Senate Gun Control

I think I had 2 lockdown drills in my school career. Maybe I just forgot the rest. I do agree that there should be some warning there. Tell the kids they need to take this seriously. But warn them.

 

Just the fact that you even have active shooter drills at schools, in a supposedly developed country, is insane. Insane.

I mean, I was an exchange student in the US when I was 15, but there's no way in hell I'd send my daughter there to be an exchange student. In an actual civilised European country, yes. In the US, no.

 

Eh, kids are substantially more likely to be shot and killed outside of school than in it. Something like for every 1 kid shot and killed in a school, 40 are shot and killed outside of school. Not that bad considering school accounts for roughly 1/6th of waking hours, it seems. I think one can argue they part of why school shootings get the attention they do because often the victims of school shootings are a very different demographic from other homicides.

As far as risk goes, the roads are more dangerous than the schools are. It's not that it's not an issue, but it doesn't do any good to disproportionately frame it.

 

We seriously need some gun law overhauls here. It has to be made harder to acquire weapons, especially certain types. Need some common sense, logical rules added. Too many politicians either go too far or are "scared" to get anywhere near gun regulations. I rarely hear any good proposals. The issue seems well out of the spotlight now though.

 

Also your chances of being shot are still super low. However the fact that traffic deaths and gun violence deaths are more or less equal in America is a huge a problem.

 

Yeah, it's a problem, just one that benefits from some proportionality. I don't think the fear that has surrounded either mass shootings or terrorism (not mutually exclusive) is healthy because they're both not as common as many people seem to act (though, related, I also don't think suicides should be grouped in with homicides on a general bodily autonomy basis).

 

WTF is wrong with people.

 

Rittenhouse (almost certainly spelling that wrong) is likely to walk away a free man at this point. I can already tell what will happen from here. He’ll wright a book and the right will gobble it up. A few years after that he’ll run for congress and win. I am like 90% certain he’s a free man though

 

What would be particularly telling is if he walks on even the entirely indisputable charges. There is, indeed, reasonable doubt that is going to be leveraged here for the shootings, but he had a gun he couldn't legally have when he was somewhere he shouldn't legally be. If he walks on those, then this is well in the realm beyond how it's argued in court and into a bias that is disconnected from the facts.

Which isn't to say he *should* walk on the other charges, only that those will hinge a lot more on a competent prosecution

 

I watch some of this trial earlier on the internet. The man shot in the arm was terrible witness for the prosecution. He get expose I think as untruthful to the court and to the police, was carry weapon unlawfully (conceal with no valid permit) himself and agreed that he got shot in arm because he point his loaded gun at the defendant Kyle.

 

Presumably, if unlawfully carrying a weapon makes them untruthful, then Rittenhouse will also be considered unreliable.

 

It was not that which make him untruthful. He walk back on statements he made to police. He ‘forget’ small detail of holding a gun himself when he tell police he got shot. He say he was not chasing the defendant down the road (when he was on video doing exactly this) etc I do not care what happen to this Kyle Rittenhouse, but the witness did him a favour it appear to me.

 

Right now I expect rittenhouse to walk. Expect the worse so you won’t be so devastate by the American justice system

 

This is divisive case and seem to polarise opinion depend on political alignment. But aside from these, and the question of whether defendant should have been at the town, the video evidence show that in each time, he was running away from crowd of people chasing him when he fire, one of who was seen arm with a gun himself. Base on the circumstance of each shoot, I think he might have at least partial defence.

 

There does not appear to be any evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse intended to murder anybody. By this logic, Gaige Grosskreutz, the man who arm get shot, also brought a loaded and unlawfully carried firearm to a protest with the intent to murder people. Both will argue they firearm were for their own protection. Legal expert have argued that Rittenhouse motive for being in Kenosha will be largely irrelevants, and what will be relevant will be the immediate event leading up to each shooting. His presence there does not preclude him from acting in lawful self-defense at each of the three incident, which is what the trial will try to determine.

 

Remington moving headquarters from NY to Georgia.

 

What is likely to see him acquit if anything in a case where self-defense is the offered legal defense, is the jury agreeing that belief in his own imminent danger and action were reasonable under the circumstances. The video and witness evidence seems to suggest that they might be.

 

The Supreme Court is about to thrust it back into the spotlight with the New York City concealed-permit case. Scuttlebutt is the conservative supermajority will greatly weaken the ability of cities and states to pass reasonable gun laws. This will give 'weak' politicians even more cover to do nothing.

Why did he drive across state lines with a gun? You claim it's impossible to prove intent, but I disagree. He didn't show up with a gas grill, he brought a firearm. What possible purpose did he have if not to shoot people? The town he was in had a police department, no? Who gave him the authority to self-deputize and start patrolling the streets, shooting at will? What made him think he had the right to do that?

Your argument is akin to a rapist claiming "If she hadn't worn a short skirt...!" as a defense. Intent does not require telepathy or spoken words to be divined by a jury. I think what he had in mind was fairly clear by the evidence presented-to-date.

 

As I say above. Gaige Grosskreutz, the man who got arm shot, also admit in court that the loaded gun he took to the protest, he did not have a lawful permit for. His conceal carry permit had expired and he admit that he carry it conceal in the back of his trousers. So what reason did he have to take the gun to the protest if not to shoot people? It seems that people who carry gun will always claim it is for their personal protection.

And you misrepresent the evidence, which clearly show that he did not shoot at will. He shot Rosenbaum as he was pursue across the parking lot by crowd, as Rosenbaum follow him round the car and try to grab his rifle (accord to witness testify) And the video evidence show that he was chase again by crowd down the road and he fire when knocked to the ground, kick (the court are calling the unidentify man who kick him "Jump kick man") and beaten and approach by a man (Grosskreutz) with a gun. "Shoot at will" is simply not what video evidence shows at all.

I have not made any such argument, nor an allegory of this.

 

He meant your argument compares to that.

 

How? I have not claim that it is impossible to prove intent which is where that analogy stem from.

 

You're splitting hairs. Your statement implies that intent cannot be divined without solid proof, when in fact the legal standard is far less.

You don't need a body to prove a murder happened. Mr. Rittenhouse doesn't need to have made a public announcement that he intended to shoot BLM protestors for him to have the intent to kill. Burden of proof is on the prosecutors, so we'll see what the jury says.