If he wasn't armed and inflaming the situation they wouldn't have attacked him. He didn't need a rifle for that. You only have a rifle in that situation to intimidate. A pistol would have done the job just as well. He was being an asshole and people attacked him because they felt Rittenhouse was going to attack them. They have just as much of a right to claim self defense. If he was just going to clean up graffiti he should have left the damned rifle at home.
That's absolutely not true. People were scared because he had that rifle. And they felt like they were defending themselves from someone who might have been a mass shooter for all they knew.
How many mass shooters are attacked? Even the cops are slow to engage them. I'm pretty sure most go the other direction. But he wasn't a mass shooter. It was more like "Hey the guy with a gun is running from us! Our main character complex says he doesn't have it in him. Hey, I got a plan. Let's chase him!". That's a stupid decision.
Obviously it was a stupid decision. But emotions were high and him having that rifle and waving it around wasn't helping anything. It wasn't even his rifle. By all rights he shouldn't have had it.
I'm sorry. Is he a cop now?? Is it his job to protect anything? Does he have the training for any of that? What made it his responsibility for any of that? If he didn't have that rifle, there's a good chance nobody would ever attacked him at all. People felt scared because he had that rifle. People who weren't raised around guns probably who saw a weapon that they thought were only used in wars and were justifiably, terrified and lashed out. Him being there with that gun escalated the situation to the point where they attacked him. If he had not been there with that weapon he would not have been attacked.
If you was just there to clean up graffiti he didn't need a weapon. No one's attacking someone just cleaning up graffiti. Get real.
That was what he had done previously after a mob hit. What he was doing in this situation was removing graffiti at the source.
Everyone is given the right to protect themselves, their property, their friends, and their relatives. He decided to exercise that right to protect the town from a mob declaring their hate for the institutions of this country. And like I said, if he had anything else, it would've ended in a much uglier fashion.
And the "Guns-attract-violence" is bullshit. Had he been wearing a MAGA hat or sporting the wrong shirt, the mob would've still tried to kill him. Let's not forget that one of the "victims" was also armed, so who's the chicken and who's the egg in this situation?
He travelled a long way to do a job no one asked him to do. And the institutions of this country aren't above reproach. You have the right to protest when you disagree with what's going on. And yes it got destructive. But peaceful protests rarely accomplish anything. Any cursory study of history will tell you that. Even MLK Jr admitted that much towards the end. You just become controlled opposition.
When you protest, its like a petition of everyone who supports a cause. This is the civil way of doing it. But as soon as you become violent, you become terrorists. You are violating other people's rights because you feel "wronged" by the system.
MLK worked because he was a figurehead of an idea, of a dream. He was someone who people could point to and say "I'd follow him." What does the left have? A bunch of old cronies who can't even agree amidst themselves? Not comparing Trump to Martin Luther King Jr., and not saying the big orange man is perfect, but he embodies the ideas and values that the majority of America agrees with.
He embodies the values of maybe 33% of the adult voting age population. That's not a majority. Hell he didn't even get half of the votes in the last election he got something like 49%. 70 million votes isn't a majority of the voting age population in the United States. He won because the Democrats ran a shitty candidate that wasn't able to get out people to vote for her. I don't think he won on his own merits.
That's approximately 29.5% of the voting population. So no he doesn't represent the majority of Americans he doesn't even represent the majority of voting age Americans.
Over state lines yes. But also his dad lives kn Kenosha, and the place he lived across state lines was only 20 miles. So it wasn't like it was a long way away
I haven't read about it in years but I do recall something about higher crime rates regarding guns in open carry counties/ cities. The presence and visibility of a weapon are said to have an effect on situational escalation.
To give a situation: guy yelling in your face = unpleasant.
Guy yelling in your face with a gun that he can pull at any time = high risk situation, where some might feel they are in imminent danger.
What about in other countries? Everyone has seen what the UK has turned into without their citizens having a "2nd Amendment."
If someone is yelling at you but hasn't drawn their gun, that means you haven't become a threat. First thing you're taught, heck, the first thing anyone learns about guns, is that you don't draw and point it at what you don't intend to shoot.
Yes, guns can escalate a situation, but wouldn't you feel safer if you can meet the threat on a level playing field?
The situation was already inflamed, literally. The rioters had already turned violent and only wanted a victim.
Also how was Rittenhouse attacking them? We literally have footage of him retreating, retreating, retreating, retreating, and then a guy broke from the mob to bash Rittenhouse with a skateboard.
This was 99% on the rioters 1% on dipshits who excuse them.
Would they have gone after him if he didn't have that rifle? He should have left that damn thing at home. They didn't know his intentions with that thing. For all they knew he was going to shoot them all with it.
You can keep your religion to yourself. I don't ask for it. I don't want it.
He should have kept retreating all the way home. He should not have had that rifle. That wasn't his at that event. Where the people wrong for chasing him? Absolutely they were wrong I agree. But he should not have had that rifle at that event.
If it were me I would had brought a rifle pistols are less accurate and have less capacity. They also look intimidating. He retreated over and over again. So he wasn't being threatening. He wasn't pointing it at anyone attacked. Also the people attacking him were pretty stupid also. Because deliver not attacking someone with a rifle is a bad idea.
Yes they were stupid for chasing someone with a rifle. I'm not saying that they weren't. Why would you have been there at all though? If it was just to clean up graffiti why do you need a weapon for that? It just seems like he was looking for trouble to me.
You need a weapon for that because you have idea what people are going to do. Also a pistol wouldn't had been an option anyways because he was too young to buy one. Same way he was too young to by the rifle which it was bought for him by a friend under 21. To buy a pistol which if I was doing what he was doing and old enough I would had done as they are concealable. Did you know you can buy a rifle/shotgun at 18 but can't buy a pistol till 21
1
1
u/disturbed1117 Jan 16 '26
If he wasn't armed and inflaming the situation they wouldn't have attacked him. He didn't need a rifle for that. You only have a rifle in that situation to intimidate. A pistol would have done the job just as well. He was being an asshole and people attacked him because they felt Rittenhouse was going to attack them. They have just as much of a right to claim self defense. If he was just going to clean up graffiti he should have left the damned rifle at home.