Jump to content

Yama

Members
  • Posts

    4,544
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Yama

  1. They seem to have some sort of fetish for overly heavy firearms, even their 9mm submachine gun was apparently heavier than Suomi, which most people today view too heavy. One would think that light weight would be preferred in Swiss geography, but I guess they were just so damn buff they had no problem hauling all that precisely machined steel around...
  2. FAL, too. Funnily enough, I recall that the original manual of AK-47 recommends heavy lubrication. What, there was a milled receiver MG 42?
  3. When you carry a deadly weapon, you must assume a basic responsibility for it. It is not 'blaming the victim' any more than asking whether you left your car keys on, or if you had locked your front door. It's just basic common sense and taking responsibility. Again, you are repeating the line that it was 100% coincidence that one person who was underaged and not trained to handle this kind of situations was the one who was forced to pull the trigger, not once but multiple times. Your point might have more weight had the week of rioting seen multiple people getting into deadly incidents, but Rittenhouse was the only one. I concede that it cannot be COMPLETELY ruled out it all was just a luck of the die, but I like my odds much more than yours. If you have nothing more to say than to repeat this extremely weak position of yours, I see no need to reply to you any further. Well that was I said, wasn't it? However, why bother repeating the line that it was somehow more justifiable because he had some 20 year old convictions (were there any newer ones, or was that just a sample?) Rittenhouse couldn't have known any of that so it doesn't make his decision to fire any more or less defensible. Same goes to other direction, Rosenbaum's GF apparently said that he was depressed and off his meds (ironically, he was not getting his meds due to riots). I don't know if it is actually true, but it would explain his seemingly death wishing behaviour. But even if it was true, again, Rittenhouse could not have known it. Any way, regarding the end result, I am not too surprised especially after carrying the deadly weapon charge was dismissed. I have only argued that he was dumb to get into situation like that, but being dumb is not illegal per se, most of the time anyway.
  4. Wasn't Roman concrete volcanic material based, or at least the better types were? They probably couldn't make it in the Eastern part.
  5. In fairness it's pretty easy to kind of lose the count of the shots when you're pulling the trigger in stressful situations, especially if you assume first shot missed - remember that Brazilian guy whom the police shot in the head 11 times during the London Tube bombings? Our courts would nevertheless gleefully convict him from 'excessive force' (they would argue for firing a warning shot and then shooting to wound etcetera...) but of course juries over there may see things differently.
  6. So why none of the trained people - or even untrained adults - had to fire fatal shot that night, or any night of the events? Witnesses told that Rosenbaum was heckling many armed people, verbally provoking them and teasing them to shoot him - nobody fired a shot. The obvious answer is that all those other people either did not make themselves similarly vulnerable, or they had other verbal or physical means to defuse the situation. You are promoting the less obvious answer - that it was just a chance that his target happened to be 17-year old kid. Well, good luck with those odds. As for the evidence for his lack of security training or experience, I can only offer circumstantial evidence, as is the case when trying to prove a negative. Burden of proof is on those who try to prove the positive. Also, about Rosenbaum being convicted from pedophilia 20 years ago which many people are using as some kind of trump card - what does it matter? Seriously, it is utterly bizarre to bring this up as some kind of justification, even Rittenhouse's defence used it as an argument. Did Rosenbaum wear a badge or shout his criminal record out loud so Rittenhouse suddenly realized "oh boy, this is a bad guy, I better shoot him!" I mean, of course a former criminal history might explain why he was doing what he was, but for the immediate justification for the situation, Rosenbaum could have been a saint ascended from heaven, fresh off saving a busload of orphans, and it shouldn't change legal or moral situation one bit.
  7. Yama

    Health Update

    Only now checked back to this thread...didn't expect to hear this. Sad to again lose one of the Grognards R.I.P.
  8. Never said otherwise: I have only commented his overall responsibility for the events, not the individual heat-of-the-moment decisions, which are much more defensible.
  9. Indeed he was not. You seem to think it was only a coincidence. I don't think it was. He said he turned his back on Rosenbaum after he came to heckle him. Not at all. A trained, experienced professional would have never got into scuffle with Rosenbaum. Also he wouldn't have been alone and made himself vulnerable for being mobbed while carrying a powerful firearm which could have fallen into wrong hands. If Rittenhouse had been a cop, he would have been fired immediately afterwards for losing the control of the situation like that.
  10. Grosskreutz' gun was not pointed on Rittenhouse when he was shot: also, if he WANTED to shoot Rittenhouse, he could have done it safely far away - for example, when he fell, as you note - he didn't need to advance within touching distance if his intent was just to kill him.
  11. Sounds like a bizarre argument to make as you could claim fault on either case - 'inhumane hollow-point' vs 'over-penetrating FMJ'. Seems it's indeed chatter in attempt to get witness confused and distracted and maybe drop something damning.
  12. You are again completely off the mark: I have never argued he was wrong to pull the trigger once physically attacked, I have argued he should not have been in that situation in the first place, with his lack of life experience, lack of training dealing with hostile situations, carrying a gun he didn't own etc. Note that his companion - an adult - met the same people at the same time, listened the same trash talk, and didn't fire a shot. You are arguing he was defending his life against vicious attacks by skateboards and grocery bags, when there were people around him with GUNS, who could have shot him at any time if they wanted. Here's a question: if Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse when he had the opportunity to do so, would you come to his defence? Because it seems to me it would have been completely justifiable under the same logic!
  13. Evidence is ample: he was underaged, no training for crowd control or using firearms under pressure, only one to get into fatal altercation in a week of unrest.
  14. I did not. You made it a big deal, I only mentioned it in passing. Rittenhouse was not 'anyone anytime'. He was underaged and obviously too immature and inexperienced to handle the situation which might arise when carrying a deadly firearm. If he wanted to defend himself, he could have done as I suggested - carry pepper spray and stay close to armed adult people. Okay, how much excoriation would be sufficient? 'Stopping the rioting' is better left for law enforcement, there will be less casualties that way. Why he was in such crowd of people, carrying a deadly firearm, getting into scuffles over a dumpster fire? He had no business there carrying a deadly firearm and getting involved in scuffles.
  15. His intentions are not actually terribly relevant. I don't think he went in expecting to gun down people. But by bringing in a lethal firearm without maturity, training or experience to handle situations by other means than shooting people dead, his actions directly led to deaths which were otherwise completely avoidable and unnecessary, and which all the other armed people in the city managed to avoid. See the recent accidental death in the Baldwin movie - nobody intended for a person to get shot for real, a series of reckless and dumb decisions just led to it. The rifle apparently wasn't his, it was handed to him by some other equally reckless dumbass. What he should have done was to say "No thanks, I'm just 17, this time I'll stick with the pepper spray and keep close to you guys". There is a reason why most places have legislation preventing underaged people wandering around with deadly firearms, and Rittenhouse showed why such laws exist.
  16. Yes during '2000s new FN pistols were about twice the cost of Tanfoglio. Though, standard of finish was substantially higher on FN guns.
  17. Obviously haven't been following about Antifa activities across the pond, but it took me 2 seconds to find an example: "August 29, 2017 Press Release San Francisco -- Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement denouncing the violent protests carried out this weekend in Berkeley, California: "Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted." It is blatantly obvious that lot of the 'Antifa activists' are just Black Bloc people wearing a new hat, and most politicians steer clear from that sort of thing.
  18. And there is it! Thank you. FWIW, what I have observed, Antifa is about as popular brand name within the left as Neo-Nazi are within the right.
  19. This is pretty thick thing to say in a thread full of sweeping statements what the 'leftist' peoples motivations are.
  20. No, shooting two people is the same - well, actually, worse. Again, Rittenhouse was the ONLY one who caused fatal casualties during the unrest. Nobody else killed anyone - not the armed protesters, not the armed civilians protecting property, not the cops, not the National Guard. Not even the guy Rittenhouse was with, who was also armed and witnessed the same events which led to the shooting. Only him, because he was too inexperienced and immature and got into situation where he panicked.
  21. What I don't do is to go to another state/city/county with my gun so I can patrol there in a subway and possibly get into fatal altercations. Again, your analogy is completely fallacious.
  22. "From 1985 through 2017, Thomas falsified the results of strength and toughness tests for at least 240 productions of steel — about half the steel the foundry produced for the Navy, according to her plea agreement, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Tacoma. The tests were intended to show that the steel would not fail in a collision or in certain “wartime scenarios," the Justice Department said. There was no allegation that any submarine hulls failed, but authorities said the Navy had incurred increased costs and maintenance to ensure they remain seaworthy. The government did not disclose which subs were affected." 'Remember, your submarine was constructed by the lowest bidder.'
  23. Oh right! Because you are here definitely NOT supporting armed militias...
  24. Very good! It's not very hard to understand though, it has been quite well documented by historians and contemporary media. At its core, the rise of Fascism employed unofficial armed militias, publicly justified under the pretense that regular police was unable to provide security.
×
×
  • Create New...