Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Justin Stapley's avatar

It's not entirely surprising, but I keep seeing people getting tripped up in arguing the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario. They're straining at nats and entirely missing my point. My point is that it is not difficult to foresee intersecting claims of self-defense and that part of ethically carrying a firearm is to not provoke others into believing they should fear for themselves.

Moving beyond the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario, my point is that open carry, patrol carry, low ready, militant behavior and dress, and a tactical presence can be, in and of themselves, provocative acts especially in volatile situations. The people who are confronted by such circumstances have a right to self-defense as well, and, as I point out, self-defense requires only a reasonable belief that someone's life is in danger, which is not a difficult burden to meet.

I'm not arguing the specifics of the Rittenhouse scenario, I'm arguing that the pro-gun community failed Rittenhouse by engendering a culture that lacks ethical consideration and led to an untrained seventeen-year-old inserting himself into a situation that got people killed, could have gotten himself killed, and led to a lengthy legal process that could have resulted in serious criminal consequences.

I guess I just think we should have this conversation now before another young man, responding to all the praise being heaped on Rittenhouse, inserts himself into a volatile situation, with a gun, that he neither has the training nor maturity to properly handle and ends up with a prison sentence or gets himself killed.

Expand full comment
Jason Bellomo's avatar

About as well as I’ve heard this articulated.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts