in which one is never to blame for one’s actions (unless your name is Kyle Rittenhouse, and then you are to blame for things that you didn’t do). Now combine all this with easy access to guns, and you have our particular set of problems.
2 Likes
None of what you wrote makes a case for why our laws are unreasonable, let alone why other countries laws are more reasonable than ours.
Did you not watch the video?
You’re making the case for why our laws are, in fact, quite reasonable. People have a tendency to overlook obvious important facts like you did just now. You judge the case on fantasy notions instead of what can be plainly seen on film.
You didn’t link a video?
Explain to me what I overlooked. Not being condescending, would like an explanation.
I don’t view America as being the underdog in this equation. There is a reason most democratic countries aren’t okay with (non conscripted) seventeen y/old’s carrying assault rifles in combat.
What does someone like Kyle Rittenhouse know about combat? Gun culture akin to the way it has been conceived in America is problematic, not due to the guns themselves; but due to the attitudes many have towards them.
I’ve shot plenty of guns… Doesn’t mean I know the slightest thing about firearm related combat.
Firearm ownership isn’t the problem, but as @nealdog intelligently put it; cultural elements largely mediate a bad outcome.
most gun owners aren’t idiots… But the few that are, the few who behave like assholes because they’ve got a gun are the few that (almost) ruin it for everyone.
The video was already linked above and you can easily find the video evidence of this prominent case online.
Yeah. Weird. I just can’t explain it. I can’t even offer an explanation. Must just be the number of firearms. 
No need to be condescending
I never said it was just the number of firearms. Plenty of European countries have issues with gangs, youth degeneracy and organised crime.
The ease of access to firearms and the cavalier attitudes towards taking a life within these communities mediates gun violence.
Otherwise… Explain to me why the firearm homicide rate is so high in the US relative to other developed countries.
For reference, we will only be referring to other countries of which firearms can be purchased without a license. Why does the US have a far higher firearm homicide rate per capita relative to Austria, Switzerland, Greenland etc.
The firearm homicide rate in Austria is actually equitable to that of Australia. Hence you can have a country that allows firearm possession without a permit without eventuating America’s outcome in terms of violence.
There are glaring differences, however I want to hear your explanation before I share what I believe and we can compare, contrast and discuss.
Negative, Ghost Rider. This is a public forum.
1 Like
I’ll just jot down my viewpoints then
-
gang/yobbo culture. There are certain states in the US with lax gun laws yet relatively low firearm homicide rates (like Maine). Maine, to my knowledge doesn’t have a whole lot of “yobbo culture”.
-
types of firearms available. In the aforementioned countries I’ve specified above, you can’t buy a pistol without a license that typically encompasses a background check, attending mandatory gun safety classes etc.
-
spread of illicit firearms. It’s easy to procure an illicit firearm in the US. There are more firearms in the US than there are people. US is the ONLY country with this stat. When you have THAT many guns, it’s not hard for some to slip out of public eye and into the black market. Criminals will get guns in other countries too, but they’re more scarce and the choice of weaponry isn’t as luxurious.
If I were to rank these from most least impactful in sequential order…
1: culture
2: type of weapon
3: ease of access
There are quite a few countries that grant citizens the right to own a firearm (3) but out of all secular, first world, democratic countries America has the highest homicide rate by firearm. A looooot of it revolves around the first variable… Culture
Poverty, ghettos and criminality factor in. It’s not about “black people” either (before someone calls me a racist), it’s about poverty and yobbo culture. Many of the same issues we see in ghettos were plaguing people of caucasian descent down in the deep south during the 1800’s.
I’m not sure how you can break the cycle… It’d be like breaking the cycle of violence plaguing townships in South Africa.
Do I think relatively untrained individuals like Kyle Rittenhouse walking around in public armed with assault rifles in hand is a good thing? Hell… No… At the same time can’t fathom as to how a riot of this scale was able to unfold in a civilised country.
There’s a lot that needs to be corrected here… I think it might be too late to fix now… We’ve gone too far down so many rabbit holes, I don’t see a way out.
Ideological extremism isn’t going to fix anything. Many who agree with me “I don’t see a way out” propose some sort of coop or forced societal transition. Do you think this won’t entail resistance or mass casualties?
That’s off topic. However this whole debacle represents the ever deepening divide not only within America, but now spreading throughout Europe, the UK and Australia too.
Out of curiosity, what do you think are reasonable restrictions on firearms that would save lives, and conservatives won’t listen to?
This is a loaded question right off the bat. There are moderate conservatives and moderate liberals. There are certainly conservatives who wouldn’t object to
-
Background checks for high calibre weaponry/pistols in all states
-
mandatory firearms safety class before getting a weapon in all states
-
licensing schemes (self defence included as a permitted reason to acquire a firearm) for firearms excluding various long arms/hunting rifles and break action shotguns.
-
Public carry of assault rifles limited to those who actually have combat experience/police/special forces. Conceal carry pistols should be adequate for self defence
But there are many who will, especially if the policy is tabled by a democrat. This isn’t unique to conservatives… Both sides are belligerently following “their side” and rejecting policies that otherwise probably make sense.
I’m not an expert, I’m just giving my opinion here. There are those who will tell me the aforementioned restrictions are unreasonable… I don’t think they are
Those who think they are can disagree with me without resorting to being condescending or talking down to me (as some may feel the need to do after reading this post).
Everyone goes through a back ground check for every fire arms purchase.
Police don’t even receive the training they need. What they’d give us is laughable, although I like where your head is. I’ve had over 120 hours of formal fire arms training and benefitted greatly from it.
95% of places in the United States require concealed carry permits, which also covers in vehicle transit because most laws for transporting without a license requires you to jump through hoops, not just throw the gun in the back seat or glove box.
I legit laughed at this. 1. There’s not really people doing this. We just so happen to have had a case about it but it’s not like that all the time. 2. For someone who is as smart as yourself I’m very surprised you even use the terminology “assault rifle”. 3. I love how long gun carry is ok as long as it doesn’t look scary.
Australia doesn’t have a gun culture. You can’t possibly expect me to be an expert when I live in a society that not only has no gun culture… But a society that abhors the concept of firearm ownership
I’m an outlier in the regard that I don’t actually mind the concept of an armed population.
I lived in the USA, and even then I didn’t like guns (though shot quite a few of them ). In the end what turned me around was looking at firearm homicide statistics in other countries that allow the permitless possession of hunting rifles, single shot pistols or break action shotguns vs firearm homicide rates in unreasonably strict countries like Australia.
This was the differentiation I was making when I said “assault rifle”. A bolt action hunting rifle with a low magazine capacity… Sure… Make that permitless. A Ruger mini-14? I’m not comfortable with the prospect of allowing Joe to waltz into a store and buy that. You have single shot, bolt action hunting rifles (that don’t chamber a massive round capable of killing an elephant), you’ve got break action shotguns… Relatively low magazine capacity hunting rifles etc. However I’ll rephrase my terminology to “long arms”.
I don’t care about the way a gun looks, I care about how much damage a firearm can inflict. You’ve got some pretty scary looking .22LR assault rifles. As specified “looking scary” doesn’t mean anything to me.
When I say assault rifle, I refer to high capacity, relatively high calibre assault rifles. I wouldn’t care nearly as much if someone was carrying a break action shotgun in public. It’s going to be far harder to pull off a mass shooting with that… It’s going to be relatively difficult to shoot more than one or two people with that if there’s a crowd.
Pistols are the prime culprit of firearm homicide in the US, however guns like the ruger mini-14 enable one with the ability to mow down a whole lot more people relative to most pistols.
But I don’t know a whole lot about guns… If I’m wrong, educate me…