-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FkLA
So much bullshit in this post. :lol
Why is it so hard for some people to objectively analyze situations? Are y'all really that swayed by political affiliation?
Gets in a fight?
Correction: the guy who got shot threw a bottle at the 17 yr old and then charged him from behind. Guy that got shot was 5'3" btw.
Correction: 17 yr old called 911 after shooting first guy and was running towards police and away from the mob. There were dozens of people on the streets that he could've targeted if he was looking to kill more. The only people he shot at were people who charged him and posed a threat.
Deserve is a strong word.
They're not victims though. They played their role in their deaths.
Its easy to say that from the comfort of your home. If I'm a cop, get told earlier in the day that a fellow cop got shot by a guy who went back into their car, then I find myself in a similar situation with a non-compliant individual... I might be on edge too. Not to mention kidnapping of kids was a possibility.
I don't know if the cop made the right call or not. I just think the situation is a lot more complex than "look at cops targeting innocent black people why don't they love us :cry". The way the left media paints it, you'd think this could happen to any black person just because of the color of their skin. In reality, its usually happening to people that are first and foremost criminals.
Yes, let’s objectively analyze:
Rational people don’t need an AR-15 shot to head to defend against a bottle and two arms.
Rational people would try to disarm an armed person who just shot someone in the head, and wouldn’t know or mattered if that shooter had called 911 or anyone for that matter, he just shot someone in the head. Rational people would feel their lives are in extreme danger. The ones that were ballsy enough to try to stop him got killed or shot as well.
Rational people wouldn’t equate these victims actions to justifying their instant death penalty. “They played their role in their deaths”, yeah so did the people going to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11, what is wrong with you?
And from the comfort of your own home, you get to paint broad strokes about the probability of why a black man warranted 9 gunshots to the back because he was “probably a criminal.”
The Kyle situation is fucking stupid. The Jacob Blake situation is complex I agree, because blacks have been put in the shitter for centuries and are still living with the economic and racial consequences today. But the simple ask of better training and less use of extreme force in non-warranted situations to prevent loss of life is as basic and rational as it gets. That’s just my opinion..
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sugus
To shed some outsider's perspective on this: most people ITT are really missing the point. You can go back and forth over whether it was self defense or not, the circumstances regarding the shooting all day long... But how can anyone really try to justify a seventeen-year-old boy having access to, and being allowed to freely roam with, a literal assault rifle? Think about this again... A 17-year-old. Not even out of highscool. With access to an ASSAULT RIFLE. How can you gloss over this major, ridiculous, issue? I feel like Americans always do this though; every time there's a shooting incident, each side tries to spin the narrative, who's right vs who's wrong or who's to blame... Nobody questions why the shootings can happen in the first place. The response to this shooting should be unanimous disgust at the state of the US' gun policies and checks (or lack thereof) on who can access guns, where they can have access to or carry them, and the culture regarding gun worship in general.
I don't care whether this boy goes to jail or not... He's not even an adult. Literal teenager, confused, malleable, rageful - only in the US, he has access to weapons of mass murder instead of taking his anger out on videogames or his parents or whatever, like teenagers in the rest of the world do. I know, second amendment, gun rights, all that yadda-yadda... How good is it when you have cases like this on the regular? I don't see Americans talking about this like they should, and frankly I don't know if they're ready for that conversation.
It’s illegal for a 17yo to have one, but regardless I agree with your thoughts. None of this is going to get meaningfully better until the guns are gone, on both sides. 2 sides both having access to lethal weapons are simply going to continue to create these scenarios, the plain physics of it all.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chinook
You can be a victim and criminal at the same time.
This is true, you can be a open carrying a firearm while underage, a misdemeanor, when numerous thugs try to assault you...
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chinook
You can be a victim and criminal at the same time.
I mean I guess its possible. Its just not the case for these guys the left is trying to prop up as martyrs.
I don't get the desire to shed tears over criminals.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pad300
This is true, you can be a open carrying a firearm while underage, a misdemeanor, when numerous thugs try to assault you...
Such a situation is possible. But it misses the point. Being a criminal doesn't warrant a person getting killed (at all, really, but especially) without due process. Even after the boy start ed killing people, he didn't "deserve" to die because of it. Of course, depending on the situation, he may have been posing a threat before any real violence went down. I don't know. I don't even have a basic timeline for anything other than the person he shot that was pursuing him. If he had already killed someone and was running through around with a loaded weapon, I can see why people didn't see him as a victim trying to deescalate but rather a killer running to get clear so he could kill more people. Certainly, to characterize the people attacking him as "thugs" editorializes the situation beyond what I've seen to warrant.
But of course, I'm happy the kid gets to have his day in court rather than having been killed without due process. That should be the standard for every accused or even guilty party. That's fine. My issue is with people thinking it's fine for folks to be gunned down because of crimes they've committed. Being alive is what gives you the right to life, not being virtuous.
You're my dog, Pad, especially over on RGM. Would rather not jeopardize that.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FkLA
I mean I guess its possible. Its just not the case for these guys the left is trying to prop up as martyrs.
I don't get the desire to shed tears over criminals.
It's not just possible. It's extremely common. It's never been a requirement for "martyrs" to be angels. No offense, but believing so seems really childish.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Davidicus
It’s illegal for a 17yo to have one, but regardless I agree with your thoughts. None of this is going to get meaningfully better until the guns are gone, on both sides. 2 sides both having access to lethal weapons are simply going to continue to create these scenarios, the plain physics of it all.
The thing is - it has become so normalized in US culture to bear weapons and gun culture in general, that nobody dares question it anymore. This 17-year-old boy (I'm not referring to him as a man) had illegal access to an assault rifle, an unthinkable event in most countries that aren't actively war torn; he then drove down to another state, crossed state lines (!) and was out and about searching for confrontation in public, carrying said rifle. Where's the checks? Where's the protections? Where's the officers asking to see his license for carry, telling him to go home and stripping him of his weapon before he can even think about hurting someone? How do Americans expect police officers to be able to tell the difference between a mass shooter, and a civilian openly carrying a rifle, if no regular person can?
The fact that underage carrying of a firearm is a "misdemeanor" is already laughable. Americans have just lost all sense of the danger inherent to firearms, so y'all (not you especially, just everyone) go on with these prerrogatives that sound absolutely insane to anyone from more normal places. I hope that a lot of self-reflection comes out of the current movements for change, because there isn't a "right" or "wrong" side to this. As you perfectly said, as long as a teenager and everyone else has access to lethal weapons, it will just happen again and again.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Davidicus
It’s illegal for a 17yo to have one, ...
You're wrong. He's a resident of Illinois, From Wikipedia:
"To legally possess or purchase firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card, which is issued by the Illinois State Police.[4] The police must issue FOID cards to eligible applicants. An applicant is disqualified if he or she has been convicted of a felony or an act of domestic violence, is the subject of an order of protection, has been convicted of assault or battery or been a patient in a mental institution within the last five years, has been adjudicated as a mental defective, or is an illegal immigrant.[5] Applicants under the age of 21 must have the written consent of a parent or legal guardian who is also legally able to possess firearms.[6]"
The bolded is key. It's also not abnormal for a kid to have a firearms certificate. I got one at 13, in Canada, through Cadets... (that does date me a bit, I'll admit).
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan89
He didn't do anything wrong with so I'm not sure why you'd make this comment. There were younger Americans in WW2 tbh
was it legal for him to have the assault rifle?
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
By the by, to all the people calling it an assault rifle. You don't know what you're talking about. It is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-automatic rifle; 1 pull of the trigger 1 bullet. Assault rifles are automatic; 1 pull of the trigger, multiple bullets.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pad300
By the by, to all the people calling it an assault rifle. You don't know what you're talking about. It is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-automatic rifle; 1 pull of the trigger 1 bullet. Assault rifles are automatic; 1 pull of the trigger, multiple bullets.
Thank you for the info. The AR-15 is still, however, extremely lethal.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/553937/
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pad300
You're wrong. He's a resident of Illinois, From Wikipedia:
"To legally possess or purchase firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card, which is issued by the Illinois State Police.[4] The police must issue FOID cards to eligible applicants. An applicant is disqualified if he or she has been convicted of a felony or an act of domestic violence, is the subject of an order of protection, has been convicted of assault or battery or been a patient in a mental institution within the last five years, has been adjudicated as a mental defective, or is an illegal immigrant.[5] Applicants under the age of 21 must have the written consent of a parent or legal guardian who is also legally able to possess firearms.[6]"
The bolded is key. It's also not abnormal for a kid to have a firearms certificate. I got one at 13, in Canada, through Cadets... (that does date me a bit, I'll admit).
I'm pretty sure that's meant for hunting, not to use in the middle of a riot. So maybe him owning it wasn't illegal but it was illegal for him to have it out in the street during a riot.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Davidicus
Yes, let’s objectively analyze:
Rational people don’t need an AR-15 shot to head to defend against a bottle and two arms.
Rational people would try to disarm an armed person who just shot someone in the head, and wouldn’t know or mattered if that shooter had called 911 or anyone for that matter, he just shot someone in the head. Rational people would feel their lives are in extreme danger. The ones that were ballsy enough to try to stop him got killed or shot as well.
Rational people wouldn’t equate these victims actions to justifying their instant death penalty. “They played their role in their deaths”, yeah so did the people going to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11, what is wrong with you?
And from the comfort of your own home, you get to paint broad strokes about the probability of why a black man warranted 9 gunshots to the back because he was “probably a criminal.”
The Kyle situation is fucking stupid. The Jacob Blake situation is complex I agree, because blacks have been put in the shitter for centuries and are still living with the economic and racial consequences today. But the simple ask of better training and less use of extreme force in non-warranted situations to prevent loss of life is as basic and rational as it gets. That’s just my opinion..
:tu Great post.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Davidicus
The article is fear porn. Yeah, rifle bullets are much more lethal than handgun rounds. Much more powder, much longer barrel = much faster bullet. But AR-15's are not super death rifles, they are pretty typical rifles. A 30.06 hunting rifle will do just as much damage (actually, more...).
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pad300
The article is fear porn. Yeah, rifle bullets are much more lethal than handgun rounds. Much more powder, much longer barrel = much faster bullet. But AR-15's are not super death rifles, they are pretty typical rifles. A 30.06 hunting rifle will do just as much damage (actually, more...).
Right. Not trying to single out the AR-15. The point is, most rifles are very lethal, and shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone except well-trained and highly responsible gun owners. Which we are far from today.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pad300
The article is fear porn. Yeah, rifle bullets are much more lethal than handgun rounds. Much more powder, much longer barrel = much faster bullet. But AR-15's are not super death rifles, they are pretty typical rifles. A 30.06 hunting rifle will do just as much damage (actually, more...).
:lol no big deal....
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nathan89
I can see the people trying to protect property are the problem and not the looters and people burning down property.
Ppl don't typically set fire to buildings on live TV unless they're fucking hopeless and pissed beyond belief.
Perhaps you should check your ignorance at the door and try to understand the root of the fucking problem.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RD2191
I'm pretty sure that's meant for hunting, not to use in the middle of a riot. So maybe him owning it wasn't illegal but it was illegal for him to have it out in the street during a riot.
He is/was legally allowed to own his own AR15. What he does with it is another matter. Apparently he is under-age for open carry in Wisconsin. It should be noted that there is a difference between open carry and being in use. Open carry walking around with it in a public space - just walking down the street for example. Public display of a firearm while in use is not the same. If he was carrying said rifle in the woods while hunting deer, it would not be an open carry violation, despite that being in a public place. If he is deemed to be using said firearm for a legitimate purpose (including self-defense, or possibly protection of private property) in a public place, then it's not an open carry violation either.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Davidicus
Right. Not trying to single out the AR-15. The point is, most rifles are very lethal, and shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone except well-trained and highly responsible gun owners. Which we are far from today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ChumpDumper
:lol no big deal....
We've been living with rifles in civilian hands since the 14 colonies. It hasn't destroyed the country yet.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pad300
We've been living with rifles in civilian hands since the 14 colonies. It hasn't destroyed the country yet.
Bro, get that weak shit out of here. Like the muskets of the Revolutionary War are anywhere close to the rifles of today. You know that.
And what you meant to say was, “it hasn’t negatively affected me yet.” Talk to the thousands of family members in grief since Columbine because we can’t pass sane gun laws.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Davidicus
Yeah, guns are extremely lethal.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
offset formation
Ppl don't typically set fire to buildings on live TV unless they're fucking hopeless and pissed beyond belief.
Perhaps you should check your ignorance at the door and try to understand the root of the fucking problem.
That tends to happen when media and politicians push false narratives upon the masses. That's the main root.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
So they're playing tomorrow, right?
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Davidicus
Yes, let’s objectively analyze:
Rational people don’t need an AR-15 shot to head to defend against a bottle and two arms.
Rational people would try to disarm an armed person who just shot someone in the head, and wouldn’t know or mattered if that shooter had called 911 or anyone for that matter, he just shot someone in the head. Rational people would feel their lives are in extreme danger. The ones that were ballsy enough to try to stop him got killed or shot as well.
Rational people wouldn’t equate these victims actions to justifying their instant death penalty. “They played their role in their deaths”, yeah so did the people going to work at the World Trade Center on 9/11, what is wrong with you?
And from the comfort of your own home, you get to paint broad strokes about the probability of why a black man warranted 9 gunshots to the back because he was “probably a criminal.”
The Kyle situation is fucking stupid. The Jacob Blake situation is complex I agree, because blacks have been put in the shitter for centuries and are still living with the economic and racial consequences today. But the simple ask of better training and less use of extreme force in non-warranted situations to prevent loss of life is as basic and rational as it gets. That’s just my opinion..
Big brain. BLM is a violent mob so don't tell me a rational person shouldn't be prepared for them with a gun. Two arms wasn't the only thing going after him. At the first scene there were people in frame firing guns at him(I'm assuming at him).
He was running with his gun pointed down. If we're dealing with "rational people" then why are they chasing someone that doesn't appear to want to do anything. The rational person should realize he could stop and shoot all of the people around him if that was his intention.
The kid has no duty to violent mob when he's trying to protect himself. They attacked him and they suffered the consequences.
-
Re: Bucks to boycott game 5
Were there any demands? Were they met? What was the goal?
File this one under woke virtue signaling.
