I'll Kiss. 1. A child having a weapon of war. Bad. 2. A child having a weapon of war at riot. Bad 3. A child having a weapon of war at a riot, not his property, bad. 4. Kyle called a friend saying he killed Rosenbaum, but not medical care. Bad 5. Gross* could have shot him. He didnt.
Also, I wouldn't give too much credit to Gaige Grosskreutz / Paul Prediger's apparent benevolence. He wishes that he had shot Rittenhouse, and has made several comments about that since, both to his buddy Jacob Marshall in the hospital, and directly. He was just too slow.
He didnt shoot and could have. Im guessing he wasnt a pro like Kyle having just shot two people with no empathy whatsoever. For normal humans, its hard to pull the trigger, even when you know you should.
He wasn’t given the chance to shoot. What empathy was Rittenhouse supposed to have? He reasonably believed that doing so was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, remember?
He had his gun out prior to his arm being vaporized and had been moving toward Rittenhouse. He could have shot him several times.
He testified that he called the first number in his recent calls list, which happened to be Dominick Black as Black had called him moments earlier to send him down to 63rd street to the reported Duramax on fire. Why is that ‘bad’? Do you not suppose he could well have been in shock?
He didnt try to call 911. Ive been in shocking situations and I called 911. Particularly the time I was tboned and still managed to immediately call the police. I didnt call my friend I bought my car from and say, "I just probably killed someone, lawls."
You probably weren’t alone in a potentially hostile situation like he was either, where human nature makes people feel like they need back-up and support. You talk a lot about empathy, but struggle to see why a 17 year old who had just been jumped and had shot that person might phone his friend.
It was a semi-automatic rifle, to civilian specification, not a weapon of war. It is not inherently immoral that he was in possession of it, even at a riot. What he did with it is what must be judged as good or bad. It is not ‘bad’ that he wanted the means to protect himself from potential violence.
Ah yes, the 556 bullet meant to kill small rodents....not to kill humans and it certainly wasnt standardized by NATO forces and totally isnt a near identical to the 223. Those tiny little bullets are just to have fun with and arent used for war. Ever.
He was carrying a widely available, civilian specification rifle. Would you refer to a pistol as a weapon of war? They are carried as a sidearm. It’s just rhetoric, man, to make it sound far more dangerous and thus heinous. Come on.
Depends on the bullet. Thats what actually matters and not the semantics you are using. That bullet was designed to kill humans in war. Period.
So other bullets don't kill people? People don't get killed when shot with handguns? It's a nonsense argument. The only reason people use "weapon of war" in argument is because it sounds grand, and makes it sound more heinous. It is rhetoric, the same way people like to use "crossed state lines".
Now ur being disingenious. Lets draw it out with crayons. Are you more likely to die being hit in the leg with a .22 or .556? You are essentially saying swords arent weapons of war becauase knives sometimes kill people. God you people are dishonest.
Trying to dress up a rifle and ammunition which is widely available to civilians and the public as a “weapon of war” is dishonest. Rifles, pistols and knives are all used in war, but the term is reserved in argument for the AR-15 in this case, because it gives the argument a perceived gravitas.
You are trying to pretend a weapon of war is automatic only. False. .556 was designed for war. Period.
I haven’t said any such thing.
Weird.. "It was a semi-automatic rifle, to civilian specification, not a weapon of war." Why mention semi auto there? Almost implying it needs to be auto. Strange.
Wow....lets clap. You are getting there. Those bullets shouldnt be widely available and SHOULD have restrictions. Because their only purpose is what??? Kill humans in war. They were designed specifically for that. Killing other humans in war. Not hunting. Not "self defense".
Hollow points are going to give you just as much a bad day. Besides which, the self-defense statute of Wisconsin actually permits the use of force “intended…. to cause death” where circumstances dictate, so it really is irrelevant which he carried.
Of all the foolish assertions that character has made, that is the silliest of all. Firearms are designed to be lethal weapons. The ammunition is meant to kill. The ammunition used in the AR15 can be used to hunt or for self-defense.
No they wont, they wont vaporize meat like a .556 will. I do t care what the idiotic republican governors allow. Its wrong. There is a reason we have the highest gun deaths in the world. Its not because we have moral legislators
