Posts
Mr Rittenhouse, being 17, was clearly in possession of a dangerous weapon while being under the age of 18.
Without that dangerous weapon, the mob would have murdered him.
It occurs to me that, once again, an arbitrary limitation on possessing the means of self defense would have led to the death of someone obeying this unjust limitation.
Gee, just like when blacks were disarmed by Jim Crow laws.
It's like what the Pink Pistols have long said, "Armed fags don't get bashed!"
And they don't.
These limitations on the means for self defense are the root of the gun free victim zone.
Florida has even more stringent age limitations than Wisconsin.
It's always ironic that we allow children to start operating the most dangerous weapon in America as early as 14 years old, even letting them operate them unsupervised at 16 with appropriate education and training.
Cars.
But they have to start cold with guns at a much later age? Some children learn earlier, if their families say, "fuck the law" and teach their kids to shoot at an earlier age. In Florida you cannot carry any kind of firearm for self defense until you're 21 and only once The State has blessed you with a license.
They cannot buy a handgun or a modern rifle suitable for defense until they're 21 either.
Yet they can vote, serve in the military and sign contracts.
Making people wait until their older isn't the solution.
Let's do what the anti-gunners keep talking about.
Let's do it like cars.
Teach this in schools.
Create a legal way for kids to learn self defense, shooting and the proper, safe, use of firearms in a supervised manner.
Create a pathway, through skills and training rather than just a default age where they can obtain the permits earlier.
The entire point of these default ages is this is when someone is presumed to be mature enough to handle the heady responsibility of doing whatever it is that requires the age to do it.
You can get a driver's license at 16 if you've taken driver's ed. You have to wait until you're 18 if you didn't.
For fuck's sake, the gorram LAW allows for someone as young as NINE to be tried as an adult!
Why is there no method that allows someone as young as 14 to prove they're mature enough to own and carry a gun?
This is something we should start demanding.
If this system of allowing younger people early access to the means of self defense saves even one life; I think it's worth it!
"Mr Rittenhouse, being 17, was clearly in possession of a dangerous weapon while being under the age of 18."
ReplyDeleteAndrew Tuohy, blogging at the Omaha Outdoors website has done a detailed analysis of the shooting (https://www.omahaoutdoors.com/blog/kyle-rittenhouse-acted-in-lawful-self-defense-in-kenosha/). On the possession of "a dangerous weapon" charge, he reaches a conclusion at odds with your initial assertion:
"The single misdemeanor charge is for “possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.” This section of Wisconsin law, § 948.60(2)(a), according to subsection (3) of the same statute, only applies to minors who are in violation of the state’s law against short barreled rifles. The state defines a short barreled rifle as one with a barrel under 16 inches, and the complaint does not allege the barrel of the rifle Rittenhouse used was under 16 inches. Therefore, Kyle Rittenhouse was not in violation of this section of Wisconsin law."
His conclusion in no way invalidates your principal contention, but I thought you might be interested.
Regards
PM
Happy to be wrong. But if it's only for SBR then it should be an easy dismissal.
DeleteThe trouble with trying to teach shooting at a young age, particularly in schools, is that the Usual Suspects will fall all over themselves, their knickers in knots, howling about "Columbine! COLUMBINE!" That, combined with liability issues and no place to practice (I'm told that a lot of older high schools had actual rifle ranges on premises, but those have been sealed off or converted to other uses lang syne) would make training teenagers to shoot difficult. When we did riflery in my senior year gym class, we had to go to the National Guard armory to shoot.
ReplyDelete"Teach this in schools. Create a legal way for kids to learn self defense, shooting and the proper, safe, use of firearms in a supervised manner." It makes sense doesn't it. I graduated high school in 1981, an age where driver's ed was taught in high school. Why not teach gun safety - it would take a very short time to accomplish. This would remove a portion of kids who 'found' gun in their home an accidentally killed someone. Lives would be saved.
ReplyDeleteI was in ROTC in 9th grade, we shot rimfire target rifles at the high school rifle range on campus. I wish I had checked out who the manufacturer was, I just know they were bull barelled with aperture receiver peep sights.
jrg
I signed out my biathlon rifle from my high school and rode the bus home with it on weekends.
DeleteNo firearms allowed in school is a recent thing.
I carried a 22 rifle on my jackrabbit trap line when I was 5 years old to dispatch rabbits. My dad taught me all the safety rules before I was allowed to go by myself. Middle 60's
ReplyDelete