Depends how you look at it. If you look at it as imposing a trial tax, it seems unreasonable. If you look at it as offering a plea discount, perhaps not so much. But I could talk about this for hours and I don't want to derail this thread. Then again, I guess not much is happening ITT while we wait for the jury to return anyway.

Well, as is now they have that right, and in some states you can carry concealed without a permit. Just go to the gun store, fill out your 4473, wait 5 minutes, pay, stick it in your pants, and you're fully legal.

As for my personal opinion, I think both a mental health evaluation and a firearm class should be required to own a gun. I realize that's making owning a firearm a privilege and not a right and has its own set of problems, though.

I also think all states should require a private firearm sale go through an FFL. It won't prevent private sales being done without an FFL, but it would change the way gun show sales are done.



I call it shooting in self-defense. The steel trucks of a skateboard blow to the head can be deadly, as well as a .40 Glock to the head can be. The manlet at the gas station is a bit less clear.

Once again, it probably bears repeating, I do not think he should have been there and I think his mom is a major dumbass for giving him permission. Even that being the case, he doesn't lose his right to self-defense.

Dude, he (was) 17. He has agency. Who cares what his mom did or didn't allow?

We're saying he could arguably legally own that weapon, but he needs mommy's permission to go out after 6? Can't have it both ways.

Seriously? A parent can have a major influence on a child's decisions - even when they have agency, and in my case, especially when they're also eating my food and being sheltered by the house I paid for.

A "child" shouldn't be wandering around in a riot with an AR 15. If he's old enough to be doing that, he's not a child. IMO, that's not the sort of decision that a parent has any say in. If you're old enough to be doing that, you're old enough to not need permission from your parents to do it.

Seems that the court agrees, as they certified him to be tried as an adult.

That is exactly what I am talking about. You may be "asking for it", by shouting that in a crowded bar, but it does not warrant being physically attacked, nor would it take away your right to defend yourself in that spot. On the other hand, if you just went to some random guy, called his mother a whore, and punched him in the eye, that would be legal provocation.

And this is where we're going to disagree. I don't think you have a right to be armed because you may need to shoot someone for self defense.
That, in my opinion, is not a good reason.

I don't think many of us here disagree with the fact that, under the circumstances, he likely did act in self defense. But if he doesn't have a gun no one pays attention to him. This is a pretty good example of why I said playing army isn't a valid reason to own/carry a gun. Local laws really should be in place to protect people. The bastardized interpretation of the second amendment prevents that.

You'd think the states rights brigade would be all over that.

Lack of parenting is absolutely a factor in this symptom. But the disease is systemic.

Once again, where did I ever say he should be wondering around a riot?

I'm simply saying that if one of my kids at 17 said to me, "Hey pops, I need a lift to the riots so I can pick up my straw purchased AR15 and protect the streets" I would have said "If you leave the house, find a new place to live," and I would have changed the locks.

If you're still confused, I am just giving my personal opinion on something that has no legal merit to the trial. Discussing changing gun laws also has no legal merit in the case either, but it's just things people do.

Ok - I understand where you're coming from and I think we probably agree here. I think I was a bit triggered because of the connotation that he's just an innocent little kid, but I probably read too much into your words.

I know the defence referred to him as "the kid" at various points in the closing, which pissed me off.

Once you get into legislating the specific purposes for which gun ownership is permissible, things get difficult. And once you permit gun ownership, some people are going to, in your words, play army. That's part of the cost of this particular constitutional rule.

I'm mildly against gun regulation but not seriously so. I suspect I could come to agreement with reasonable people on the left as to a set of rules and regulations we'd both think are appropriate.

How about “Don’t walk around town carrying a gun?”

Yes. But owning a gun is on thing and carrying it around with no good purpose is another.

It's funny when you think of the fact that you can't loiter in public. This imaginary right to walk around packing would seem to trump the very right to exist in a public space.

If a reasonable gun advocate exists maybe he can find someone he can agree with. But I'm not sure there is such an animal. I mean...advocating for guns. As if they have needs.

So home defense is fine, but not carry in public? Just trying to understand where you draw the lines.

Well, sure, but no gun; no show. He wasn't there to be a medic, and he wasn't there to kill people. Like he said in the video before the shooting, "We're putting ourselves in harm's way." He wanted to look like a badass army ranger because he's an insecure little kid, and someone put him to the test.

What disease? I'd say it's systemic in the regard that he has dumb parents that taught him all this dumb stuff to where he would make a dumb decision without realizing it's dumb.

seems like a lot of people saying guilty are heavily leaning on he was underage, had a gun and shouldn't have been there as a big reason why. not putting as much emphasis on the shooting of the video

Well, the video did say some nasty words and hit him with a skateboard.

Oh, yeah, for sure. He went there to be a big boy, and he has to take his big boy medicine.

You don't think there is any valid reason why a person might want to conceal carry a firearm?

There's never a valid reason to open carry in a populated area that I can think of. If you're hunting or sport shooting it should be unloaded in a case. If rural areas want to allow some more freedom that's up to stater and local legislatures but really has nothing to do with the second amendment as it was originally intended. This seems like common sense.

The disease is a society that thinks individuals have a right to walk around armed for no reason. A sick culture if you ask me. It's really pretty bad when you think about it. Are we even trying to be a cohesive society at that point ? Seems not.

He brought a skateboard to a gun fight.

Of course not.

I can't think of many. You may be in law enforcement and undercover at the moment. Other than that if you need to carry, carry openly.

Say a young hot chick that needs to show houses to complete strangers to rent. I think a pistol in her purse is better than having one open on her hip. Sure, it being open would likely deter an opportunist rapist, but it would probably be off-putting or uncomfortable to others.

Off-duty officer?

Nope. If he needs to carry he can open carry. The better to keep an eye on him.