Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Emily Lake]

Remember though if you see a strange person carrying a gun, you should never view them as threatening and just go about your day as usual.

Or... crazy thought... you could consider the context prior to making a decision about whether or not they're a threat?

Because, once again, ALL OF THE RIOTERS WHO WERE ARMED are people that you seem to think shouldn't be viewed as threats. Realistically, I think it's reasonable to view everyone present as a threat - it was a threatening situation, where large amounts of violence, arson, and damage had already been committed, and where more was expected. Those present and engaged in the riot were a threat regardless of whether they had firearms or not, and those present with the intention of opposing the riot where a threat regardless of whether they had firearms or not.

And if you do view it as threatening you are clearly just against their political beliefs.

Nah. That only happens when you apparently consider only one political viewpoint to be a threat, and you dismiss everyone on the other side as not being a threat. It happens when you go out of your way to single out a minor who was chased and attacked by several adults as being the most horrible evil person on the planet and you completely disregard the actions of the adults who were complicit in the situation, and you repeatedly excuse and justify the aggression perpetrated by Rosenbaum so you can blame the victim of his attack instead.

That's when your own political bias gets called out.

 

[Emily Lake]

Many of the protesters were armed, in the middle of a group of people. Do you hold the view that all of the armed protesters were also dangerous to others and provocative to violence? Do you believe that an aggressive attack targeting an armed protester would be justified, and that the armed protester is at fault for causing the attack and therefore no longer has a right to defend him/herself?

Did they shoot anyone? No. The difference is that they were not enemies of the people they were with, similar to the way if have a group of soldiers or police, and some are armed, the unarmed ones have no fear of them shooting them.

Are you serious? The rioters who had committed violence and arson and damage for several nights already get a free pass from you, because they're not enemies of the other rioters who are also committing violence and arson and damage? And you analogize rampant harm to innocent people as being the same as soldiers or police?

You're casting everyone who wasn't a rioter hell-bent on damage as being an "enemy". JFC.

 

[Emily Lake]

Pay attention:
If Ritt was under attack and felt that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury, he had the right to self-defense. Has anyone ever disputed that?

Yes. Several people in this thread have taken the position that Rittenhouse did NOT have a right to self-defense... because he shouldn't have been present in the first place, and the fact that he was present and in possession of a firearm makes Rittenhouse the aggressor, and it makes Rosenbaum's actions of chasing down, cornering, and attacking Rittenhouse into a defensive action, and therefore Rittenhouse is a murderer.

That's the argument that keeps being made over and over again in this thread: Rittenhouse is a murderer because he had a firearm and was present at a violent protest, therefore he's responsible for getting himself chased, cornered, and attacked by someone else. If Rittenhouse had just not been there, he wouldn't have been attacked, and then he wouldn't have had to murder those people who attacked him.

 

[Elixir]

The rioters who had committed violence and arson and damage for several nights already get a free pass

… because they weren’t murderers. A murderer gets a free pass from Emily because they hadn’t committed violence and arson and damage for several nights already…

/RW “logic”.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don’t agree with the self defense argument because imo, attending a protest with an AK 15 demonstrates one’s intention to use the weapon to kill people.

"He was asking for it, did you see how he was dressed?"

Do you hold the same view for Grosskreutz, who was also armed? Do you view his death as being something he caused to happen to himself, what with going to a riot armed and all? I mean, that certainly does demonstrate his intention to use the weapon to kill people, right?

 

[Elixir]

that certainly does demonstrate his intention to use the weapon to kill people

Nah, brandishing would be that. You know, like that murderous littke trumpsucking punk was doing.

 

[Emily Lake]

The adults who chased Rittenhouse were trying to catch someone who had just shot another person.

Is it your view that Rosenbaum was not an adult?

As for Rittenhouse being ‘attacked,’ someone grabbed the barrel of his gun. Because Kyle was pointing it at him.

Oh for crying out loud. Rosenbaum CHASED AND CORNERED Rittenhouse then tried to take his firearm by force. Rittenhouse's first response to being attacked by Rosenbaum was to run away!

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes. Several people in this thread have taken the position that Rittenhouse did NOT have a right to self-defense... because he shouldn't have been present in the first place, and the fact that he was present and in possession of a firearm makes Rittenhouse the aggressor, and it makes Rosenbaum's actions of chasing down, cornering, and attacking Rittenhouse into a defensive action, and therefore Rittenhouse is a murderer.

Rittenhouse was in violation of the clean hands law doctrine. He purchased the weapon illegally. He entered a closed zone illegally, He was carrying the weapon illegally and it was reported he brandished the weapon which is very illegal and can get you shot if you do it towards police officers.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you attack someone. The person you attacked starts getting the better of you, so it's okay to kill the person you attacked "in self defense". What a totally fucked up viewpoint this is.

There is no evidence that Z attacked Trayvon. And being followed by somebody is not a justification to open a can of "whoop ass" on him. Even if you think that he is a "creepy-ass cracker".

Disagree. Being followed through multiple turns at night over a relatively long period of time is pretty indicative of a threat. Even though I can understand Zimmerman's perspective and desire to protect his community, I think he was squarely in the wrong. I also, however, object to framing Zimmerman's actions as "hunting", with the insinuation that he was a racist looking for an excuse to kill any black person - I think that oversimplifies a tragic situation.

Same kind of dynamic here - there's this almost compulsive need to frame everyone involved as either all good or all bad. Rittenhouse was "on the wrong side" in the minds of some, therefore Rittenhouse is all bad. Rosenbaum was "on the right side" in the minds of those same people, therefore any actions taken by Rosenbaum were good... or at least entirely justifiable.

 

[Emily Lake]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

 

[Emily Lake]

The vast overwhelming number of traffic deaths are unintentional. Unlike the vast overwhelming number of gun deaths. For starters.

The majority of firearm deaths in the US are suicides.

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/

Also worth noting that a significant number of traffic deaths might be unintentional, but they're the result of reckless disregard for the wellbeing of others. The majority of traffic deaths are the result of people being distracted or excessive speeding. Drunk driving contributes another 30%.

 

[Emily Lake]

The rioters who had committed violence and arson and damage for several nights already get a free pass

… because they weren’t murderers. A murderer gets a free pass from Emily because they hadn’t committed violence and arson and damage for several nights already…

/RW “logic”.

Once again, I'm not right wing. I've told you this repeated - and when people tell you who they are, you're supposed to believe them, right?

Secondly, nobody gets a "free pass". I stand by my view that killing someone in self defense does not make a person a murderer. If you want to call Rittenhouse a "killer", I'm not going to stop you. But framing him as a "murderer" is an affront to common sense and reason.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes. Several people in this thread have taken the position that Rittenhouse did NOT have a right to self-defense... because he shouldn't have been present in the first place, and the fact that he was present and in possession of a firearm makes Rittenhouse the aggressor, and it makes Rosenbaum's actions of chasing down, cornering, and attacking Rittenhouse into a defensive action, and therefore Rittenhouse is a murderer.

Rittenhouse was in violation of the clean hands law doctrine. He purchased the weapon illegally. He entered a closed zone illegally, He was carrying the weapon illegally and it was reported he brandished the weapon which is very illegal and can get you shot if you do it towards police officers.

I know, I know. He totally brought it on himself, he's to blame for being chased, cornered, and attacked by someone else. Did you see what he was wearing?

There's not a single person that night (except for perhaps cops and EMTs) who was there legally - therefore not a single person had clean hands by your logic.

 

[laughing dog]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

 

[laughing dog]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.

Well that'd be ridiculously dumb witted to compare a massively regulated thing and a much lesser regulated thing. A substantial amount of money and regulations go into car safety, both inside and outside the car. And like it or not, cars are a massive part of American infrastructure that powers our national economy.

With cars there comes recognized hazards. We have speed limits, limit the age of people that operate them, have rules regarding what is allowed while driving. Our streets are littered with control devices, even have 20 mph limits near schools. The number of car related deaths has plummeted due to Government intervention. I'm wondering if there is an activity in America that is regulated remotely in the same hemisphere as automobiles.

It sure the heck isn't guns.

This might help clarify things, regarding the inevitable guns deaths resulting from the 2nd Amendment. Its not really an issue of comparing a "regulated thing" versus a "much less regulated thing":

No, It Wasn't Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot

Except in your link, Kirk did compare a regulated thing (driving) to a much less regulated thing (gun ownership).

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.

Well that'd be ridiculously dumb witted to compare a massively regulated thing and a much lesser regulated thing. A substantial amount of money and regulations go into car safety, both inside and outside the car. And like it or not, cars are a massive part of American infrastructure that powers our national economy.

With cars there comes recognized hazards. We have speed limits, limit the age of people that operate them, have rules regarding what is allowed while driving. Our streets are littered with control devices, even have 20 mph limits near schools. The number of car related deaths has plummeted due to Government intervention. I'm wondering if there is an activity in America that is regulated remotely in the same hemisphere as automobiles.

It sure the heck isn't guns.

This might help clarify things, regarding the inevitable guns deaths resulting from the 2nd Amendment. Its not really an issue of comparing a "regulated thing" versus a "much less regulated thing":

No, It Wasn't Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot

Except in your link, Kirk did compare a regulated thing (driving) to a much less regulated thing (gun ownership).

And, efforts are made to reduce deaths for driving. We don't just go "welp, can't do anything about that" and disregard all driving safety.

 

[Emily Lake]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.
Realistically, the only counter to accepting that some drunk driving and addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol, would be to advocate for it being illegal. That's pretty much the only argument you could make that doesn't tacitly accept the trade-off as worth it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Never seen or heard such an argument.

LD... Do you support prohibition? Would you be in favor of making all alcohol completely illegal?

I favor either as much as you favor cannibalism. Any more irrelevant questions?

One could argue that if you support alcohol being legal, then you think that some amount of drunk driving and alcoholism is an acceptable cost.
Realistically, the only counter to accepting that some drunk driving and addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol, would be to advocate for it being illegal. That's pretty much the only argument you could make that doesn't tacitly accept the trade-off as worth it.

That's the only possible argument? Or, how about... we just know that making alcohol illegal doesn't work. So we don't do that. That doesn't mean alcohol related deaths are "worth it". Oh and there are laws against drunk driving too. Wonder why.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Are some vaccine deaths worth it? Everything comes at a cost.

 

[Toni]

The vast overwhelming number of traffic deaths are unintentional. Unlike the vast overwhelming number of gun deaths. For starters.

The majority of firearm deaths in the US are suicides.

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/

Also worth noting that a significant number of traffic deaths might be unintentional, but they're the result of reckless disregard for the wellbeing of others. The majority of traffic deaths are the result of people being distracted or excessive speeding. Drunk driving contributes another 30%.

For the last several years, in the US, firearms have been the leading cause of death for children and teenagers, eclipsing automobile or other accidents, cancer and other diseases.