I don't but my son does and I visit frequently. I also live in a huge country with a lower population density than the US. We manage very well without gun toting vigilantes.
I'm from the UK. Definitely looking at the case (or trying to) from a US perspective. They're absolutely mental over there with their dumbass gun laws - it wasn't unusual for people to be walking around with AK15s on that night - Kyle was just another one of them.
It's absolutely mental. If I heard someone was walking around with an assault rifle I'd assume there was an armed response unit around, not just a random bloke.
Child*
Both of these points are really bad.
Speaking as a Russian, what a weird argument.
The hyperpsychosis thread
Is this a plea for help?
Help winning people over to seeing what the evidence shows maybe
You'd think this is about Antarctica, not the United fecking States.I love guns , I own quite a few. I live in a murder capital that's currently under a state of emergency due to violence which has soldier checkpoints all around the island currently and having a personal carry as a business man is essential. I've fired an ar 15 style weapon man times. I see no reason for a civilian to own one especially as a personal carry. Yes they are not technically assault rifles and they aren't selective fire, But you can't put then in the same category as a pistol. You just can't. They are extremely deadly even in the hands of an idiot. They are a beauty to fire though, lovely weapon.
In the US, a large swath of the the country has open carry, concealed carry, or constitutional carry (ie..no permits of any type required to carry guns), which given all the mass shootings in recent years, is obviously a massive problem.
That interpretation of “at least 18 years old” is beyond ridiculous.In the US, a large swath of the the country has open carry, concealed carry, or constitutional carry (ie..no permits of any type required to carry guns), which given all the mass shootings in recent years, is obviously a massive problem.
Wisconsin is pretty much somewhere in the middle. You can walk around with long guns (which the AR-15 is) as long as its not short barreled (which Rittenhouse's wasn't). They could try to get him for carrying underage or transporting across state lines, but since the Judge has apparently removed the gun charge off the table due to ambiguity in the statute that could technically allow a 17 year old to carry a long gun in Wisconsin, that entire "he crossed state lines with an assault weapon" argument seems to have been taken off the table. The Jury could still find him guilty on some of other counts.
The gun was already in Wisconsin and he carried it back to Antioch Illinois when he handed it over to the police when he turned himself in. So would need to be Illinois or Federal, I think?In the US, a large swath of the the country has open carry, concealed carry, or constitutional carry (ie..no permits of any type required to carry guns), which given all the mass shootings in recent years, is obviously a massive problem.
Wisconsin is pretty much somewhere in the middle. You can walk around with long guns (which the AR-15 is) as long as its not short barreled (which Rittenhouse's wasn't). They could try to get him for carrying underage or transporting across state lines, but since the Judge has apparently removed the gun charge off the table due to ambiguity in the statute that could technically allow a 17 year old to carry a long gun in Wisconsin, that entire "he crossed state lines with an assault weapon" argument seems to have been taken off the table. The Jury could still find him guilty on some of other counts.
If true, Illinois authorities would need to take a look at it. Even if they did, I doubt it would be more than a misdemeanor. Any charges with meat on the bone are getting decided by the jury this week (or next).
That makes them almost nothing like the military guns though. A gun is a gun and lethal in it's own right but first of not being fully automatic is not an incredibly weak argument.
Yep
People are like this because it was a bad faith argument imo.
Which country do you live in? It's not just about density because if it's low density with vast area that's a different scenario.
This is incorrect. The difference between .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO is marginal. Most AR-15s are chambered in 5.56 NATO, including the S&W MP15 Rittenhouse was carrying.
I pretty much agree with you. I also don't own one and don't see the need to but I think some people like to use it for hunting.
From what I've read they are not marginally different.
That depends what you're reading. The difference between the rounds is the pressure generated. The NATO round generates higher pressure in the chamber and there is a slight difference in the casing. Rifles chambered for the NATO round can use both .223 and 5.56 ammunition but it's not advised to use 5.56 NATO in a rifle chambered for .223 Remington. It can be difficult for civilians to acquire 5.56 NATO rounds as a lot of the production goes to different military organizations.
I think it's the platform that people prefer. It's easy to carry, wield and customize. The calibre is a bit small for deer but you can get the same platform chambered in larger calibres more suitable for large game.
Didn't they also technically said that in their testimony?
He works in Kenosha. His dad lives in Kenosha. The gun was already in Kenosha (he didn’t transport it across the state line). His hometown in Illinois is closer to Kenosha than Manchester is to Liverpool
A shot gun takes longer to fire and doesn't have the range or accuracy of an AR style weapon. I also am not convinced that getting rid of guns stops mass shootings. If you have the urge to kill people senselessly you will find a way no matter what.
Regarding the caliber, this is a quote from the AR-15 Wikipedia article: "The AR-15 rifle usually comes chambered for either the military cartridge 5.56mmx45mm NATO or the .223 Remington". So that means that there is at least an option to have the exact same rounds used by military rifles. That is certainly not 'much weaker bullets'.
Yep, military tends to prefer the burst setting (in combat) from my understanding.
That's literally what the purpose of discussing this trial is.
The difference between the two calibers is negligible. It is one of maximum chamber pressure (the amount of explosion the chamber can handle. The bigger the boom the faster the bullet) and recent testing by the US military has found that there might not actually be any difference to speak of.
That's how it should be. Just looking at the instant in which the gun was fired and ignoring everything before that is moronic.
I'm with you on hunting as well, just speaking from what I've heard. I've never been attracted to or appealed by the AR it just looks ugly/military to me and not sporting. I know a shotgun takes longer but in close proximity it can be absolutely lethal. Even a regular hunting rifle can cause a crap ton of casualties.
This is where I disagree with you. A fully auto assault rifle is very destructive and not a minor gain.
By we, I meant a court cant give a ruling based on what a law should be but what a law is.
There was absolutely nothing bad faith about the argument. The feckwit was walking around carrying a rifle with his finger over the trigger. You said I’d made up the finger over the trigger bit - I hadn’t.
