You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Whilst America's relationship with guns may be 'complex' (as a few have noted) the isn't much complexity with Bobert,Taylor Green and Crawthorn.
Given that these individuals amassed enough votes to get into Congress, the fact that most American gun owner's might not be bat shit crazy doesn't fill me with too much confidence.
The fetishization and accumulation of military grade equipment is a relatively new thing and a thing enabled by Republicans with legislation they have passed.
I dont understand what The banning of assault weapons and open carry has to do with responsible gun owners using them for sport or personal protection? Conflating the two things is NRA territory to me.
A good outcome. Good decision.
The rights to bear arms (America btw) should Not be negotiable or even discussed.
A good outcome. Good decision.
The rights to bear arms (America btw) should Not be negotiable or even discussed.
the fact that most American gun owner’s might not be bat shit crazy doesn’t fill me with too much confidence.
They need their guns because others have guns and they are afraid of those others with guns. Classic vicious circle.
Why not chewkw ? Afraid they might decide that racism and murder are wrong ?
An informative read on this verdict - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rittenhouse-prosecution-faced-difficult-task-proving-negative-2021-11-19/
More on the 'stand your ground' rule - https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/17/wisconsin-self-defense-law-rittenhouse-522814
As discussed in the first link there isn't this rule in Wisconsin, which I didn't understand as it seems it would weaken his defence. But the Politico article explains why there effectively is a very similar rule on using lethal force in self defence, in a situation that he was in or could at least reasonably claim he was in (plenty of video evidence backing that up, it seems).
The way this has been presented as emboldening vigilantes and white power supporting itself is bit that made me want to read more about why he went free. Since (crazily, and the route of why this is all so fked up?) he was there with an assault rifle legally it seems to be about self-defence law and it's quite easy to see how he was acquitted of murder by a jury on that basis.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/states-own-witnesses-laid-path-rittenhouse-acquittal-2021-11-19/
Also of interest perhaps - how the witnesses for the prosecution actually backed up his claim of self-defence.
They need their guns because others have guns and they are afraid of those others with guns. Classic vicious circle.
This is the crazy thing. He can claim self defence, but surely the people he killed were acting in self defence too, because they were afraid of the kid with the assault rifle. Or do self-defence rules only apply to white right-wingers? What level of aggression is permitted against someone with an assault rifle you perceive to be a threat? Are you only allowed to view him as a threat once he actually points the gun at people? Or only when he starts shooting?
What a stupid situation all round.
What a stupid situation all round.
Even more crazily, I think all the Americans I've ever met think so as well.
"What level of aggression is permitted against someone with an assault rifle you perceive to be a threat?"
Needs a 'Charlie Says' style government public information film.
Thanks @jameso, my initial reaction was "what were the jury thinking" but given the law they appear to have returned the right verdict.
The shooter is a git, the jury were given a difficult job to do.
If open carry is allowed, how do you stop it being used to inflame a situation? Drafting a law that catches people who drive to a place of potential conflict to escalate conflict sounds hard - needs to be like the "going equipped for burglary" law where the intent is what needs to be shown. A builder would have a legitimate reason to carry a crowbar, a locksmith would have a legitimate right to carry lock picks but someone (including the builder and the locksmith) hanging around at 2 in the morning by my back door without an explanation will have committed an offence.
The toxic attitude to men who aren’t seen to be ‘masculine, monsters’, etc, is not helping American society…
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/11/21/josh-hawley-madison-cawthorn-jd-vance-masculinity-523136
He can claim self defence, but surely the people he killed were acting in self defence too, because they were afraid of the kid with the assault rifle.
That's what the author of the Politico article says and the point about 'first aggressor' comes into it. It's a loop - but at the point where someone gets shot, if you were the one being chased and you're cornered or down you seem to have a pretty good defence.
Some information here as I think karma has rippen for some.
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/12/kenosha-shooting/
I can recommend one of the latest podcasts by The Economists. It covers Kenosha and 5e court case and gives a good overview of the vicious circle that exists with firearms in the US and why Self Defence is difficult to prosecute as murder.