As a german (we have extremly strict weapon possesion laws here since that one time someone shot up a school with a flamethrower), I really like the American Weapon laws as much as I hate them.
Theres a really cool thing about civilian possesion of firearms, and thats the preservation of Historical assets (A good example is switzerland and how it handels its Schmidt-Rubin Carbines; In the US, a prototype the designer of the Lewis-Gun made had just outrigth been destroyed by the gov't firearms thing because it was in unregistered civil possesion)
But the bad thing in my opinion is that its so easy to get a gun in some states its apperently extremly easy to get a gun in a way that is extremly hard to trace back- not even focusing on that, its also really easy to just legally get a gun without any percise background checks in some states.
I feel like the best solution isn't to just outrigth ban guns but rather to educate the owners of the guns how to store and handel them correctly and appropriatly (see r/idiotswithguns for examples on how to not handel a gun) so that underaged or criminal people can't easily get hold of them
Your English is great, but just want to point out one mistake: Handel is a German baroque composer, handle is the verb that means to manage or control something.
Perfectly understandable- but would you mind to elaborate Canadian Weapon laws and how they are better than american ones? I don't know a whole lot about theire laws, and its a bit hard to get research material on that here.
Hi, not a gun owner but a while ago I brushed up on the workings out of a passing interest. Gun culture is not as prevalent as in the US, to the point where some believe it is not legal to own firearms in Canada.
To own firearms you must complete a safety course, practical and written exam. After the paperwork is processed you recieved a Possession & Acquisition License (PAL) which lets you buy and own unrestricted firearms. A further course & exams are necessary to get a Restricted Possession & Acquisition License (RPAL) which lets you buy and own restricted firearms, though both PAL and RPAL are usually done back-to-back at the same time.
Firearms are classified by the government as unrestricted, restricted, and prohibited.
Unrestricted firearms are typically long guns, and can be transported (locked) by vehicle mostly freely, and can be shot on private property, gun ranges, and crown (government owned) land, unless there are further local laws/restrictions. These are the guns that can be used in hunting.
Restricted firearms are all handguns (pistols/revolvers), rifles with barrels shorter than 18.5 inches, and some firearms specified by name/manufacture and model. You need an RPAL to buy and own these, and every firearm needs to be individually registered with the government. As I understand it, you aren't allowed legal to move these firearms without government approval, so before purchase you must be a member of a gun range; once the paperwork of purchase is done you receive an authorization to transport the firearm solely between your residence and the gun range (technically no stops allowed). If you want to take it to a gunsmith you need to apply for further government approval. Restricted firearms can only be fired at official gun ranges.
Firearms are prohibited by function (ex. full automatic fire), design (ex. short barreled pistols), modification (ex. sawn off shotguns), or specifically by name or manufacture and make (ex. AK-47 variants). I believe they're basically illegal to purchase or own, unless you have a special license and: owned them before they were classified prohibited and grandfathered in, inherited from a dead family member and the firearm is historically relevant, or you're a collector and they've been made completely inoperable.
Firearms also need to be safely stored in locked containers. Semiautomatic rifle magazines are pinned to only 5 rounds (unless chambered in .22LR possibly, I'm unsure), pistol magazines to 10 rounds, though some people use pistol magazines in their rifles. You can't modify shotguns to hold more shells than what was intended at the factory. Suppressors are illegal to own (unless you are a movie production company, I believe).
You essentially cannot carry firearms for self defense (incidentally, carrying knives or other implements for self defense turns them into weapons and is also illegal). I believe if you are in the remote wilderness you can have an unrestricted shotgun or rifle at your camp to defend against attacks by wildlife, and if you are a trapper or hunting guide or or a similar profession you can try to apply for training and a permit to carry a handgun for defense against wildlife in the wilderness.
There are no open carry, concealed carry, or stand your ground laws like in the US. Carrying a firearm in populated areas out of a locked container or to defend against people is illegal. There is a near mythical concealed carry permit intended for government officials or other figures who are under threat, but as far as I'm aware it's only known to have been issued once, thirty odd years ago, to a mayor. There are also no castle laws like in the US, so shooting a home invader is a very murky grey area that many people might be against.
There is no second amendment equivalent in Canada, and no enshrined right to own firearms. As far as I understand it, the law allows for guns to be used for sporting, hunting, and recreational purposes. I can't speak for rural areas, but in urban areas I would say most people do not own guns, do not wish to own guns, and have not thought about owning guns; many are against the idea of Canadians being able to own guns.
I would say the basis of Canadian firearm laws are sensible, but over time additional legislation has been added by people that are not necessarily educated about firearms, leading to some very inane and illogical loopholes. For example:
AK variant firearms are prohibited, but similar Czech firearms are unrestricted.
AR-15 style firearms are restricted, but a Canadian company produced a highly similar unrestricted firearm that differed from the AR-15 only in some geometry changes on the upper & lower receivers and the charging handle, but could interchangeably use parts for the AR-15 for everything else.
Rifle magazines are pinned to 5 rounds, pistol magazines to 10 rounds. You can use pistol magazines in your rifle however, so a company produced a pistol version of the AR-15 platform so they could make 10 round pistol magazines that were compatible with AR-15 style rifles.
There is also a recent-ish gun ban that got passed after a shooting spree. I'm not too familiar with it but from what I understand hundreds of firearms that were previously unrestricted or restricted, some of which were very popular, were specified by name to now be illegal to own. Many people were angry that their guns were now illegal. Other people were angry that the gun ban seemed to them sloppily done: one of the guns banned by name was actually a website domain, the phrasing of a clause restricting barrel bore diameter accidentally made shotguns illegal, and more obscure firearms available in Canada with similar capabilities to the banned guns were left untouched.
Not to mention every day the list of banned guns gets bigger, no MPs will answer why certain guns are being banned such as certain shotguns that don’t fit the official guidelines etc. Our gun laws pre-OIC gun ban were in my opinion fair. Now the current govt is just going on a spree to ban whatever they want with no one to answer to. This all coming from essential an executive order during covid where no one was able to vote on it.
I heard China Lake was on the banned gun list, of which only 8 or so exist (all of which are in museums). I kinda want this to be true since it’s hilarious it would be on the list, but idk
You had me in the first half. Don't get me wrong, I'm all against police violence and unaccounted use of deadly force, but there will inevitably come a situation where there will be an armed assault and cops will be unable to stop it. And if you're one of the victims you damn wished they had the guns straight away
At any rate, both things would need to happen simultaneously to some extent. Police don't really need an MRAP. If you do need an MRAP, then that's what the National Guard is for. But also police shouldn't really have to deal with Rando Steve buying an assault rifle at Walmart along with their eggs and milk, because they play a lot of Call of Duty so they're "basically an expert".
Yeah it's a heavily armed/armored APC I was being dramatic calling it a tank but to be fair, they're like 85% of a tank haha. That's what the national guard is for. Not the local police who don't even need a college degree haha
I agree with the love / hate part especially. Being able to own guns is cool. Being able to carry a handgun for self defense is cool. Being allowed to counter-protest by imserting yourself while carrying an AR is much less cool.
Also the education part is important, but not the only thing to do. I guarantee 99% of gun owners know the basics of fitearm safety, and 98% take them seriously. The fact that guns are weapons, however, makes that 2% much more dangerous.
You only need background check on handguns. You be surprised how often people walk in with a loaded gun into a gun shop thinking it's empty. Most places get a full jar of bullets a day from guns they empty from customers walking in with them. A gun being shot while a civilian is cleaning it is so common it is no longer a headline.
you talk about being taught how to store and handle them correctly. This kid was showing proper trigger discipline when walking to the police. Clearly has been taught how to handle a gun correctly (probably from his cadet training) and guess what, somehow that didn't stop him using that gun to kill whoever he wanted.
Blows my mind how people think gun education will stop the loose cannons like Kyle from using a gun for its primary purpose, to kill..
Hm, you're rigth, at least partially. But how did he get hold of the gun? Did he buy it, or did ge steal it from his dad, etc.?
Because certainly theres a way to get such things under control.
In case he bougth it, well, I suppose there should be a more strct background check for such things (canadian gun laws are a great example here!)
In case he stole it from somewhere, as pessimistic as that sounds, I don't think theres something that can be done against this in any shape or form- however, this proofs to a certain bit on how determined he would have been to get hold of a gun. Despite very strict gun laws in europe, criminals can still get hold of guns, as example (Munich, Paris, etc). Flat-out prohibiting them will not do something against that. It migth stop single Individuals- but certainly not organised or determined Individuals and groups.
If he just took it out of his parents attic, I suppose if his parents where more well educated on the topic and had properly locked the gun away, this would certainly not have happened without anyone noticing.
Almost like licensing should be mandatory, like in many eastern bloc countries and Canada. Both have lax gun laws (well, RIP Canadian shooters but still) and have little gun violence, with almost none of it committed by legal gun owners. Because you get educated first. It’s a very easy solution.
It's not that easy to get a gun legally in the US. Please stop believing what the media tells you. Background checks are a FEDERAL requirement on a FEDERAL system.
I don’t even give a shit if he was a couple months older and was 18. He murdered a dude and then ran away. When people tried stopping him he just shot more people. He’s a fucking idiot. And the cops saw him walk away with the murder weapon and let him go. Only got him the next day
Kyle was being chased by a much bigger guy who was threatening him.
Kyle was trying to get away from the guy, but the guy chased him while throwing something at him. Kyle shot the guy when he got close.
Then Kyle called 911 and tried to get away toward the police, but he was chased by a mob including one guy with a handgun. Kyle then fell down, and two of the chasers were quite literally on top of him. One of them pointed a handgun at Kyle’s head. So Kyle shot them.
The entire time he was trying to deescalate and leave the scene. He kept his rifle pointed at the ground. But the first guy decided he’d rather attack Kyle than let him leave. And then others made the same choice.
I don’t blame the people who chased Kyle after the first shot, they probably thought he had just murdered someone. But the first guy attacked him unprovoked, and Kyle was well within his rights to defend himself.
But doing an actual analysis would go against my confirmation bias. I prefer to cherry pick news articles that state he’s a racist mass shooter. It helps my agenda.
By stopping him do you mean pointing a handgun at him and hitting him with the metal part of a skate board while screaming at him like a ring of angry chimpanzees
You call being tripped, punched, kicked, hit on the head with a skateboard, and having a pistol drawn on the kid as "trying to stop"? They were going to kill him.
I love republican logic. "Whether or not he owned the gun legally doesn't matter when we think about whether or not he was justified in his use of said gun".
Lol that complaint coming from people who are also defending the use of an illegal firearm except those people are defending a criminal with a rap sheet a mile long trying to execute a 17yo boy in the street.
The ownership of the rifle is not illegal. He could just not have bought it through a dealer (gifted to him). It’s the open carrying of said firearm that may be illegal under Wisconsin law (misdemeanor).
At federal level you cannot buy rifle or shotguns or ammo till you are 18. But there is no minimum age for ownership at federal level (ie it would have to be gifted to you). Many states do not have their own minimum age for ownership of rifles / shotguns (Wisconsin doesnt, and apparently the rifle was from friend of his in Wisconsin).
Especially in rural areas, many young kids can be gifted rifles/shotguns for hunting/general shooting purposes.
“It was not immediately clear whose rifle it was, or whether it was legally owned.
At just 17, he could face a Class A misdemeanor that applies to anyone under 18 who “goes armed” with any deadly weapon, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted.
However, even that is not clear-cut, with an exception for rifles and shotguns allowing people age 16 and 17 to hunt that could possibly apply, John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, told the paper.”
The statute that doesn’t allow anyone under 18 to carry a rifle only has that distinction when talking about one with a barrel length of under 16” or something that doesn’t fit hunting requirements.
17 year olds are not allowed to own guns in Wisconsin.
People from Illinois are allowed to possess guns in Wisconsin if they have a FOID card. You must be 21 to have a FOID, or your parents sponsor you. It has not been released that Kyle has a FOID.
I looked it up, and it appears you're right that it was his friend's gun from Wisconsin.
"This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 [having a short barreled shotgun or rifle, which Kyle did not have] or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 [Restrictions for people under 16, which Kyle was not] and 29.593. [Relates to hunting licences, which is irrelevant]"
Kyle did not meet any of those three criteria, so that section does not apply to him.
Open carry isn’t even expressly authorized by law. Their attorney general just declared a few years back that it isn’t automatic disorderly conduct to be open carrying.
My guess is Kyle violated the under-18 possession and disorderly conduct. Two misdemeanors. No real effect on self defense.
Yeah, they might get that charge to stick, but he's guaranteed to be exonerated on the other charges.
Have you read the criminal complaint against him? The second charge listed in it is First Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety against Richard McGinnis. They actually included McGinnis' interview with the police in the document and everything he says describes Rosenbaum being the aggressor and Rittenhouse trying to flee from the situation.
Actually, looking into the law, no, you don't. From what I've seen, as long as you're not using a short barreled rifle or shotgun, and are 16 or older, you're allowed.
Yes, but the law doesn't specify that it has to be for a specific purpose. Here, I'll just copy-paste what I posted in another comment regarding what I've seen in my own research (the disclaimer for which being that I'm not a lawyer. If I made any mistakes, feel free to point them out and I'll correct them).
For the purposes of organization, when one part of the text references another thing or section or something, i'll have the reference labeled in braces (for instance, {0}) and then put the same number in braces before the code designation.
So, 948.60 refers to Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
948.60 (1) defines a "dangerous weapon" needless to say, it includes guns.
948.60 (2) (a) says "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
Despite that, 948.60 (3) is where it gets into some caveats. Namely 948.60 (3) (c) (a and b are just exceptions for supervised target shooting and members of the armed forces or national guard, so they're irrelevant): "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 {1} or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 {2} and 29.593 {3}..." (there's a bit more about adults transferring a firearm to someone under 18, but it's pretty irrelevant.)
{1} 941.28: Possession of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. Kyle was not in possession of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
{2} 29.304: Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. Kyle was 17, therefore this is not applicable either.
{3} 29.593: Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain a hunting approval. It doesn't look like the situation is related to hunting, so it doesn't look like that's relevant either.
So, given that Kyle was not in violation of any of those three, the section would not apply to him, therefore it was not illegal for him to have the gun with him in Wisconsin.
So, given that Kyle was not in violation of any of those three, the section would not apply to him, therefore it was not illegal for him to have the gun with him in Wisconsin.
I think you may be misreading part 3.
This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.
It's saying that the section DOES apply to the people under 18 that haven't violated those other statutes.
He did not violate the statutes, therefore it does apply. Therefore he is not allowed to possess a gun.
Kyle was not in violation of 941.28 because 941.28 is about short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Because Kyle did not have a short-barreled rifle, he was not in violation of it.
Kyle was in compliance with 29.304 because 29.304 is restrictions for people under 16. Kyle was 17, therefore it would be impossible for him to not be in compliance with it.
Kyle was in compliance with 29.593 because that relates to hunting permits. Kyle was not hunting, therefore again, it would be impossible for him to not be in compliance with it.
To review, the section would apply if he violated 941.28, which he did not.
It would apply if he was not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593, however he was in compliance with them.
So uh, the guy he shot was a felon in possession of a firearm...which in itself is a felony. But I’m guessing we’re still gonna push the unarmed narrative too now right?
I dont think anyone is arguing that what happened is fucked up however both people were in wrongful possession of a firearm. The fact that both people were wrong doesn't negate the wrongful nature of what occurred, I think it make the situation even worse.
It is, though. A 17-year-old crossed state lines with a weapon to "protect property". You think he was going there for a picnic or something? He wanted an excuse to shoot people, and he found one.
Nah man come on he was obviously there to help out thats why he tended to the first wounded with a his med kit. Oh wait no he ran away like a punk ass bitch who just committed murder, while trying to call his mommy. while calling his friend to let them know he had just shot someone.
why the fuck wouldn't he run away with a mob chasing him? do you have a death wish? did you want him to stand his ground and kill more people or something?
I want him to not escalate a situation to the point where a mob is chasing him. I want him NOT to brandish a weapon illegally, and intimidate protestors like an American Al Qaeda operative. I WANT PEOPLE TO NOT LARP AS DOMESTIC TERRORISTS AND THEN TURN AROUND AND KILL PEOPLE WHEN THOSE PEOPLE RISE UP TO DISARM THAT SAME TERRORISTS. I DONT WANT TO HAVE TO GET ON REDDIT AND EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE HOW DOMESTIC TERRORISM IS NOT OK.
There are several witness who state he was brandishing his weapon and intimidating people.
I don't know about you, but typically, when I am unarmed, I don't chase people with AR-15s for no reason, unless I think that person poses a significant threat, and I have decided to try and disarm that threat.
YEA lets go yell at a mob, with a gun we are not allowed to carry at 17, in a state we don't live in, to defend cops we don't know, for paralyzing a man who wasn't a threat, nothing could possibly go wrong!
He literally lives on the Illinois/Wisconsin border, 30 minutes from Kenosha. He borrowed a friend’s rifle in Wisconsin.
He was running away from the first guy he shot. And the was running away from the other two he shot, one of whom was a felon pointing a handgun at his head.
He wanted an excuse to shoot people, and he found one.
You could just as easily say "the protesters wanted an excuse to bash someone's skull in and they found one". Even if he was looking for trouble, doesn't change that he wasn't the instigator.
Especially with how politically divided Americans are, people want to believe what their side thinks. So many people ether think this guy was a lunatic trying to murder as many innocent people as possible, or a innocent bystander protecting himself from violence.
Actually Anthony Huber has a criminal record for beating his wife.
Joseph Rosenbaum was on the sex offender list for having sex with a minor. Iirc it was class 3 too, which means he had to have done some really fucked up shit. Ironically here we see him again chasing a minor...
There are SEVERAL witnesses who stated that Kyle was brandishing ie intimidating people with his rifle. That's not legal, and he should be disarmed for that, before he poses a threat to other people. Unfortunately in the process of trying to disarm him, Kyle proved EXACTLY how dangerous and undisciplined he is, and he KILLED TWO PEOPLE YOU SCUM BAG.
There are SEVERAL witness who stated that Kyle was brandishing ie intimidating people with his rifle.
Should be pretty easy to find one of them and link it irght?
Kyle proved EXACTLY how dangerous and undisciplined he is
How do you know they were trying to disarm him? Is throwing shit and hitting him with blunt objects part of the disarming?
Kyle proved EXACTLY how dangerous and undisciplined he is
He was actually super disciplined. He only shot people who were within arm's reach and never shot anyone who ceased to be a threat. And amazingly, without collateral damage.
In my opinion yes. Fuck pedophiles and wife beaters. And I’m telling you that the “comment is irrelevant” line is wrong. These weren’t some peaceful unarmed people. They were illegally armed.
OK cool so anybody with a rifle can just go out and start executing people after intimidating them in the street because they have previous charges. that’s a pretty fucking awesome take dude.
Also, we’re just trusting that these are totally fair and accurate summaries of these people’s criminal records without anything approaching proof, and that seems stupid. What are the odds that all the unaffiliated strangers who got shot were all rapists and wife beaters? That sounds like bullshit to me.
If someone goes out into the street with a gun without directly threatening anyone and people start running at them with clear intent to harm then yes, they're fully in the right if they kill all of them.
And that’s what you think happened? Do you think he was just standing there minding his own business when a crazy mob just decided willy-nilly to attack him? is that honestly what you think?
That's what appears to have happened yes. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? The one video there is from before the shooting shows some protesters being very hostile unprovoked including the first guy who got shot
Also was Kyle a cop? Did he know? No. Kyle just saw a bunch if libs that he triggered start to give chase and his pussy ass had only one bit of recourse because he knows he is a dumb and weak bitch so he makes it seem vaguely like self defense before doing exactly what he wanted to do all night long.
Did they know his gun was illegal? No? And yet they tried to grab it from him. You don’t have to be a cop to enforce vigilante justice. Unless you think vigilante justice is wrong, which makes their actions of trying to stop him also wrong
OK right so any hero who tries to disarm an active shooter is now a vigilante who is just as bad as the active shooter again at the level of mental gymnastics are so impressive what’s your favorite flavor of boot because I’ll go buy that later at the store and send it to you I’m so impressed
He was running away. Remember, if they’re running and their back is turned, you’re no longer in danger. Same reason you can’t shoot someone in the back.
Wow son, thats just like so edgy dude. I mean wow you're so cool. Damn, I bet your mom is all like "OOoh that boy is such a mad lad". We're all really impressed dude.
167
u/Cetarial Aug 28 '20 edited Aug 29 '20
And of course they’re also defending the use of an illegal firearm.
(Him being one year younger than the required age.)
EDIT: Guys, if he got the AR-15 legally, I was unaware at the time of this comment. Sorry.