(11-04-2021, 05:32 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's so unusual to find myself agreeing with the "rightwing" side of an issue. This never happens...
Nah, you're good. This really isn't a right vs. left wing issue, although the reasons for the charges certainly are. This is about the foundations of our criminal justice system and how it is supposed to operate. That's why it's important to note that if Rittenhouse was the most left wing, hippity-hoppity abolish private property, Antifa, pick your ethnicity of choice for him, activist on the planet my opinion on this incident would be unchanged in any way, shape or form.
So you're only agreeing with the side that's actually interpreting the law and legal system correctly. Take solace in that.
(11-04-2021, 05:32 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's so unusual to find myself agreeing with the "rightwing" side of an issue. This never happens...
Eh you're not the only one. But as SSF said, this isn't really right vs left; this is law and feeling. I try to stay on the logic side of things and this one is pretty weighted towards 'kid was in a place he shouldn't have been, but didn't break any laws'.
(11-04-2021, 05:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's not. You're not grasping the most basic point here, that if self defense is readily apparent, as it is in this case, then no charges should be filed.
Incorrect, the law says murdering someone is illegal. Killing someone in self defense is 100% legal.
The underlined could literally not be more incorrect if you had said 1+1=6. That is absolutely not how our system works, or has ever worked.
You spelled "got chased and physically assaulted" wrong.
I'm going to end this back and forth here. You're a good dude, but you literally aren't grasping some of the most fundamental aspects of our criminal justice system. Without that basic level understanding there is no room for this discussion to progress.
You can say I'm wrong all you want. Yet it's what has happened. So maybe that is why I am confused.
Let's pretend for a second. That the Marine who recently made headlines for disarming a guy in Arizona ended up shot and killed. Guy walking around in open carry Arizona with his weapon and the Marine grabs for his gun, guy shoots him dead. Self defense right? He was grabbing for his gun. That gives him a right to kill him no? No trial no charges no nothing. Video evidence clearly shows the guy going for his gun.
(11-04-2021, 05:32 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's so unusual to find myself agreeing with the "rightwing" side of an issue. This never happens...
You're confused because of the way right and left are defined in modern American politics. It would blow your mind to realize that gun control is a conservative policy when viewed through the lens of the original and modern dilemmas of politics. Gun control promotes inequality, oppressive governments, and is quite frankly anti-democratic. The ability for the state to strip you of your rights for criminal activity is also a conservative position, which has been moved away from conservatism through ideas like jury trials, innocent until proven guilty, etc.
Not even joking, the ability for someone to defend themselves from others using a firearm like Rittenhouse did is a progressive ideal. But because the majority of Americans don't actually hold a political ideology and instead vote partisan while only forming ad hoc opinions about policy positions we have the completely ****** up view of where these things lie on the spectrum. But this is something I rail on about every once in a while and everyone ignores it or forgets about it until something like this comes up.
I'm a social democrat, coming pretty damn close to democratic socialist these days. This means I'm more leftist than either of our two political parties and, quite frankly, my positions go further left than Bernie or "the Squad." I am what Republicans think the Democratic party is being guided by even though they are center-right, centrist on a good day. I'm a big fan of Karl Marx and John Brown (but not those Soviet ***** that were just authoritarians using the work of Marx to justify their own brand of oppression). My pistol case has a sticker on it that says "this machine makes folk music" and this one is on the other side of it:
All of this is to say, don't confuse the argument over gun rights, the right to self-defense, or a distrust of our criminal justice system into being a right and left disagreement. Both sides have people that will pay lip service to the idea. The left will be quick to think a person of color is being railroaded but won't think the same in a situation like Rittenhouse, and vice versa for some folks on the right (you know, the types with a "no step on snek" sticker next to a think blue line flag). There is no ideological consistency for those folks, but there are people on both sides that are very much onto the same ideas.
And before anyone gets the wrong idea. I'm not anti-police, I'm not bashing SSF. My position is that the system is ****** up. There are good cops and bad cops, just like in every profession, and most of them are just out there trying to do their best for the community. I have a problem with the justice system and the way it interacts with the citizenry. I have a problem with the way our police are trained in some places to consider the citizens they have sworn to protect and serve as enemy combatants. I have a problem with the systems...and some of the people because they suck, but that's on an individual basis and not a blanket statement.
I don't know why I got to wordy, tonight.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-04-2021, 07:20 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: You can say I'm wrong all you want. Yet it's what has happened. So maybe that is why I am confused.
I think you're confused because you're conflating legal activities with illegal ones.
Quote:Let's pretend for a second. That the Marine who recently made headlines for disarming a guy in Arizona ended up shot and killed. Guy walking around in open carry Arizona with his weapon and the Marine grabs for his gun, guy shoots him dead. Self defense right? He was grabbing for his gun. That gives him a right to kill him no? No trial no charges no nothing. Video evidence clearly shows the guy going for his gun.
Sure, let's discuss and compare. Focusing on the incident you just brought up, and using the "reasonable person" standard which is a bedrock of our criminal justice system. The two people in question entering the gas station did so with masks on and removing concealed handguns from their person. Would a reasonable person assume they are there to commit a robbery? If the same two guys walked in open carrying, but not brandishing, in a state that allows for open carry would the same reasonable person assume they are there to rob the store? For anyone not familiar with this particular situation here's the video.
I'll leave it to you all to discern the very marked differences between this incident and the Rittenhouse occurrence.
(11-03-2021, 06:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill, I have a question for you that I didn't want lost in the sauce. You raised the assertion that Rittenhouse was responsible for the verbal altercation with Rosenbaum that led to Rosenbaum chasing and attacking him. Do you think that a verbal altercation is sufficient provocation to physically attack someone? If so, could you provide us with examples of words or statements that would justify physically assaulting someone?
(11-04-2021, 08:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're confused because you're conflating legal activities with illegal ones.
Sure, let's discuss and compare. Focusing on the incident you just brought up, and using the "reasonable person" standard which is a bedrock of our criminal justice system. The two people in question entering the gas station did so with masks on and removing concealed handguns from their person. Would a reasonable person assume they are there to commit a robbery? If the same two guys walked in open carrying, but not brandishing, in a state that allows for open carry would the same reasonable person assume they are there to rob the store? For anyone not familiar with this particular situation here's the video.
I'll leave it to you all to discern the very marked differences between this incident and the Rittenhouse occurrence.
So the guy was up in there breaking the law. Got attacked and killed his attacker. Does he get charged with murder?
(11-04-2021, 07:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're confused because of the way right and left are defined in modern American politics. It would blow your mind to realize that gun control is a conservative policy when viewed through the lens of the original and modern dilemmas of politics. Gun control promotes inequality, oppressive governments, and is quite frankly anti-democratic. The ability for the state to strip you of your rights for criminal activity is also a conservative position, which has been moved away from conservatism through ideas like jury trials, innocent until proven guilty, etc.
Not even joking, the ability for someone to defend themselves from others using a firearm like Rittenhouse did is a progressive ideal. But because the majority of Americans don't actually hold a political ideology and instead vote partisan while only forming ad hoc opinions about policy positions we have the completely ****** up view of where these things lie on the spectrum. But this is something I rail on about every once in a while and everyone ignores it or forgets about it until something like this comes up.
I'm a social democrat, coming pretty damn close to democratic socialist these days. This means I'm more leftist than either of our two political parties and, quite frankly, my positions go further left than Bernie or "the Squad." I am what Republicans think the Democratic party is being guided by even though they are center-right, centrist on a good day. I'm a big fan of Karl Marx and John Brown (but not those Soviet ***** that were just authoritarians using the work of Marx to justify their own brand of oppression). My pistol case has a sticker on it that says "this machine makes folk music" and this one is on the other side of it:
All of this is to say, don't confuse the argument over gun rights, the right to self-defense, or a distrust of our criminal justice system into being a right and left disagreement. Both sides have people that will pay lip service to the idea. The left will be quick to think a person of color is being railroaded but won't think the same in a situation like Rittenhouse, and vice versa for some folks on the right (you know, the types with a "no step on snek" sticker next to a think blue line flag). There is no ideological consistency for those folks, but there are people on both sides that are very much onto the same ideas.
And before anyone gets the wrong idea. I'm not anti-police, I'm not bashing SSF. My position is that the system is ****** up. There are good cops and bad cops, just like in every profession, and most of them are just out there trying to do their best for the community. I have a problem with the justice system and the way it interacts with the citizenry. I have a problem with the way our police are trained in some places to consider the citizens they have sworn to protect and serve as enemy combatants. I have a problem with the systems...and some of the people because they suck, but that's on an individual basis and not a blanket statement.
I don't know why I got to wordy, tonight.
Wordy or not, you make your points effectively. You and I are very similar ideologically. Somewhere on the Pinko scale (kidding. I also call myself a social democrat nearing democratic socialism). Especially in regards to, for lack of a better term, "Tankies." Very bad representatives for the left.
My original comment was mostly in jest. I realize this isn't actually a left vs right topic, which is why I used quotation marks, but it definitely plays out as a left vs right topic because so many people on both sides believe in "teams" rather than ideas and policies.
I'd like to believe that I hear and evaluate policies, ideas and laws based on their merits rather than based on who suggested them. I bet most people would say the same thing about themselves, but I think this is a pretty poignant example to the contrary.
Tribalism is honestly the most annoying part of politics in America today. If this happened the opposite way and a left winger brought a gun to a protest, got into a physical altercation (that he purportedly did not start) and killed the other person, I don't think the argument would have played out the way it has so far.
SSF and BigPapaKain, I agree with both of you as well. I just quoted Belsnickel because his response was the longest :)
(11-04-2021, 07:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're confused because of the way right and left are defined in modern American politics. It would blow your mind to realize that gun control is a conservative policy when viewed through the lens of the original and modern dilemmas of politics. Gun control promotes inequality, oppressive governments, and is quite frankly anti-democratic. The ability for the state to strip you of your rights for criminal activity is also a conservative position, which has been moved away from conservatism through ideas like jury trials, innocent until proven guilty, etc.
Not even joking, the ability for someone to defend themselves from others using a firearm like Rittenhouse did is a progressive ideal. But because the majority of Americans don't actually hold a political ideology and instead vote partisan while only forming ad hoc opinions about policy positions we have the completely ****** up view of where these things lie on the spectrum. But this is something I rail on about every once in a while and everyone ignores it or forgets about it until something like this comes up.
I'm a social democrat, coming pretty damn close to democratic socialist these days. This means I'm more leftist than either of our two political parties and, quite frankly, my positions go further left than Bernie or "the Squad." I am what Republicans think the Democratic party is being guided by even though they are center-right, centrist on a good day. I'm a big fan of Karl Marx and John Brown (but not those Soviet ***** that were just authoritarians using the work of Marx to justify their own brand of oppression). My pistol case has a sticker on it that says "this machine makes folk music" and this one is on the other side of it:
All of this is to say, don't confuse the argument over gun rights, the right to self-defense, or a distrust of our criminal justice system into being a right and left disagreement. Both sides have people that will pay lip service to the idea. The left will be quick to think a person of color is being railroaded but won't think the same in a situation like Rittenhouse, and vice versa for some folks on the right (you know, the types with a "no step on snek" sticker next to a think blue line flag). There is no ideological consistency for those folks, but there are people on both sides that are very much onto the same ideas.
And before anyone gets the wrong idea. I'm not anti-police, I'm not bashing SSF. My position is that the system is ****** up. There are good cops and bad cops, just like in every profession, and most of them are just out there trying to do their best for the community. I have a problem with the justice system and the way it interacts with the citizenry. I have a problem with the way our police are trained in some places to consider the citizens they have sworn to protect and serve as enemy combatants. I have a problem with the systems...and some of the people because they suck, but that's on an individual basis and not a blanket statement.
I don't know why I got to wordy, tonight.
If I could rep this post a million times, I would.
(11-04-2021, 11:19 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Tribalism is honestly the most annoying part of politics in America today. If this happened the opposite way and a left winger brought a gun to a protest, got into a physical altercation (that he purportedly did not start) and killed the other person, I don't think the argument would have played out the way it has so far.
You are very likely right about that. Police don't hand out water and "thank yous" to left-wing protesters, as they sometimes do to armed, right wing militias.
(11-05-2021, 11:34 AM)Dill Wrote: Where u been, Cracky? We miss you.
Thanks man! I read the board every day, just ain't got much to say. Quit drinking almost a year ago (November 13th is my year sober date). Pretty much just eat a bunch of edibles (I credit this with quitting drinking) and play my guitar lol. Life's good. Thanks for asking, man. It's good to see there are still veteran posters still here.
(11-04-2021, 07:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Gun control promotes inequality, oppressive governments, and is quite frankly anti-democratic.
I seee this is a widely popular post, still I have to disagree with this particular take. Gun control can be used in that manner like many policies can, but it does not automatically lead to these outcomes or even promotes them.
Eg. I live in a country with gun control measures and I don't feel that it makes the country illiberal, unequal, oppressive or undemocratic in any way.
(11-05-2021, 01:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: I seee this is a widely popular post, still I have to disagree with this particular take. Gun control can be used in that manner like many policies can, but it does not automatically lead to these outcomes or even promotes them.
Eg. I live in a country with gun control measures and I don't feel that it makes the country illiberal, unequal, oppressive or undemocratic in any way.
I think his point was that it does so in this country, in which private firearm ownership is largely legal. Gun control laws frequently include large taxes on guns and ammunition, which makes ownership cost prohibitive for poorer people. Or, and take New York City for an example as their case was just heard in SCOTUS, the issuing of concealed carry permits, which also often involve a significantly cost, is largely restricted to the wealthy and powerful. IN NYC it's virtually impossible to get a CCW unless you're a judge or a celebrity. For example, Howard Stern has a CCW and the man never leaves his house/apartment. He also has private security. How is his need greater than that of a shop owner who works in a bad neighborhood and wants to take his weekly earnings to the bank? Or and elderly person who works or lives in a high crime area?
Having lived in Europe I am very familiar with European bewilderment about our ownership of firearms. But firearms ownership is deeply rooted in American culture. I strongly believe that the government should not have a monopoly on the means of self defense. All freedoms, especially those in the area of firearms ownership, will be abused by some. But for me, Bel and many others a potentially dangerous freedom is always preferable to autocratic security.
(11-04-2021, 11:19 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So the guy was up in there breaking the law. Got attacked and killed his attacker. Does he get charged with murder?
(11-05-2021, 12:07 PM)Dill Wrote: You are very likely right about that. Police don't hand out water and "thank yous" to left-wing protesters, as they sometimes do to armed, right wing militias.
Probably because they're too busy dodging rocks, bottles, fireworks and bags of urine thrown by left wing protestors chanting "F*&k 12", "All cops are bastards", "F*&k the police", while shining laser pointers into the eyes of police.
(11-05-2021, 01:04 PM)hollodero Wrote: I seee this is a widely popular post, still I have to disagree with this particular take. Gun control can be used in that manner like many policies can, but it does not automatically lead to these outcomes or even promotes them.
Eg. I live in a country with gun control measures and I don't feel that it makes the country illiberal, unequal, oppressive or undemocratic in any way.
(11-05-2021, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think his point was that it does so in this country, in which private firearm ownership is largely legal. Gun control laws frequently include large taxes on guns and ammunition, which makes ownership cost prohibitive for poorer people. Or, and take New York City for an example as their case was just heard in SCOTUS, the issuing of concealed carry permits, which also often involve a significantly cost, is largely restricted to the wealthy and powerful. IN NYC it's virtually impossible to get a CCW unless you're a judge or a celebrity. For example, Howard Stern has a CCW and the man never leaves his house/apartment. He also has private security. How is his need greater than that of a shop owner who works in a bad neighborhood and wants to take his weekly earnings to the bank? Or and elderly person who works or lives in a high crime area?
Having lived in Europe I am very familiar with European bewilderment about our ownership of firearms. But firearms ownership is deeply rooted in American culture. I strongly believe that the government should not have a monopoly on the means of self defense. All freedoms, especially those in the area of firearms ownership, will be abused by some. But for me, Bel and many others a potentially dangerous freedom is always preferable to autocratic security.
Eh, yes and no. While I would absolutely say that gun control measures in this country promote inequity in huge ways, I would say that even with European models it is the case. First, any policy which restricts gun ownership in the hands of the private citizens creates a power imbalance between the people and the state. Since a democratic society is one in which the people are the state, this should never be the case. Second, and this is the case especially in the US but can be seen in other places, when special permits or taxes are required it creates inequality based on socioeconomic status which then also generates a racial inequality. There is a reason gun control was first enacted in California when the Black Panthers started exercising their rights.
Also, Austrian laws on firearm ownership are pretty good for Europe. As a Glock fanboy, I hope it stays that way.
Now, while I agree with the general premise that these policies don't necessarily lead to, say, an oppressive regime, there is a reason that gun control is a policy enacted on the people in preparation for oppression. An armed citizenry has always been seen as an important component of a democratic society. In the days before firearms, peasants weren't allowed to have the tools of war while the ruling class was. The framers of our government saw this in history and it is one of the reasons that the 2A was written in to the Bill of Rights. One only has to read the errata surrounding the document to understand this.
So there is all of this history that supports gun control being something a government implements to keep a thumb on their citizens, or at least a portion of them. What there isn't a big history of, though, is empirical evidence that these gun control measures improve public safety. Public safety is the guise under which these policies are enacted. However, there is a dearth of evidence that points to their effectiveness. This can be for several reasons. One being that they don't help public safety, another being that there has been a lack of research overall. This is why I have such a huge problem with gun control measures. Limiting our civil liberties should only be done when there is strong evidence to support that doing so would have a positive result. We don't have that. What we do have, though, is that the strongest correlating factor to violence everywhere, globally, is socioeconomic inequality. So maybe instead of trying to limit our civil liberties in a way that may or may not reduce violence, why don't we actually look at the strongest indicator of violence in the world and try to fix our wage and wealth gaps?
Sorry.
/rant
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(11-05-2021, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think his point was that it does so in this country, in which private firearm ownership is largely legal. Gun control laws frequently include large taxes on guns and ammunition, which makes ownership cost prohibitive for poorer people. Or, and take New York City for an example as their case was just heard in SCOTUS, the issuing of concealed carry permits, which also often involve a significantly cost, is largely restricted to the wealthy and powerful. IN NYC it's virtually impossible to get a CCW unless you're a judge or a celebrity. For example, Howard Stern has a CCW and the man never leaves his house/apartment. He also has private security. How is his need greater than that of a shop owner who works in a bad neighborhood and wants to take his weekly earnings to the bank? Or and elderly person who works or lives in a high crime area?
OK that point makes sense to me. I seemed to spot a generalization in Bel's post though that I don't think is entirely correct.
Of course, one solution would be to exempt poorer people with high risks, like your shopowner and the like, from such expensive measures and taxes, or poor people in general. Mr. Stern, however, could very well pay up to keep him and his entourage armed.
For sure, my idea of gun control is not making guns more expensive, but to restrict the right to carry one around in the first place.
(11-05-2021, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Having lived in Europe I am very familiar with European bewilderment about our ownership of firearms. But firearms ownership is deeply rooted in American culture. I strongly believe that the government should not have a monopoly on the means of self defense. All freedoms, especially those in the area of firearms ownership, will be abused by some. But for me, Bel and many others a potentially dangerous freedom is always preferable to autocratic security.
I understand that, and normally I know better than to even touch this subject. From my experience though, arms in the populace do not really make the difference between freedom and autocracy (maybe if the populace wants freedom for everyone, which very often is not the case). In a sense, gun control can also make people more free, for example free to go outside (or participate in a protest) without fear of getting shot. Which, by the way, is my probably very European take on this Rittenhouse issue. Legally, imho you have all the good arguments in that case. In the end, maybe all tradegy could have been avoided though if the right to carry guns freely and everywhere one pleases was restricted. No one would have fired a shot when Rittenhouse fled, he would not have been threatened by folks with firearms, and it would not have been such a fatal idea to participate in a counter-protest in the first place.
We here have protests and counter-protests about all kinds of issues all the time, and it never turns violent. If I wanted to attend one, I would not have to fear for my life. That's pleasant and I think that makes us more free, not less.
(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Eh, yes and no. While I would absolutely say that gun control measures in this country promote inequity in huge ways, I would say that even with European models it is the case. First, any policy which restricts gun ownership in the hands of the private citizens creates a power imbalance between the people and the state. Since a democratic society is one in which the people are the state, this should never be the case.
But police always has the right to use force and no democratic system questions this in a way that gives the citizens the right to resist or fire back. Every society knows a system of enforcement that relies on an armed force (aka police) that can overcome resistance to enforce the law. Citizens in a democratic society don't have the right to be on equal footing with the police, armed-wise or resistance-wise.
(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Second, and this is the case especially in the US but can be seen in other places, when special permits or taxes are required it creates inequality based on socioeconomic status which then also generates a racial inequality. There is a reason gun control was first enacted in California when the Black Panthers started exercising their rights.
Which is why the main idea are general restrictions and not expensive permits. I'm also for permits, of course, because I feel society is well served if everyone with a deadly weapon knows the basics of handling them properly and isn't a nutcase.
(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Also, Austrian laws on firearm ownership are pretty good for Europe. As a Glock fanboy, I hope it stays that way.
You might know more about that than me.
Gaston Glock is a bit of an a-hole, however, but I hear his products are widely popular.
(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: An armed citizenry has always been seen as an important component of a democratic society. In the days before firearms, peasants weren't allowed to have the tools of war while the ruling class was. The framers of our government saw this in history and it is one of the reasons that the 2A was written in to the Bill of Rights. One only has to read the errata surrounding the document to understand this.
I doubt that 18th century logic still applies nowadays without modifications. Also, I don't think that an armed populace is an important part of a democratic society in the same sense eg. freedom of speech or free and fair elections are.
Our polulace is not armed and no one takes advantage of that by enforcing his will with his weaponry. Except for the state and the police to enforce the law, but that is still true for the US as well.
(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What there isn't a big history of, though, is empirical evidence that these gun control measures improve public safety. Public safety is the guise under which these policies are enacted. However, there is a dearth of evidence that points to their effectiveness.
So how comes that fatal gun violence incidents in the US are about four times higher than in France (as the European champion in that regard)? France has plenty of racial tensions etc. as well, yet a citizen is four times less likely to fall victim to gun violence. And I'm certain there are many things that play into that, but I don't think it's too far fetched to see gun restrictions as one reason amongst many. It's probably hard to proof without doubt, but I take it as a strong indicator.
(11-05-2021, 01:43 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What we do have, though, is that the strongest correlating factor to violence everywhere, globally, is socioeconomic inequality. So maybe instead of trying to limit our civil liberties in a way that may or may not reduce violence, why don't we actually look at the strongest indicator of violence in the world and try to fix our wage and wealth gaps?
I don't see these things as mutually exclusive. Society should be able to attend to both issues.
(11-05-2021, 01:47 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK that point makes sense to me. I seemed to spot a generalization in Bel's post though that I don't think is entirely correct.
Of course, one solution would be to exempt poorer people with high risks, like your shopowner and the like, from such expensive measures and taxes, or poor people in general. Mr. Stern, however, could very well pay up to keep him and his entourage armed.
For sure, my idea of gun control is not making guns more expensive, but to restrict the right to carry one around in the first place.
For the anti-gun types both are used. One of my biggest issues with anti-gun laws is that, especially in more liberal areas, the laws already on the books are not enforced. For example, in CA using a gun during the commission of a crime is an enhancement to that crime, it's an add on that adds more confinement time, based on the, IMO sound, logic that the use of a gun during an offense significantly raises the danger for all involved. Our bag of crap DA has flat out stated the only enhancement he will ever use is the hate crime enhancement, and only that after he got a lot of heat from "progressives". And believe me, this is the tip of the iceberg in this regard. So, how do you justify putting more restrictions on law abiding citizens when you don't even use the penal code to punish the criminal use of firearms?
The vast majority of homicides in this country involve gang violence or are committed by other types of "career criminals" Those types are certainly driving the current enormous spike in homicides in this country, yet anti-gun efforts are almost exclusively focused on further restrictions of law abiding citizens. This tells you all you need to know about their cause. They're not looking for public safety, they're looking to restrict firearms ownership in general. A law abiding citizen is not going to illegally kill anyone with their guns, restrictions on them do nothing to enhance public safety. The only exception that comes to mind are safe storage laws, but that's more about kids and adolescents gaining access to the firearm, not the owner themselves.
Quote:I understand that, and normally I know better than to even touch this subject. From my experience though, arms in the populace do not really make the difference between freedom and autocracy (maybe if the populace wants freedom for everyone, which very often is not the case). In a sense, gun control can also make people more free, for example free to go outside (or participate in a protest) without fear of getting shot. Which, by the way, is my probably very European take on this Rittenhouse issue. Legally, imho you have all the good arguments in that case. In the end, maybe all tradegy could have been avoided though if the right to carry guns freely and everywhere one pleases was restricted. No one would have fired a shot when Rittenhouse fled, he would not have been threatened by folks with firearms, and it would not have been such a fatal idea to participate in a counter-protest in the first place.
We here have protests and counter-protests about all kinds of issues all the time, and it never turns violent. If I wanted to attend one, I would not have to fear for my life. That's pleasant and I think that makes us more free, not less.
It's all good, I enjoy the perspective of people outside the country on this issue. It also give us both a chance to learn from the other. I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll leave it at that
![[Image: il_794xN.2439801562_lwl2.jpg]](https://i.etsystatic.com/16098747/r/il/8eb6ce/2439801562/il_794xN.2439801562_lwl2.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
