Bucks to boycott game 5

[FkLA]

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.

[Chinook]

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.

[Chinook]

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.

[Sugus]

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.

[pad300]

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 ins ution 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).

[TXstbobcat]

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?

[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.

[Davidicus2]

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/

[RD2191]

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 ins ution 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.

[RD2191]

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 ing stupid. The Jacob Blake situation is complex I agree, because blacks have been put in the ter 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..

Great post.

[pad300]

Thank you for the info. The AR-15 is still, however, extremely lethal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/553937/

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...).

[Davidicus2]

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.

[ChumpDumper]

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...).

no big deal....

[offset formation]

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 ing hopeless and pissed beyond belief.

Perhaps you should check your ignorance at the door and try to understand the root of the ing problem.

[pad300]

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.

[pad300]

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.

no big deal....

We've been living with rifles in civilian hands since the 14 colonies. It hasn't destroyed the country yet.

[Davidicus2]

We've been living with rifles in civilian hands since the 14 colonies. It hasn't destroyed the country yet.

Bro, get that weak 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.

[Nathan89]

Thank you for the info. The AR-15 is still, however, extremely lethal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/553937/

Yeah, guns are extremely lethal.

[Nathan89]

Ppl don't typically set fire to buildings on live TV unless they're ing hopeless and pissed beyond belief.

Perhaps you should check your ignorance at the door and try to understand the root of the ing problem.

That tends to happen when media and politicians push false narratives upon the masses. That's the main root.

[Arcadian]

So they're playing tomorrow, right?

[Nathan89]

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 ing stupid. The Jacob Blake situation is complex I agree, because blacks have been put in the ter 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.

[Capt Bringdown]

Were there any demands? Were they met? What was the goal?
File this one under woke virtue signaling.

[offset formation]

That tends to happen when media and politicians push false narratives upon the masses. That's the main root.

Is it your assertion that black folks are merely victims of a myth of police brutality and centuries of oppression and discrimination?

This is a truly disgusting position you just posted.

You aren't worth the time.

[Nathan89]

Is it your assertion that black folks are merely victims of a myth of police brutality and centuries of oppression and discrimination?

This is a truly disgusting position you just posted.

You aren't worth the time.

Well they chant "hands up don't shoot" at their events so they have distorted view.

I'm not just talking about police interactions but entire racial narratives. The media makes it national news when a white person inadvertently calls the police on a black person. If a black person violently attacks a white person it's a non story.

Perception is reality and the media and leftist politicians push narratives to shape perception. They want to position you as a victim and themselves as your hero. They do the same thing to women by turning them into victims with regards to the pay gap.

[Chinook]

The country has very few leftist politicians. Leftism is not popular. It shows how distorted some views are that they'll look at Biden and Harris and think they're even a little radical.