Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks

[Drainy]

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.

Spoiler: Wisconsin Gun Rights

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?

 

[Raoul]

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?

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).

 

[shamans]

Is this argument purely based on the fact that the AR-15 doesn't come with a fully automatic setting? If so, that is incredibly weak. Aren't they similar to the military version in pretty much all other aspects than that? Range, precision, caliber, rounds in magazine, attachment options, etc. is the same right?

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.

Fully automatic makes a huge difference and the amount of paperwork and hurdles you need to get there is quite a long process (and should anyone even ever get approved for it? That's another question )

The calliber is also much weaker and so the ar 15 styled guns has much weaker bullets. I think the precision isnt as good as well but I'd have to check on that.

The AR style rifles are "good" gun and people like to use it for many reasons but they're simply not assault rifles.

You could cause way way more damage btw with many other guns that are legal but hardly get a lot of media attention.

I'm not pro or anti gun. I want more regulation when it comes to guns in general but I want facts to not be muddled by media hysteria.

 

[Drainy]

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).

Yep

It's what Rittenhouse and Black both said in their testimony so technically Rittenhouse was illegally possessing in Illinois technically.

 

[shamans]

He said finger over the trigger. When he posted that picture which literally shows his finger over the trigger you've then pivoted to 'that's not the ready position'. Why are people like this? Just say oh ok fair enough you're right. It's not hard.

Also I'd bet the majority of people have never fired a gun and are unable to tell the difference between that and the 'ready position'.

People are like this because it was a bad faith argument imo.

Finger over trigger to me meant hes out there ready to take aim and fire.

The picture was sort of a "hah gotcha" to me. Okay sure I was wrong. He did have his finger on the trigger. I think it takes away from the topic though and makes it seem the shooting was without any valid reason.

 

[shamans]

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.

And not calling the AR-15 an assault rifle is just semantics as this idiots death count shows. You don't need gun control, you need a total gun ban. Never going to happen of course.

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.

In an ideal world wed somehow eradicate every gun from a civilian and only allow it for sport/hunting but currently the laws are not in place so we can't judge based on how a law should be.

I don't think calling the AR an assault rifle is semantics. It's important to know what's what and that leads to better gun control

 

[Zaphod2319]

Illinois law, more specifically Antioch laws would not prohibit him from having the gun in his possession. The law only applies to guns that can be concealed. Long rifles do not fall under this law. If he lived a little further south in the jurisdiction of Chicago laws it would be completely different.

Under Illinois law, it's illegal for someone under 18 to possess "any firearm of a size which may be concealed upon the person," which would seem to exclude a rifle.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

The calliber is also much weaker and so the ar 15 styled guns has much weaker bullets. I think the precision isnt as good as well but I'd have to check on that.

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.

 

[shamans]

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.

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.

Quite honestly I don't care if AR style rifles get banned. I just don't think it will an impact on these mass shootings we see but I could be wrong. I do think it's counter productive to think of it as some sort of machine gun.

Say the AR is banned, what stops a lunatic from blasting a movie theater with slugs ? A shotgun can be absolutely destructive as well

 

[shamans]

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.

From what I've read they are not marginally different.

That said I wasn't aware more use it with their ARs so fair enough

 

[Zaphod2319]

I hunted with a 30.06 before, during, and after being in the military. I also carried an M16 while in the military. I really do not understand why people hunt with a AR15? They are not anywhere near the accuracy of a 30.06 and for me much less comfortable to sight in a longer shot.

The only advantage my M16 had was full auto, not exactly what you want to fall a deer.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

From what I've read they are not marginally different.

That said I wasn't aware more use it with their ARs so fair enough

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.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I hunted with a 30.06 before, during, and after being in the military. I also carried an M16 while in the military. I really do not understand why people hunt with a AR15? They are not anywhere near the accuracy of a 30.06 and for me much less comfortable to sight in a longer shot.

The only advantage my M16 had was full auto, not exactly what you want to fall a deer.

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.

 

[harms]

It's what Rittenhouse and Black both said in their testimony so technically Rittenhouse was illegally possessing in Illinois technically.

Didn't they also technically said that in their testimony?

Sorry for picking on your wording here it's just so funny how even subconsciously you're trying to shield him from any blame (obviously this charge shouldn't be even talked about).

 

[Achilles McCool]

This problem began when a 17 year old drove to a town he didn't live in with an assault rifle

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

 

[ChaddyP]

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.

Quite honestly I don't care if AR style rifles get banned. I just don't think it will an impact on these mass shootings we see but I could be wrong. I do think it's counter productive to think of it as some sort of machine gun.

Say the AR is banned, what stops a lunatic from blasting a movie theater with slugs ? A shotgun can be absolutely destructive as well

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.

Re hunting: I use a bloody shot gun the hunt. You don't need an AR 15 to shoot deer etc .

 

[Mike Smalling]

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.

Fully automatic makes a huge difference and the amount of paperwork and hurdles you need to get there is quite a long process (and should anyone even ever get approved for it? That's another question )

The calliber is also much weaker and so the ar 15 styled guns has much weaker bullets. I think the precision isnt as good as well but I'd have to check on that.

The AR style rifles are "good" gun and people like to use it for many reasons but they're simply not assault rifles.

You could cause way way more damage btw with many other guns that are legal but hardly get a lot of media attention.

I'm not pro or anti gun. I want more regulation when it comes to guns in general but I want facts to not be muddled by media hysteria.

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'.

I'm not really interested in the amount of paperwork related to this. The issue is the capabilities of the weapons. Full-auto option is really the only major difference. It certainly makes it capable of dealing out much more death in a short time, but is not the defining factor in distinguishing from military rifles, in my view. Now I'm no military expert, but I have completed 8 months of military service, where we used a weapon very similar to what we are talking about here (Colt Canada C7). In that period, I didn't use the full-auto option once - not on the range and not in the field with blanks. Basically, I could have had an AR-15, and I wouldn't have known the difference.

So the AR-15 may not strictly be an assault rifle purely because they cannot fire full-auto (which can easily be mitigated with a bumb stock, by the way). But to say they are 'nothing like the military guns' is just plain wrong.

Also, by the definitions I can find online, the AR-15 is legally an "assault weapon", but not an "assault rifle" - incredibly similar words on the face of it. The media calling it "assault rifle" instead of "assault weapon" does not equate to hysteria in my book.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

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'.

I'm not really interested in the amount of paperwork related to this. The issue is the capabilities of the weapons. Full-auto option is really the only major difference. It certainly makes it capable of dealing out much more death in a short time, but is not the defining factor in distinguishing from military rifles, in my view. Now I'm no military expert, but I have completed 8 months of military service, where we used a weapon very similar to what we are talking about here (Colt Canada C7). In that period, I didn't use the full-auto option once - not on the range and not in the field with blanks. Basically, I could have had an AR-15, and I wouldn't have known the difference.

So the AR-15 may not strictly be an assault rifle purely because they cannot fire full-auto (which can easily be mitigated with a bumb stock, by the way). But to say they are 'nothing like the military guns' is just plain wrong.

Also, by the definitions I can find online, the AR-15 is legally an "assault weapon", but not an "assault rifle" - incredibly similar words on the face of it. The media calling it "assault rifle" instead of "assault weapon" does not equate to hysteria in my book.

Yep, military tends to prefer the burst setting (in combat) from my understanding.

 

[Moby]

we can't judge based on how a law should be.

That's literally what the purpose of discussing this trial is.

 

[cafecillos]

About the self-defence argument, I don't know how it's interpreted in the US, but for example in Spain there's an interpretative principle of criminal law called "actio libera in causa", which in a nutshell means that you can't willingly put yourself in a situation in which you will be likely to have to do something that will require the application of an exculpatory circumstance for you not to be criminally liable, because the culpability is then traced back to the original decision that made the need for the occurrence of the self-defensive action much more likely. I don't know if I'm explaining myself clearly enough, English is not my first language and all this legal jargon is much more difficult to translate.

 

[Halftrack]

Fully automatic makes a huge difference and the amount of paperwork and hurdles you need to get there is quite a long process (and should anyone even ever get approved for it? That's another question )

The calliber is also much weaker and so the ar 15 styled guns has much weaker bullets. I think the precision isnt as good as well but I'd have to check on that.

The AR style rifles are "good" gun and people like to use it for many reasons but they're simply not assault rifles.

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.

One thing's for sure, though: .223 isn't "much weaker" than 5.56 NATO. Both are going to do pretty much exactly the same type and amount of damage, especially in close quarters. Put it like this: There isn't a situation in which you would have survived if you were struck by a .223 instead of a 5.56.

The difference between an AR-15 and an assault rifle is essentially one of semantics. The AR-15 platform is the basis and inspiration for dozens of assault rifles used by militaries around the world, and the assault rifle's ability to go full-auto doesn't make it inherently more dangerous. When some mass shooter goes and kills people with an AR-15, not being able to dump an entire mage in one squeeze of the trigger isn't some massive handicap. In semi-auto, they're able to make deliberate shots with manageable recoil while keeping the amount of ammo "wasted" to a minimum. There are a few scenarios where they might have been able to do more damage with a fully automatic gun, but in most situations, having a selective fire capable gun wouldn't make them more lethal.

 

[Moby]

About the self-defence argument, I don't know how it's interpreted in the US, but for example in Spain there's an interpretative principle of criminal law called "actio libera in causa", which in a nutshell means that you can't willingly put yourself in a situation in which you will be likely to have to do something that will require the application of an exculpatory circumstance for you not to be criminally liable, because the culpability is then traced back to the original decision that made the need for the occurrence of the self-defensive action much more likely. I don't know if I'm explaining myself clearly enough, English is not my first language and all this legal jargon is much more difficult to translate.

About the self-defence argument, I don't know how it's interpreted in the US, but for example in Spain there's an interpretative principle of criminal law called "actio libera in causa", which in a nutshell means that you can't willingly put yourself in a situation in which you will be likely to have to do something that will require the application of an exculpatory circumstance for you not to be criminally liable, because the culpability is then traced back to the original decision that made the need for the occurrence of the self-defensive action much more likely. I don't know if I'm explaining myself clearly enough, English is not my first language and all this legal jargon is much more difficult to translate.

That's how it should be. Just looking at the instant in which the gun was fired and ignoring everything before that is moronic.

 

[shamans]

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.

Re hunting: I use a bloody shot gun the hunt. You don't need an AR 15 to shoot deer etc .

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.

 

[shamans]

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.

One thing's for sure, though: .223 isn't "much weaker" than 5.56 NATO. Both are going to do pretty much exactly the same type and amount of damage, especially in close quarters. Put it like this: There isn't a situation in which you would have survived if you were struck by a .223 instead of a 5.56.

The difference between an AR-15 and an assault rifle is essentially one of semantics. The AR-15 platform is the basis and inspiration for dozens of assault rifles used by militaries around the world, and the assault rifle's ability to go full-auto doesn't make it inherently more dangerous. When some mass shooter goes and kills people with an AR-15, not being able to dump an entire mage in one squeeze of the trigger isn't some massive handicap. In semi-auto, they're able to make deliberate shots with manageable recoil while keeping the amount of ammo "wasted" to a minimum. There are a few scenarios where they might have been able to do more damage with a fully automatic gun, but in most situations, having a selective fire capable gun wouldn't make them more lethal.

This is where I disagree with you. A fully auto assault rifle is very destructive and not a minor gain.

For a mass shooting, I don't see that much of difference between an AR and a Glock 17 with some loaded magazines. At least not as much as an AR and a fully assault rifle.

 

[shamans]

That's literally what the purpose of discussing this trial is.

By we, I meant a court cant give a ruling based on what a law should be but what a law is.

 

[Rado_N]

People are like this because it was a bad faith argument imo.

Finger over trigger to me meant hes out there ready to take aim and fire.

The picture was sort of a "hah gotcha" to me. Okay sure I was wrong. He did have his finger on the trigger. I think it takes away from the topic though and makes it seem the shooting was without any valid reason.

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.

I also find your lengthy efforts to argue the definition of an assault rifle extremely bizarre, oh and you ignored my question of why the AR-15 was specifically banned by the assault weapons ban in the 90s.

There’s no getting past the fact that everything that happened was instigated by this cosplaying dickhead arming himself and heading out to play vigilante. The fact that there’s even a debate about who’s to blame underlines how utterly fecked the US gun laws are.

 

[Rado_N]

This is where I disagree with you. A fully auto assault rifle is very destructive and not a minor gain.

For a mass shooting, I don't see that much of difference between an AR and a Glock 17 with some loaded magazines. At least not as much as an AR and a fully assault rifle.

You do realise the Las Vegas shooting (the deadliest in American history) was carried out with an AR-15?

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

This is where I disagree with you. A fully auto assault rifle is very destructive and not a minor gain.

For a mass shooting, I don't see that much of difference between an AR and a Glock 17 with some loaded magazines. At least not as much as an AR and a fully assault rifle.

Rifles are much more accurate and targets far easier to acquire versus handguns.

 

[Drainy]

Rifles are much more accurate and targets far easier to acquire versus handguns.

A handgun is much better for personal protection, its more useable at close to intermediate range which is when you would be most threatened.

You're right that an AR-15 would be more useful if you are planning on firing from range.

However, handguns are much more useful for common armed crimes so are more restricted in law, from my understanding. That's why Rittenhouse was able to possess an AR-15 and not a pistol like he says he initially wanted.

 

[shamans]

You do realise the Las Vegas shooting (the deadliest in American history) was carried out with an AR-15?

Right and if it was banned he would have used something else from the vast array of guns available.

Rifles are much more accurate and targets far easier to acquire versus handguns.

Yes, but is the difference bigger than a fully auto gun? Also I've never used one but a glock with a micro roni kit could also cause some damage. Even sporting/hunting rifles with a good amount of ammo. I just feel the AR does not enable mass shootings that other guns which are currently legal do not. That said, I'm not against banning it. Just doubt it achieves much.

 

[Rado_N]

Right and if it was banned he would have used something else from the vast array of guns available.

There you go again moving the goalposts.

 

[shamans]

There you go again moving the goalposts.

No? Your point about an AR being used had nothing to do with what I said between the advantage of an AR 15 and other guns.

 

[Halftrack]

This is where I disagree with you. A fully auto assault rifle is very destructive and not a minor gain.

For a mass shooting, I don't see that much of difference between an AR and a Glock 17 with some loaded magazines. At least not as much as an AR and a fully assault rifle.

It's entirely circumstantial. There are situations were being able to go full-auto comes in handy, but assault rifles are primarily fired, and at their most effective, in semi-auto.

As for a Glock 17 vs an AR, the difference is huge. Range, power, target acquisition, ease of aiming, recoil, control. A Glock is easier to conceal and easier to use in tight areas, but that's about it.

 

[Rado_N]

No? Your point about an AR being used had nothing to do with what I said between the advantage of an AR 15 and other guns.

I can’t be arsed even trying with you anymore, talk about bad faith arguments, it’s there for all to see.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

However, handguns are much more useful for common armed crimes so are more restricted in law, from my understanding. That's why Rittenhouse was able to possess an AR-15 and not a pistol like he says he initially wanted.

This isn't quite accurate. The judge retroactively interpreted a sloppily written law that was intended to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to use rifles when hunting to dismiss the illegal firearm charge.
First, there was no way untrained and under-experienced Rittenhouse could have known that that night and second, it was clearly against the intent and spirit of the law that does not allow a 17-year-old to walk around with nunchucks but supposedly does allow a 17-year-old to violate curfew and walk around the streets carrying an AR-15.

 

[shamans]

It's entirely circumstantial. There are situations were being able to go full-auto comes in handy, but assault rifles are primarily fired, and at their most effective, in semi-auto.

As for a Glock 17 vs an AR, the difference is huge. Range, power, target acquisition, ease of aiming, recoil, control. A Glock is easier to conceal and easier to use in tight areas, but that's about it.

Spoiler

skip to like 0:20 seconds and thats a glock with a kit on it. Even without this gimmick, a handgun with a bunch of magazines can absolutely result in mass shootings and deaths.

 

[shamans]

I can’t be arsed even trying with you anymore, talk about bad faith arguments, it’s there for all to see.

It's not my fault you are not following a logical discussion. I'm talking about an AR vs other guns. BTW the Orlando shooter that killed 50 people did not use an AR

 

[Zaphod2319]

I honestly hope there is a hung jury and the new trial goes before a reasonable judge. It is almost criminal this judge used a provision for hunting to dismiss a charge that is related to carrying an AR15 at a protest that was known by the defendant to be a hostile event.

 

[Halftrack]

Spoiler

skip to like 0:20 seconds and thats a glock with a kit on it. Even without this gimmick, a handgun with a bunch of magazines can absolutely result in mass shootings and deaths.

I didn't say they couldn't, just that an AR-15 would do a much better job of it and gave the reasons why.

It's not my fault you are not following a logical discussion. I'm talking about an AR vs other guns. BTW the Orlando shooter that killed 50 people did not use an AR

You're right, he didn't use an AR. Instead, he used a Sig Sauer MCX, a different kind of 5.56 NATO rifle. It's essentially the same thing in this context, so not sure what point you were trying to make here.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Right and if it was banned he would have used something else from the vast array of guns available.

You were making a point about handguns being as deadly in mass shootings as rifles. In the Las Vegas shooting the killer shot from the 32nd floor to a festival on the ground floor - he would not have been able to hit a thing with a handgun from that distance.

Another example would be Aurora where the shooter used a 100-round drum magazine on his semi-automatic rifle, which he fired most of his shots from.