I think I agree with all of that, maybe aside from the comment on the AR-15 being banned. That gun is banned (including in parts of Canada) for political reasons. An AR-15 isn’t more lethal than, say, a Kimber Varmint rifle in the case we are talking about. What’s deadly here is .223 Remington. You can shoot unarmed civilians as effectively with bolt action if you know what you’re doing.
An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. You are confusing it with the M4 carbine. Assault rifles are weapons of war and, as such, banned almost all over the US as well.
Well, no, I couldn’t be confusing it with an M4 carbine since I don’t know what that is. But certainly fair to call out my terminology as I know not of which I speak.
However, though the following may not be an expert definition from people who know much about guns but rather a legal definition to suit the preferences of the people in their state after a mass shooting in Connecticut not long before (for “political reasons” if you like), the state of Massachusetts does include AR-15s under the heading of explicitly enumerated “assault rifles”: https://www.mass.gov/guides/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-assault-weapons-ban-enforcement-notice
Oh and it look like they more or less took their definition from the Feds…
““Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; …”
I’ll note that the testimony in the Rittenhouse trial said it was the fourth bullet that was fatal to Joseph Rosenbaum, the one hitting him in the back as he was falling or lunging (term depending on if you’re the defense or prosecution). Seems to me a gun that only shoots one or two bullets every several seconds might have better balanced self defense vs. lethality in this particular case.
But gun control isn’t my issue. I like that I don’t walk around the neighborhood and encounter guys with big honking guns strapped on – I mean, what is Wisconsin, like Tattoine, really! – but murder by gun isn’t that high among causes of death. I think there are only like 5 per 100,000 per annum murders in the city I’m in now and maybe 12 in 100,000 where I’m moving, and that includes non-gun killings.
Assault Weapon != Assault Rifle
From Wikipedia:
Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities.
Assault weapon is weird US term, not really have single definition, and look like it include semi-automatic pistols. It used by media to conflate common guns with army guns.
1 Like
Yes, assault weapon is a bullshit political term. There really is no such thing. You can assault someone with a knife. Or a frying pan. Are those assault weapons? (That was a rhetorical question.)
And of course it’s used by the Feds, who are the very definition of “political”.
An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle chambered in a rifle or an intermediate cartridge.
The most famous ones being the AK-74 (5.45×39mm, an intermediate cartridge) or AKM (7.62×39mm, a rifle cartridge) from Russia
and the US military’s M4 carbine or M16 rifle (both 5.56×45mm NATO aka .223 Remington, an intermediate cartride).
The M16 was adapted from the ArmaLite AR-15. What people call an “AR-15” these days is essentially a pattern of rifle largely compatible with M4 accessories but converted to semi-auto (not selective-fire, NOT an assault rifle) for the civilian market.
The issue I am referring to as political bullshit is that this
looks a lot more dangerous than this
but it is essentially the same thing. It’s just that one is a favourite of US gun nuts and the other of efficient German hunters. Now, if you get shot by a .223 from either of those, you’ll hurt just the same. And they can put just about the same amount of bullets in you in a given time frame.
A lot of this stuff is people who don’t know what they are taking about freaking out. I know. I used to be the same ten years ago, then I educated myself.
Guns aren’t something to be messed with, on either side.
I don’t know how, but Kyle was clearly separated from the many others that he is regularly in the photos with. Personally, I feel that he did the right thing in trying to run away. But when it came down to it, if you charge a guy with a rifle, don’t complain if you get shot.
And boy was he a good shot.
Well, I don’t see it as tragic. If you charge a guy with a rifle and expect not to get shot, that isn’t tragic. That’s really an extremely dumb thing to do that deserves a Darwin Award.
Ah yes, being dumb warrants a civilian enforced death sentence, I always forget about how that’s totally not tragic.
unfortunately, it sort of does. Not by necessity, mind you, more by circumstance. Sort of similar to someone going on a lone hiking expedition and not leaving a roster of where they are going to travel or for how long they will be gone. If they get hurt and don’t have communication, then they very well could die.
I do hate that life was lost, but the rap sheets on the people killed aren’t very endearing. Let alone the actions of chasing a running boy, especially one with a gun.
unfortunately, it sort of does.
I don’t agree with this at all. If somebody comes at me with a gun and I have one, I’d also defend myself, but I’d not shoot to kill or walk into a crowd where I would have to.
Running from a cop, should they be allowed to shoot you if you just stole a pair of sun glasses? Smoked a joint? Would a court have sentenced me to death? The US seems absolutely insane when it comes to the threshhold to use lethal force and it’s horrendous.
I think that most people are overlooking the underlying issue and focusing only on the firearms portion, as seems to be the way of the media these days. A firearm is a tool. That is all. It is no different from a hammer or Fab’s frying pan. A person can use any tool in the way Kyle used that rifle. Heck, Riddick used a tea cup… For me, the underlying issue is the lack of respect people have for other people and authority. Why have mobs been allowed to form on these levels? Why do police only maintain a presence so often while the mobs burn and loot? Why do the people feel that it is their right to form mobs for the purpose of burning and looting? Why do those same people feel they are the victims if while they are committing these crimes they are confronted by the police? To be perfectly honest, the continuing formation and actions of these mobs is only going to increase ownership of tools that may be used in defense. While I am equally trained to protect myself both with and without a weapon, having a tool or weapon at my disposal greatly increases my chances of ending an altercation with minimal damage to myself or people I am protecting, especially against multiple or armed attackers. But I digress. Until society solves the issue of people disrespecting people and authority, and the self entitled movement that we are seeing, we can expect to see a rise in this sort of behaviour.
1 Like
Shit happens, especially in the nights after protests after a few consecutive cases that suggest to some that authority hasn’t earned respect. Or maybe some dumb ass black bloc kids decide your protest is the place to take it to the man by “turnin’ on the merchants and the shops who used to sell their brooms and mops.” Or maybe it’s only that the Vancouver Canucks lose the Stanley Cup some year. But typically only property gets damaged, insurance collected with the only long term harm being a broad minor increase in premiums or prices.
To me the underlying issue that summer was the two way fear and demonization of protester vs. counter protester. But I’ve already said my piece on that. I will add for anyone abroad that things are calmer in the U.S. now.
Oh, yes, the Vancouver Canucks riot. I never did understand that one at all. I was working in Eastern Europe when that happened and everyone made sure to point that out on the news there. The decay of society…
Okay, so what happens if you corner a policeman or a border guard in Denmark, they draw their sidearm and warn you to back off and you are dumb enough to charge them?
Well, if you understand hockey, it’s very easy to understand. It’s also not only hockey. When I was in my teens in Duisburg, second and third generation Turkish immigrants tore the neighbouring suburb apart because the German national team beat the Turkish national team in a World Cup or a Euro. The place looked like it had been bombed with cluster bombs afterwards.
I’m from Canada, it’s one of our national sports. The part I don’t understand is the needless vandalism. Nothing is accomplished in that manner. It was like the Canadian version of British football hooligans.
You should understand it then. Passion. When a lot of people are passionate and angry, stupid things happen. Goes back hundreds of thousands of years, probably.
Passion is one thing, lack of respect and moral values is another.
There are no moral values in a crowd. Morals is a very personal thing. Ask anyone who’s ever done crowd control. At a rock concert, a football game, a medical disaster. Mobs of people don’t have moral values. And they certainly do not have respect of anything except strength. Or the illusion of it. Which is often how crowd control works.