Guns

[noel c.]

“  I figured that at some point you'd move on.”

When did you figure that you would?

[Tom]

It doesn't cause me physical pain to indulge you or anything, so I was going to humor you until you got actively unpleasant. My involvement certainly isn't necessary; it doesn't take three people to say "the terminology doesn't matter and is just being used for bull*censored* gatekeeping." But for some reason you seemed to want it.

[TheDrake]

Drake,

You just proved my point.

“A semiautomatic assault rifle” is oxymoronic terminology. That is why we laugh at, and deride you.

Would it make a difference if we called them the McGuffin Rifles? It's still going to be the same list. If me and my people have their way, you won't get to have AK47s, Ar-15s, or any other nonsense rambo weapon that you all pose with on social media to look tough, like Rittenhouse. How about we just say semiautomatic rifle, that's clear enough and to the point, is it not?

[Tom]

Well, in fairness, there are plenty of people out there that will parse every single descriptor as narrowly as possible to make a gun that adheres to the literal letter of the law while still violating its spirit by still being obnoxiously lethal against crowds.

[noel c.]

“It doesn't cause me physical pain to indulge you or anything, so I was going to humor you until you got actively unpleasant.”

So, you are baiting “unpleasantness”.

“My involvement certainly isn't necessary; it doesn't take three people to say "the terminology doesn't matter and is just being used for bull*censored* gatekeeping." But for some reason you seemed to want it.”

Actually, the language does matter in an identical way that the abortion issue is termed alternatively “pro-life”, and “pro-choice”. Implicit is the fundamental issue of which life, and whose choice. I am certain that you have a preferred way of characterizing those questions, and have zero doubt where you fall. There is one significant distinction. People who design firearms were also purposeful in their use of language when the term “assault rifle”/“sturmgewehr” was coined. Since you are hopelessly disinterested in knowing what you are talking about, I will spoon feed you.

Suppressive fire, forcing an opponent to keep his head down, is essential to maneuver on any modern battlefield. America used two primary forms during WWII, heavy artillery and the Browning automatic rifle. That leaves a huge gap in firepower which the Germans equivalently filled with the full-auto MG-34, and the MG-42, firing a full size 8mm cartridge. That is still pretty heavy volume. To give you an appreciation, a single German corporal manning an MG-42 (and supported by 60 ammunition carriers) killed ~2,000 Americans at Omaha Beach. Interestingly, they loved our semi-auto M-1 carbine which fired a 30 caliber bullet from an unnecked case of low volume. It would kill at most typical engagement  ranges, was light, had low recoil, and probably inspired the first “assault rifle” design; the StG-44, which fires an intermediate volume 8mm cartridge in either semi-auto, or full-auto, from a 35 round box magazine, or a 71 round drum magazine. This allows every soldier to unleash suppressive fire in an “assault” role, and is not remotely similar in application to an AR-15.

Notwithstanding, liberal knuckleheads insist on using the term “assault rifle”, because they are artful in abusing language for political effect. I do not need an assault rifle for three reasons; first, I will never be in a squad suppress and maneuver situation. That is an assault strategy, and I am only interested in defense. Second, automatic fire is not particularly accurate fire. Third, it burns through a large amount of ammunition. That is not my style.

You are framing the debate dishonestly.

[noel c.]

Drake,

“Would it make a difference if we called them the McGuffin Rifles? It's still going to be the same list.”

Yes, it would make a difference unless a McGuffin rifle was capable of select fire. As an aside; if I desired, I can own an assault rifle and there is not a thing you, and yours, can do about it.

“If me and my people have their way, you won't get to have AK47s, Ar-15s, or any other nonsense rambo weapon that you all pose with on social media to look tough, like Rittenhouse. How about we just say semiautomatic rifle, that's clear enough and to the point, is it not?”

Yes, that is clear, and your crowd should have been saying that from the beginning. Your opinion could be disregarded by the unsavy voter decades ago.

[TheDrake]

That's hard to break down. My opinion could be disregarded by the unsavy (sic) voter?

Assuming you meant unsavvy, that would mean that the ignorant could ignore my arguments? They usually do, they usually do.

[noel c.]

Drake,

“That's hard to break down. My opinion could be disregarded by the unsavy (sic) voter?”

Yes, and all similar opinions

“Assuming you meant unsavvy, that would mean that the ignorant could ignore my arguments?”

Yes, but do not be so quick to flatter yourself. The general population has no apriori reason to expect that you, and others of your persuasion, are playing language games intended to deceive.

Simply saying; “We do not want you to own a semiautomatic rifle.” would not persuade, or fool anyone.

“They usually do, they usually do.”

They usually should, they usually should.

[noel c.]

Drake, Tom,

I just recalled that Gaige Grosskreutz, the self-styled “medic” who had his right bicep vaporized by a reasonably well aimed shot from Rittenhouse, is one of you. He pointed a semiautomatic pistol at Mr. Rittenhouse after feigned submission, and immediately regretted it.

Did he deserve to be shot?

[Tom]

You are framing the debate dishonestly.

Forgive me, but I don't see where I've had this debate at all.

[TheDrake]

Drake, Tom,

I just recalled that Gaige Grosskreutz, the self-styled “medic” who had his right bicep vaporized by a reasonably well aimed shot from Rittenhouse, is one of you. He pointed a semiautomatic pistol at Mr. Rittenhouse after feigned submission, and immediately regretted it.

Did he deserve to be shot?

Deserve is an interesting word. To quote Eastwood's character in unforgiven, "deserves got nothing to do with it". It's a construct that crusader types fantasize about. Punishing the wicked.

Did Rosenbaum deserve to get shot for throwing a plastic bag at Rittenhouse? Did Rittenhouse deserve to get shot for sticking his neck out and confronting and angry mob? It is always a tragedy when a life is lost. Particularly when it could have been avoided.

This entire chain of events happened because Floyd didn't deserve to die, most people think. Although there's a significant number of people who thought that he deserved to suffocate because he was high on drugs and resisted.

That's the problem with posting judgement, which I think Jesus had something to say about. Not the meme Jesus wrapped in the American flag, but the philosopher who advocated for peace and forgiveness. The one who forgave the people who executed him.

Reducing the ability of people to go judge dredd on their fellow citizens, that's a good thing. If Rittenhouse didn't have his long gun, he probably wouldn't have had the bravado to even go down to the protest in the first place. And more people would still be breathing today.

[noel c.]

Drake,

Don’t go sophist on me. Grosskreutz chased Rittenhouse down, threatened him physically, feigned retreat, and then pointed a semiautomatic pistol at Rittenhouse. He lost his right bicep over his actions, and complained that he regretted not killing Rittenhouse.

If the word “deserve” confuses you then substitute “invited”. Does your man Grosskreutz have a moral basis for complaint?

[Tom]

For what it's worth, I don't consider Grosskreutz (who denies having ever said he regretted not killing Rittenhouse, by the way; we may as well do him the favor of believing that denial) to be "one of us." If anything, he has quite a lot more in common with Rittenhouse, in that they were both violent troublemakers who tried to give their lives meaning by playing at being heroes and eventually started carrying around guns they shouldn't've had in scenarios where they shouldn't've had them. That they considered themselves to be on opposite sides is really down, I suspect, to some confusion over what the sides actually are.

[noel c.]

Tom,

I hesitate responding to your posts, because you have made it clear more than once that your presence is to provoke. There is no equivalence between Rittenhouse, and Grosskreutz, particularly in their relative competence in handling firearms.

[Tom]

I don't think that simply declaring "there is no equivalence" counts as a meaningful rebuttal, although I admit that I have not factored and frankly will continue to not factor their respective shooting skill(s) into any comparison. I honestly find that as offensive as the suggestion that I should consider Grosskreutz to be a like-minded fellow traveler.
 
"He killed my son, but his shot grouping was impeccable!"

[TheDrake]

Drake,

Don’t go sophist on me. Grosskreutz chased Rittenhouse down, threatened him physically, feigned retreat, and then pointed a semiautomatic pistol at Rittenhouse. He lost his right bicep over his actions, and complained that he regretted not killing Rittenhouse.

If the word “deserve” confuses you then substitute “invited”. Does your man Grosskreutz have a moral basis for complaint?

I'll answer that question that according to your apparent worldview, Grosskreutz was completely within his right to try to detain or neutralize someone who had already fired his weapon at Rosenbaum. He was your "good guy with a gun" and his big mistake was that he hesitated and also wasn't sufficiently armed with his own semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine.

According to my worldview, Grosskreutz shouldn't have gone down there armed, deserved to be arrested for doing so as it should be a gun free zone, and should have let the authorities deal with Rittenhouse.

The argument that got Rittenhouse off was that the unarmed Rosenbaum posed enough of a threat walking toward Rittenhouse that he was justified in ending his life. In my worldview, the moral thing to do would have been a tactical retreat by Rittenhouse, which he made no attempt to do.

If you saw a guy shoot an unarmed man in the crowd, and you are carrying a firearm Noel, are you going to watch him go or are you going to Judge Dredd the guy before ever finding out what was going on? There's a reason why cops shoot the "good guy" when he's toting a weapon after taking down the actual criminal.

Rittenhouse might have been a good shot, but his tactical awareness was atrocious. Even a cursory reading of Sun Tzu would have indicated that numbers matter. he was completely banking on the entire crowd cowering at his manly image with an eagle soaring over him. Not a great strategy. If more members of the crowd were armed, as you advocate, he would be dead now. And they also would have got off as being justifiably in fear for their lives.

[noel c.]

Drake,

”I'll answer that question that according to your apparent worldview, Grosskreutz was completely within his right to try to detain or neutralize someone who had already fired his weapon at Rosenbaum. He was your ‘good guy with a gun’ and his big mistake was that he hesitated and also wasn't sufficiently armed with his own semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine.”

Umm, no.

Grosskreutz pursued Rittenhouse, who intermittently had his rifle shouldered, down a street crowded with rioters, one of whom had just drop-kicked him in the head, and a second clipped him in the neck with the edge of a long skateboard. Rittenhouse was on the ground when approached by Grosskreutz. In close quarters, a long gun is at a disadvantage to a concealed pistol (which Grosskreutz was not legally entitled to possess). He was criminally stupid to pick a fight with someone who had already showed competence in the deadly use of force. Grosskreutz is fortunate not to be dead, and a jury of peers agreed.

”According to my worldview, Grosskreutz shouldn't have gone down there armed, deserved to be arrested for doing so as it should be a gun free zone, and should have let the authorities deal with I'll answer that question that according to your apparent worldview, Grosskreutz was completelAccording to my worldview, Grosskreutz shouldn't have gone down there armed, deserved to be arrested for doing so as it should be a gun free zone, and should have let the authorities deal with Rittenhouse.”[/i].

On this, we agree entirely.

According to my worldview, Grosskreutz shouldn't have gone down there armed, deserved to be arrested for doing so as it should be a gun free zone, and should have let the authorities deal with Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse was legally entitled to open carry a long gun with a barrel exceeding 16”. Law enforcement had no jurisdiction over him until shots were fired. Following shots, they declined to accept Rittenhouse’s surrender.

”The argument that got Rittenhouse off was that the unarmed Rosenbaum posed enough of a threat walking toward Rittenhouse that he was justified in ending his life. In my worldview, the moral thing to do would have been a tactical retreat by Rittenhouse, which he made no attempt to do.”

If you watch the audio/video, you will hear shots coming from a gun other than the AR-15 that Rittenhouse carried during his engagement with Rosenbaum. They were both hidden from view behind vehicles at the time Rittenhouse fired. The jury determined that Rittenhouse acted rationally given the information available to him, and I agree with them.

”If you saw a guy shoot an unarmed man in the crowd, and you are carrying a firearm Noel, are you going to watch him go or are you going to Judge Dredd the guy before ever finding out what was going on? There's a reason why cops shoot the ‘good guy’ when he's toting a weapon after taking down the actual criminal.”

You seem to have answered your own question. Do not engage in the use of deadly force unless you have a full awareness of what is going on.

”Rittenhouse might have been a good shot, but his tactical awareness was atrocious. Even a cursory reading of Sun Tzu would have indicated that numbers matter. he was completely banking on the entire crowd cowering at his manly image with an eagle soaring over him. Not a great strategy. If more members of the crowd were armed, as you advocate, he would be dead now. And they also would have got off as being justifiably in fear for their lives.”

I totally disagree. Rittenhouse’s tactical awareness was textbook, which is quite an achievement for a minor. If other members of the crowd were either conforming with open carry statues, or as in the case of Grosskreutz, not violating the law, the stakes involved in physical conflict would have been clear. Reasonable people would disengage, which one of Rittenhouse’s assailants was actually video-recorded as doing.

[noel c.]

Tom,

”I honestly find that as offensive as the suggestion that I should consider Grosskreutz to be a like-minded fellow traveler.”

Take offense as you choose, I honestly do not care. If you would not claim them, the mob would certainly identify with you.

[Tom]

Are you conflating Grosskreutz in specific with "the mob" in general?

[msquared]

Remember guns are for white people. If you are Brown or Black, you do not get to claim your right to self defense.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/did-nothing-wrong-family-texas-010657174.html

Again told to drop his gun but then shot immediately.

[Grant]

Remember guns are for white people. If you are Brown or Black, you do not get to claim your right to self defense.

 

Alright.  Where is the data that shows a black or brown person is more likely to be shot in their home by police than white people?  Most of the investigations I'm looking at, done by the press, or by universities, seem to show that white people are more likely to be shot by police than black or brown or whatever. 

I mean, I'm willing to entertain the premise.  I wouldn't be surprised.  But the stark lack of evidence for so strong an accusation against not one, but every police officer and every DA in the entire country is mind boggling.  That's the kind of stuff that would incite behavior, no?  You would be guilty of spreading disinformation that leads to other people making decisions based on this disinformation.  You would be Donald Trump.  You.  You're him. 

Or maybe you have some cards.  I dunno. I kinda rather you did have some evidence to go along with this.   

Interesting to note however, that the officer's name was Sanchez.  I guess he just didn't like Singhalese people.  Definitely racist. 


The real problem I see here, is that the investigation being done on the shooting is being conducted by the Austin PD, the same department that Sanchez belongs to.  It should be mandatory that investigations into officer involved shootings be conducted by a state or federal police organization.  I believe most of these investigations in my state are done by the state police.  Officer involved shootings that end up killing innocent people in their own homes is a problem.  There should be discussion and corrective actions proposed and made.  If there is a racial problem this needs to be addressed too, but if the problem isn't systemically racial, then framing the problem as racial does not help matters. 

[DJQuag]

Nah. Lived in the States before, had a colleague who barely got up to five feet. Lived in a bad neighborhood. She had a gun in her purse and good for her, best of luck to anyone trying to drag her down an alleyway.

[TheDrake]

Read the article. Cops were told there was a gun, they hear a gunshot. I'm not a cop apologist, but...

#1 if you think a burglar is in your house and you are outside, the right move is to get out of the area and call police.

#2 how are you outside your house and armed, suspecting someone is in the house.

#3 don't point your gun randomly into the street. It's undisciplined and makes you look like a maniac. See #1.

Don't know this guy, don't know his motivation. Other people in these scenarios are trying to defend property. Don't turn a theft into a life or death contest when you have options. They might see you before you see them. Others are just so offended at trespass they want to kill kill kill.

The problem with cops is much more about their shooting of unarmed people of color, which is much more likely to be deadly than for white people. Per incident, call, interaction. I can look up references but I can't do that research on my phone.

Now let's say he didn't own a gun. He's still breathing today. Doesn't look like his gun kept him very safe. Command to drop the gun? I wonder if the cops that were responding crept in silently, or if there was a siren wailing?

It is completely irresponsible to assume that the cop is racist. Those details will be made available, but I don't see it yet.

Let me recap one more time. He comes home from a trip, I guess with the rifle in his car? Calls a friend to say he's suspicious stuff got moved around. Then approaches the house without calling 911. Shouts crazy threats. Scares his neighbor who does call the cops. He's pointing his weapon into the house when cops arrive and a gunshot is heard on tape. I think I got all that right. And you want to blame systemic racism for his death?

[msquared]

So you don't think that if this guy was white he would still be alive?

[Tom]

That's the kind of stuff that would incite behavior, no?

You mean something like massive protests and demands to reform the police?

[TheDrake]

Nope. Not with any certainty in my opinion. Not even sure if you aggregate this specific scenario across all races and locations if there's a tendency. Cops have shot white unarmed developmentally challenged children before, IIRC. It's dangerous to apply broad trends to a specific case. But I do think if the guy is holding a cell phone and nobody told cops that he had a gun, he'd be statistically more likely to wind up shot if he's a POC.

[TheDrake]

Of course one of the reasons people default to "cops are racist" is because departments don't weed out the racists and actively defend them. If they got rid of their "bad apples" people would not be as likely to make the assumption that their other actions are not racist.

Also, a racist cop might still be justified in shooting a black man in context where it actually is the necessary choice.

[cherrypoptart]

"Now let's say he didn't own a gun. He's still breathing today."

Not necessarily.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-officer-fatally-shot-kansas-man-swatting-case/story?id=54437228

The Kansas police officer who shot and killed a man on his front porch last December following a prank call will not be charged, the county's district attorney announced Thursday.

"Andrew Finch was killed after police responded to a 911 call that alleged someone at his Wichita, Kansas, address had shot his father and was holding his remaining family hostage with a gun. When police responded, Finch answered the knock on his door and stepped into the doorway, according to police. Finch initially complied with an order to raise his hands, according to the police account, but then lowered his hands and reached for his waistband.

An officer opened fire and Finch was killed, according to police."

What was the guy's crime. None. He just happened to live at an old address of a gamer who got evicted and then gave that old address online to a rival and told him he'd "be waiting."

Not owning a gun wouldn't have saved him, and didn't. The only thing I can think of that he might have done differently is to have bought a new construction house. A story like that one got some attention by the media but not very much considering everything about it except the most important thing which is no racial element.

And I will say in defense of the victim, my understanding is there were a lot of cops there pointing guns at him at the time and only one of them thought it was the right call to shoot him. Still found not guilty.

Not armed. No counterfeiting assertions. Didn't just rough up an old Asian man in a convenience store. Not walking in the middle of the street after being told not to. His ex-boyfriend wasn't a known drug dealer. No marijuana in his car. Not even reaching into a glove box. Where's his riots?

And of course let's not forget Justine Damond, the  40-year-old Australian-American fatally shot by 33-year-old Somali-American Minneapolis Police Department officer Mohamed Noor after she had called 9-1-1 to report the possible assault of a woman in an alley behind her house. She had no gun either. And she's the one who called the police. Like out of a scene from Free Jack. "You what?! You called the police? Are you crazy?" No riots for her either. Noor was sentenced to almost five years which is pretty reasonable. Of course Chauvin got 22 years but that didn't stop him from getting riots in his honor.