Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

200sols · 20 Nov 2021 at 10:59

Dis86 said:
Somewhat confused by Bidens very ambiguous comments. What exactly is he dismayed and angry about? That two people were legally killed or that an innocent man was tried on trumped up charges?

That his presidency is going down the toilet?

PlacidCasual · 20 Nov 2021 at 11:01

deuse said:
Never knew that channel was a leftie one.
But there again I don't watch normal tv

Channel 4 news is non party political obviously but has, by UK standards at least, a fairly strong left liberal worldview. It is good quality news but for the last 20 years there has been an unmistakeable slant.

On the Channel 4 Rittenhouse piece posted, it's not that bad. We have a very different view of guns in this country and I think it probably reflects a fairly mainstream view. One of the most interesting things watching the comments in this thread is the acknowldegment or willing ignorance of the fact that most of us are unfamilair to the alien culture especially around guns that exists in the US. I can look at the story and have an opinion based on the information shared but it is an utterly strange cultural argument that is going on.

Heavens be praised I don't live in the US, and may we pleased be spared being dragged into their culture wars any further than we have.

[FnG]magnolia · 20 Nov 2021 at 11:16

Dis86 said:
or that an innocent man was tried on trumped up charges?

8.5/10 word play ^w^

C Kent · 20 Nov 2021 at 11:20

PlacidCasual said:
Channel 4 news is non party political obviously but has, by UK standards at least, a fairly strong left liberal worldview. It is good quality news but for the last 20 years there has been an unmistakeable slant.

On the Channel 4 Rittenhouse piece posted, it's not that bad. We have a very different view of guns in this country and I think it probably reflects a fairly mainstream view. One of the most interesting things watching the comments in this thread is the acknowldegment or willing ignorance of the fact that most of us are unfamilair to the alien culture especially around guns that exists in the US. I can look at the story and have an opinion based on the information shared but it is an utterly strange cultural argument that is going on.

Heavens be praised I don't live in the US, and may we pleased be spared being dragged into their culture wars any further than we have.

See for me, whilst the reporting was bad it was also designed to be as inflammatory as possible. Race angle this, race angle that, 1 black juror (in a city where black people only make up 10% of the population I might add..)

The media stopped reporting the news factually a long time ago and now are there to just primarily drive outrage to their social media sites. It's dangerous.

Longbow · 20 Nov 2021 at 11:42

tom_nieto said:
Is he still allowed to possess a firearm?

Yes, Rittenhouse is not a felon, and now that he's 18 he can buy his own rifle.

tom_nieto · 20 Nov 2021 at 11:48

Longbow said:
Yes, Rittenhouse is not a felon, and now that he's 18 he can buy his own rifle.

If someone runs someone over and kills them in the US are they stopped from driving for a period of time?

This is not meant to be personal to you @Longbow I’m just baffled by the US law.

JBuk · 20 Nov 2021 at 11:54

tom_nieto said:
If someone runs someone over and kills them in the US are they stopped from driving for a period of time?

This is not meant to be personal to you @Longbow I’m just baffled by the US law.

if they are convicted then possibly would receive a driving ban , Kyle wasn’t convicted though so , although saying that because various states may require permits to buy or carry guns so he may be refused ?

Longbow · 20 Nov 2021 at 11:55

tom_nieto said:
If someone runs someone over and kills them in the US are they stopped from driving for a period of time?

This is not meant to be personal to you @Longbow I’m just baffled by the US law.

Well a court might suspend or revoke their license.

But in Kyle's case, he legally defended himself, which is why he's still allowed to own firearms. If he was found guilty he would not be allowed to possess firearms upon his release.

Dis86 · 20 Nov 2021 at 11:59

[FnG]magnolia said:
8.5/10 word play ^w^

I debated whether or not to capitalise it. Capitolise? Nah, too far.

dirtychinchilla · 20 Nov 2021 at 12:40

deuse said:
Hate to tell you this.
But the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle.

The point still stands. No one in a civilised society should be allowed to buy a gun outside of a competition shooting and farming, particularly not just to carry around in the street.

200sols said:
It's self defence. It isnt just accepted to walk down the street and shoot anybody you like. It's not hard to grasp really although many seem to struggle with it.

Yes, from a person with a gun.

In a society without guns, would either of you advocate carrying a firearm? That was the point I was trying to make.

Twinz · 20 Nov 2021 at 12:56

dirtychinchilla said:
Yes, from a person with a gun.

Should he have waited until they incapacitated him with another kick to his head, another hit with the skateboard, or a shot from the gun that was pointed at him?

Sure, you could wait until your attackers take your weapon from you and *then* try to defend yourself, but it's a really bad idea.

You cannot defend yourself with a firearm *after* your attackers take it from you. One of the advantages of a firearm is that you can defend yourself before your attacker(s) get(s) close enough to reach you. The fact that he waited until they had made physical contact or pointed a gun at him shows that he was not "trigger happy."

This was self defense.

dirtychinchilla · 20 Nov 2021 at 13:02

Twinz said:
Should he have waited until they incapacitated him with another kick to his head, another hit with the skateboard, or a shot from the gun that was pointed at him?

Sure, you could wait until your attackers take your weapon from you and *then* try to defend yourself, but it's a really bad idea.

You cannot defend yourself with a firearm *after* your attackers take it from you. One of the advantages of a firearm is that you can defend yourself before your attacker(s) get(s) close enough to reach you. The fact that he waited until they had made physical contact or pointed a gun at him shows that he was not "trigger happy."

This was self defense.

I stated in my post that my point was unrelated to this case. It shouldn’t be necessary to own a gun for self defence, particularly not a semi refile. None of my post related to what you’ve said.

NoobCannon · 20 Nov 2021 at 13:22

Acrotomophilia said:

excellent

StriderX · 20 Nov 2021 at 14:36

Twinz said:
Should he have waited until they incapacitated him with another kick to his head, another hit with the skateboard, or a shot from the gun that was pointed at him?

Sure, you could wait until your attackers take your weapon from you and *then* try to defend yourself, but it's a really bad idea.

You cannot defend yourself with a firearm *after* your attackers take it from you. One of the advantages of a firearm is that you can defend yourself before your attacker(s) get(s) close enough to reach you. The fact that he waited until they had made physical contact or pointed a gun at him shows that he was not "trigger happy."

This was self defense.

Or maybe he shouldn't have been there if he didn't want to risk being kicked in the head or hit with a skateboard or shot with a gun?

This was just stupid, with most stupid added in for no reason.

Longbow · 20 Nov 2021 at 14:38

StriderX said:
Or maybe he shouldn't have been there.

And women shouldn't wear short skirts?

He was entitled to be there, so he was.

StriderX · 20 Nov 2021 at 14:44

Longbow said:
And women shouldn't wear short skirts?

Are you implying that wielding a weapon that can kill someone and willingly walking into a violent situation is the same as a woman rightly choosing what they can wear?

Longbow · 20 Nov 2021 at 14:51

StriderX said:
Are you implying that wielding a weapon that can kill someone and willingly walking into a violent situation is the same as a woman rightly choosing what they can wear?

In both cases it's victim blaming. Rittenhouse was allowed to be armed, and he was allowed to be there. Instead of blaming the aggressors... those that acted offensively by chasing and attacking Rittenhouse, you want to blame him. Just like blaming women for wearing a short skirt instead of blaming the rapist.

The fact that Rittenhouse was visibly armed is even more reason to not attack him, it's not an excuse to attack him.

C Kent · 20 Nov 2021 at 15:00

Longbow said:
In both cases it's victim blaming. Rittenhouse was allowed to be armed, and he was allowed to be there. Instead of blaming the aggressors... those that acted offensively by chasing and attacking Rittenhouse, you want to blame him. Just like blaming women for wearing a short skirt instead of blaming the rapist.

The fact that Rittenhouse was visibly armed is even more reason to not attack him, it's not an excuse to attack him.

Well said

Zatoichi.uK · 20 Nov 2021 at 15:05

I'm enjoying the meltdown on FB. As far as I see it the breakdown is:

People that support Antifa.
People that do not support Antifa.

The facts are immaterial.

In other news there were 20 people shot in Chicago last weekend.

Twinz · 20 Nov 2021 at 15:09

StriderX said:
Or maybe he shouldn't have been there if he didn't want to risk being kicked in the head or hit with a skateboard or shot with a gun?

This was just stupid, with most stupid added in for no reason.

The same can be said for people who attack an armed person.....maybe they shouldn't have done *that*.

Attacking an armed person seems like a rather stupid thing to do.