• We will be this forum soon. Please save any content that you wish to preserve by July 5, 2022. Thank you.

Rittenhouse

Schrute Farm

TNTeenager
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
3,450
Likes
853
01834475-61B6-4553-A7F5-0D2627F2BA96.jpeg

Thank you. I'm still trying to best my earlier meme. Maybe this one?
 

Gator6x4

Blabbermouth
Joined
Apr 3, 2020
Messages
6,169
Likes
5,081
View attachment 10133

Thank you. I'm still trying to best my earlier meme. Maybe this one?
That is someone complaining about what happened to him when a person he was attacking defended himself. Maybe you should read and heed what he is saying happens to those that continue to carry forth with their belief that violent irrational behavior is the proper response to everything.
 

Schrute Farm

TNTeenager
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
3,450
Likes
853
That is someone complaining about what happened to him when a person he was attacking defended himself. Maybe you should read and heed what he is saying happens to those that continue to carry forth with their belief that violent irrational behavior is the proper response to everything.
Yes, he went after KR and R defended himself. Why wasn't he charged?
 

Schrute Farm

TNTeenager
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
3,450
Likes
853
rhetorical
adjective

Essential Meaning of rhetorical
1: of, relating to, or concerned with the art of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence peoplea rhetorical device/style
2: of a question : asked in order to make a statement rather than to get an answer"Should we be leaving soon?" "Is that a rhetorical question?" [=is that a question you're asking as a way to say that we should be leaving soon?]
My question was rhetorical. I wasn't really expecting an answer.
 

Gator6x4

Blabbermouth
Joined
Apr 3, 2020
Messages
6,169
Likes
5,081
rhetorical
adjective

Essential Meaning of rhetorical
1: of, relating to, or concerned with the art of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence peoplea rhetorical device/style
2: of a question : asked in order to make a statement rather than to get an answer"Should we be leaving soon?" "Is that a rhetorical question?" [=is that a question you're asking as a way to say that we should be leaving soon?]
My question was rhetorical. I wasn't really expecting an answer.
You look at the question as being rhetorical. I looked at it as being a Rabbit Hole question.
 

aczlan

Member
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
59
Likes
52
Why you poop on my librul party? 😥😂
The entertainment value? :ROFLMAO:

More to look at what is feasible with current GPS technology.
The most valid concerns imo are with the existing weapons and reliability but I know some people who work in geofencing and think the advancements will be pretty significant in coming years. I think an unlock device would be the more attainable goal and a first step.
The problem is that law abiding people will be forced to use a gimmicky, unreliable device and criminals will not be similarly constrained, so they will use "old school" guns that always work.
Geofencing may be advancing, but the "laws of nature" still apply:

There are two options for geofencing:
1. Allow by default - Will let you shoot unless it detects that you are in a geofenced area, problems being:
A. Put a strip of HVAC foil tape over the antenna and it cant tell where it is
B. Problems picking up a signal in areas with limited views of the sky (inside a parking garage, inside some buildings, under trees, etc)
C. Run a GPS jammer nearby and it will not be able to get a location, letting someone shoot wherever they want
Any of the above will let a gun fire whenever you want.

2. Deny by default - Will not let you shoot unless it detects that you are in a "ok" area, problems are similar:
A. Problems picking up a signal in areas with limited views of the sky (inside a parking garage, inside some buildings, under trees, etc) would mean you can't fire
B. Bad guy runs a GPS jammer nearby and it will not be able to get a location, so someone can prevent you from shooting by jamming your GPS
C. Wont stop someone shooting from outside the "deny" area into the "deny" area
Any of the above will prevent someone from shooting when they should be able to.

Additionally, GPS receiver inaccuracy, map to GPS inaccuracies (found by the dozens when you compare GIS property lines to the pins in the ground), dead batteries (how long will the batteries last for a GPS receiver that can fit into the handgrip of a pistol?) and server side infrastructure/updates (or a lack thereof as technology changes) could mean that someone who lives near a "deny" area is seen as being inside the geofenced "deny" area when they are not.

The cat is out of the bag with firearms and that will always be the biggest obstacle specifically in America where you won't ever get universal buy-in on any gun anything
And as simple as it is to build a gun with basic machine tools, there is no way to put the cat back in the bag for someone who wants to make a gun.

since states are never going to lay down to federal rule. Perhaps if we could find a solution that works in cities with the most gun violence, that would be a win.
The "problem" is that the feds dont have any jurisdiction for in-state gun sales and what makes sense for NYC or San Francisco may not make any sense for the Southern Tier of NY or Cedarville CA, yet many people want the same rules for all.

I don't know all of the specifics but I think taking the illegal guns off the streets is a big issue, but so is taking legal guns out of the hands of unstable people.
Here are the numbers from a study of how incarcerated criminals had obtained the weapons they used when committing their crimes, overall ~43% were bought illegally/stolen. A further 25.3% were obtained from someone else (purchased, borrowed or a gift from a family friend), 6.4% were stolen and 10.5% were brought by someone else, or fell under "other"
What percentage of those will a new law help with?

Table5.PNG

Personally I would rather see ideas get shot down than people... then we can maybe come up with solutions that work. But heads in the sand who don't come up with any ideas aren't going to help.
Lets start by enforcing existing laws, prosecuting those who try to buy a gun when they shouldn't be able to and provide better mental health help for those who need it.
Getting laws enacted requiring technologies that are not yet mature enough to be reliable will be another tax on gun owners, another way to hamstring them when criminals aren't following by the same rules and will not measurably change the outcomes (ie: the number of people getting shot each year) as:
1. Per the study, 89.9% of criminals don't currently buy their guns in a retail store (and of the 10.1% who did, how many of those were "first time offenders" who passed a background check because they hadn't gotten arrested yet?), mandating "smart guns" will not increase the number of criminals who buy their guns at a retail store.
2. "Smart guns" when they end up in the hands of criminals will be converted to "dumb guns" in a heartbeat, as the "smart" part ends up sending battery voltage to trigger a solenoid to allow the gun to fire and an hour on the bench will fix that (that may mean that "smart" guns which are stolen end up getting sold for cheap to someone who "fixes" them and resells them, but I guarantee that there will be Youtube (or whatever streaming platform you prefer) videos showing how to disable the "smart" part of the gun within a month of when they are generally available).
3. There are hundreds of millions of "dumb guns" out there and they wont get turned in just because the government says to, would 10-20% of them get turned in? Sure, but the rest? Not so much.

Now, I would be in favor of making a nationally accepted concealed carry permit on a "shall issue" basis which required a background check, a basic knowledge test, a practical experience test (ie: can you put rounds into a target in a safe manner, perhaps even having some popup targets that you have to hit) and a "here is what the laws say about when use of force is legally allowed" lesson.
It would be nice if that could be used with a website to verify that someone has not become a prohibited possessor since it was issued so that I could sell a gun to someone and know for a fact that they were legally allowed to buy it without having to work around the schedule of a FFL and whoever the buyer and seller are.


Aaron Z
 

MC

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Messages
536
Likes
558
Location
San Diego
The entertainment value? :ROFLMAO:

More to look at what is feasible with current GPS technology.

The problem is that law abiding people will be forced to use a gimmicky, unreliable device and criminals will not be similarly constrained, so they will use "old school" guns that always work.
Geofencing may be advancing, but the "laws of nature" still apply:

There are two options for geofencing:
1. Allow by default - Will let you shoot unless it detects that you are in a geofenced area, problems being:
A. Put a strip of HVAC foil tape over the antenna and it cant tell where it is
B. Problems picking up a signal in areas with limited views of the sky (inside a parking garage, inside some buildings, under trees, etc)
C. Run a GPS jammer nearby and it will not be able to get a location, letting someone shoot wherever they want
Any of the above will let a gun fire whenever you want.

2. Deny by default - Will not let you shoot unless it detects that you are in a "ok" area, problems are similar:
A. Problems picking up a signal in areas with limited views of the sky (inside a parking garage, inside some buildings, under trees, etc) would mean you can't fire
B. Bad guy runs a GPS jammer nearby and it will not be able to get a location, so someone can prevent you from shooting by jamming your GPS
C. Wont stop someone shooting from outside the "deny" area into the "deny" area
Any of the above will prevent someone from shooting when they should be able to.

Additionally, GPS receiver inaccuracy, map to GPS inaccuracies (found by the dozens when you compare GIS property lines to the pins in the ground), dead batteries (how long will the batteries last for a GPS receiver that can fit into the handgrip of a pistol?) and server side infrastructure/updates (or a lack thereof as technology changes) could mean that someone who lives near a "deny" area is seen as being inside the geofenced "deny" area when they are not.


And as simple as it is to build a gun with basic machine tools, there is no way to put the cat back in the bag for someone who wants to make a gun.


The "problem" is that the feds dont have any jurisdiction for in-state gun sales and what makes sense for NYC or San Francisco may not make any sense for the Southern Tier of NY or Cedarville CA, yet many people want the same rules for all.


Here are the numbers from a study of how incarcerated criminals had obtained the weapons they used when committing their crimes, overall ~43% were bought illegally/stolen. A further 25.3% were obtained from someone else (purchased, borrowed or a gift from a family friend), 6.4% were stolen and 10.5% were brought by someone else, or fell under "other"
What percentage of those will a new law help with?

View attachment 10155


Lets start by enforcing existing laws, prosecuting those who try to buy a gun when they shouldn't be able to and provide better mental health help for those who need it.
Getting laws enacted requiring technologies that are not yet mature enough to be reliable will be another tax on gun owners, another way to hamstring them when criminals aren't following by the same rules and will not measurably change the outcomes (ie: the number of people getting shot each year) as:
1. Per the study, 89.9% of criminals don't currently buy their guns in a retail store (and of the 10.1% who did, how many of those were "first time offenders" who passed a background check because they hadn't gotten arrested yet?), mandating "smart guns" will not increase the number of criminals who buy their guns at a retail store.
2. "Smart guns" when they end up in the hands of criminals will be converted to "dumb guns" in a heartbeat, as the "smart" part ends up sending battery voltage to trigger a solenoid to allow the gun to fire and an hour on the bench will fix that (that may mean that "smart" guns which are stolen end up getting sold for cheap to someone who "fixes" them and resells them, but I guarantee that there will be Youtube (or whatever streaming platform you prefer) videos showing how to disable the "smart" part of the gun within a month of when they are generally available).
3. There are hundreds of millions of "dumb guns" out there and they wont get turned in just because the government says to, would 10-20% of them get turned in? Sure, but the rest? Not so much.

Now, I would be in favor of making a nationally accepted concealed carry permit on a "shall issue" basis which required a background check, a basic knowledge test, a practical experience test (ie: can you put rounds into a target in a safe manner, perhaps even having some popup targets that you have to hit) and a "here is what the laws say about when use of force is legally allowed" lesson.
It would be nice if that could be used with a website to verify that someone has not become a prohibited possessor since it was issued so that I could sell a gun to someone and know for a fact that they were legally allowed to buy it without having to work around the schedule of a FFL and whoever the buyer and seller are.


Aaron Z
Well I think you hit on most of the points, the cat is out of the bag. It would be like prohibition.

So back to the drawing board? Or just accept the fate of our past decisions?
 

quark

Regular
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
246
Likes
243
How about enforcing the existing laws?
Enforcement is not the whole issue. It's the backend judicial systems that are really whacked. Repeat, repeat offenders, bail bonds, lax time served, incarceration and post incarceration support, etc. etc.
 

Schrute Farm

TNTeenager
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
3,450
Likes
853
Enforcement is not the whole issue. It's the backend judicial systems that are really whacked. Repeat, repeat offenders, bail bonds, lax time served, incarceration and post incarceration support, etc. etc.
You're right, no argument there. To the layperson it appears the pols got involved and made "lesser" offenses a slap on the wrist and even running over your girlfriend gets you a slap on the wrist
 

aczlan

Member
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
59
Likes
52
Splitting the Rittenhouse reply into a different post from the "why smart guns are doomed to fail" reply:
I also don't think 17 year old kids gunning people down in riots is an example of why we need so many guns.
There are a lot of things what went wrong to lead up to that point:

1. The city government (be it the Mayor, police dept, etc) failed to maintain order in the city and allowed mobs to rule the city for multiple nights, this caused people like Rittenhouse to want to help prevent further damage to local businesses, now if they did this at the request of the business owners, or because they saw it as unjust that mobs who were supposedly mad at the government were destroying private property to quote the famous line "at this point, what difference does it make".

2. Rosenbaum should have been arrested earlier that night on attempted arson and mental health grounds if nothing else, people who are of a sound mind do not generally scream "shoot me n*****" at people carrying guns, threaten to kill people if they "catch them alone later", light dumpsters on fire and attempt to roll them into gas pumps, etc.

3. Lets say that Rittenhouse did everything the same that night, but without a gun. Went to work, helped remove graffiti, helped people who needed minor first aid, was a "human shield" against those who were trying to burn the car dealership, etc, then Rosenbaum chases him through the parking lot (with for all Rittenhouse knows with the chain that Rosenbaum was swinging around all night), does Rittenhouse in your opinion get to defend himself against a potentially dangerous or deadly attack by Rosenbaum? If so, why would it be any different if Rittenhouse was armed or not?

IMO, it was unwise for Rittenhouse to be there, but IMO (and apparently in the opinion of the jury) not illegal for him to be there armed as he was, but he was very lucky (or careful) that he stayed exactly within the law.
Being out in public with a firearm is not and should not be considered a provocation to attack someone absent another threat (ie: if Rittenhouse had been threatening to kill people like Rosenbaum was), if there was anything else that Rittenhouse did to provoke Rosenbaum, the prosecution didn't bring any witnesses to show it clearly, their claim was that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at a third party and that was what set Rosenbaum off with their only evidence being a very blurry video where you more or less had to guess if the line was a shadow, an artifact of the enhancement, or a gun.

If the first shooting was justifiable as self defense, the others become self defense as well. Speaking of the first shooting, as Rittenhouse got to the corner of the building while being pursued by Rosenbaum, Ziminski fired a "warning shot" into the air from behind Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum (this was likely one reason why Rittenhouse turned around and Rosenbaum grabbed his gun), why was Ziminski not brought up on some charges? At very least, Kenosha probbaly has a law against discharging a firearm inside city limits, at worst that would seem to be trying to get RIttenhouse to start something

After the first shooting, given that Rittenhouse was running towards the line of police, all the others had to do was to herd Rittenhouse toward the police and make sure the police knew that he has just shot someone. Instead, they tried to mete out vigilante justice without knowing the whole story, only knowing that someone was shouting "he just shot someone, get him" "kill him" "cranium him" and "mess his *** up" and as a result, one person lost their life and another lost a bicep.

A balance of community safety and rights is the happy medium we need to find. In some places a we already have it... just not in Kenosha I guess.
Speaking of rights, how about the prosecution's assertion that Rittennhouse had less of a right to be there because he wasn't protesting? Or his assertion (twice) that Rittenhouse exercising his 5th amendment rights by remaining silent until he spoke to a lawyer was a indication of guilt (the judge stopped him the first time and chewed him out for it the second time). Or that he "came to Kenosha" as if it was a special trip, not as if he worked in Kenosha and had numerous family members there.

Personally, I would avoid an area of likely violence, if at all possible, with or without a gun. OTOH, I'm not willing to get judgmental against someone who feels so strongly about an issue that they show up and legally exercises their First Amendment right. The same thing goes for someone who legally exercises their First and Second Amendment rights at the same time.


Enforcement is not the whole issue. It's the backend judicial systems that are really whacked. Repeat, repeat offenders, bail bonds, lax time served, incarceration and post incarceration support, etc. etc.
IMO, they are all part of the same, you cannot have effective enforcement of laws without punishment for breaking said laws. When the police are arresting people for violent crimes and the accused are out on their own recognizance before the next shift change, there is no deterrence factor there to keep people from committing crimes.

Well I think you hit on most of the points, the cat is out of the bag. It would be like prohibition.
So back to the drawing board? Or just accept the fate of our past decisions?
Lets start with prosecuting those who break existing laws, make it easier for law abiding citizens to defend themselves (starting as I said before with "shall issue" nationally recognized concealed carry permits in every state), bring back work details for inmates (let them earn some money, give them a reason to behave so they can have the privilege of getting on the work detail, help them learn a skill that they can apply after they get released, etc) and if we have enough people who have broken the law to where they need to be incarcerated and we are out of space in the existing incarceration facilities, lets build new ones while working on better ways to rehabilitate inmates so they are less likely to re-offend.

You're right, no argument there. To the layperson it appears the pols got involved and made "lesser" offenses a slap on the wrist and even running over your girlfriend gets you a slap on the wrist
Exactly, guy tries to run over his GF (or succeeded in running her over?), is let out and back on the street where he (apparently intentionally) ran over a bunch of people in a parade.

Aaron Z
 

Schrute Farm

TNTeenager
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
3,450
Likes
853
Splitting the Rittenhouse reply into a different post from the "why smart guns are doomed to fail" reply:

There are a lot of things what went wrong to lead up to that point:

1. The city government (be it the Mayor, police dept, etc) failed to maintain order in the city and allowed mobs to rule the city for multiple nights, this caused people like Rittenhouse to want to help prevent further damage to local businesses, now if they did this at the request of the business owners, or because they saw it as unjust that mobs who were supposedly mad at the government were destroying private property to quote the famous line "at this point, what difference does it make".

2. Rosenbaum should have been arrested earlier that night on attempted arson and mental health grounds if nothing else, people who are of a sound mind do not generally scream "shoot me n*****" at people carrying guns, threaten to kill people if they "catch them alone later", light dumpsters on fire and attempt to roll them into gas pumps, etc.

3. Lets say that Rittenhouse did everything the same that night, but without a gun. Went to work, helped remove graffiti, helped people who needed minor first aid, was a "human shield" against those who were trying to burn the car dealership, etc, then Rosenbaum chases him through the parking lot (with for all Rittenhouse knows with the chain that Rosenbaum was swinging around all night), does Rittenhouse in your opinion get to defend himself against a potentially dangerous or deadly attack by Rosenbaum? If so, why would it be any different if Rittenhouse was armed or not?

IMO, it was unwise for Rittenhouse to be there, but IMO (and apparently in the opinion of the jury) not illegal for him to be there armed as he was, but he was very lucky (or careful) that he stayed exactly within the law.
Being out in public with a firearm is not and should not be considered a provocation to attack someone absent another threat (ie: if Rittenhouse had been threatening to kill people like Rosenbaum was), if there was anything else that Rittenhouse did to provoke Rosenbaum, the prosecution didn't bring any witnesses to show it clearly, their claim was that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at a third party and that was what set Rosenbaum off with their only evidence being a very blurry video where you more or less had to guess if the line was a shadow, an artifact of the enhancement, or a gun.

If the first shooting was justifiable as self defense, the others become self defense as well. Speaking of the first shooting, as Rittenhouse got to the corner of the building while being pursued by Rosenbaum, Ziminski fired a "warning shot" into the air from behind Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum (this was likely one reason why Rittenhouse turned around and Rosenbaum grabbed his gun), why was Ziminski not brought up on some charges? At very least, Kenosha probbaly has a law against discharging a firearm inside city limits, at worst that would seem to be trying to get RIttenhouse to start something

After the first shooting, given that Rittenhouse was running towards the line of police, all the others had to do was to herd Rittenhouse toward the police and make sure the police knew that he has just shot someone. Instead, they tried to mete out vigilante justice without knowing the whole story, only knowing that someone was shouting "he just shot someone, get him" "kill him" "cranium him" and "mess his *** up" and as a result, one person lost their life and another lost a bicep.


Speaking of rights, how about the prosecution's assertion that Rittennhouse had less of a right to be there because he wasn't protesting? Or his assertion (twice) that Rittenhouse exercising his 5th amendment rights by remaining silent until he spoke to a lawyer was a indication of guilt (the judge stopped him the first time and chewed him out for it the second time). Or that he "came to Kenosha" as if it was a special trip, not as if he worked in Kenosha and had numerous family members there.

Personally, I would avoid an area of likely violence, if at all possible, with or without a gun. OTOH, I'm not willing to get judgmental against someone who feels so strongly about an issue that they show up and legally exercises their First Amendment right. The same thing goes for someone who legally exercises their First and Second Amendment rights at the same time.



IMO, they are all part of the same, you cannot have effective enforcement of laws without punishment for breaking said laws. When the police are arresting people for violent crimes and the accused are out on their own recognizance before the next shift change, there is no deterrence factor there to keep people from committing crimes.


Lets start with prosecuting those who break existing laws, make it easier for law abiding citizens to defend themselves (starting as I said before with "shall issue" nationally recognized concealed carry permits in every state), bring back work details for inmates (let them earn some money, give them a reason to behave so they can have the privilege of getting on the work detail, help them learn a skill that they can apply after they get released, etc) and if we have enough people who have broken the law to where they need to be incarcerated and we are out of space in the existing incarceration facilities, lets build new ones while working on better ways to rehabilitate inmates so they are less likely to re-offend.


Exactly, guy tries to run over his GF (or succeeded in running her over?), is let out and back on the street where he (apparently intentionally) ran over a bunch of people in a parade.

Aaron Z
Thank you, well written
 

Molalla1

TNTeenager
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Messages
4,196
Likes
768
Location
Oregon
Enforcement is not the whole issue. It's the backend judicial systems that are really whacked. Repeat, repeat offenders, bail bonds, lax time served, incarceration and post incarceration support, etc. etc.
My youngest daughter a parole officer, knows well of this . . .
 

Molalla1

TNTeenager
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Messages
4,196
Likes
768
Location
Oregon
That is disgusting. IMO, if a person cannot even be a law-abiding citizen while out on bail, that should be an indicator that this person should not be released on bail for all future charges. That would be a commonsense bail reform.
My daughter is advised . . . "no room in the inn".
 
Top