It's okay. I asked whether a violent individual who had threatened to kill a person and was trying to grab that person's gun would give that person a reasonable belief that the threat was serious. I think it does, regardless of wider opinion on gun culture.
No gun and not there - no problem.
With respect, that still doesn't answer the question. I get why it is tricky to answer. One can make arguments all day about whether he should have been there, but the fact is, he was, and he was jumped by Rosenbaum, which kicked the whole thing off.
Which question, be specific.
I don't think you or anyone should be owning, let alone openly carrying a gun at all, in any situation, trying to play cowboys in a dangerous environment.
Anyway, it has been a good chat. We disagree fundamentally and likely always will on this issue. But you have been civil and more importantly, haven't hit the damn block button. 😜 Have a great weekend. 👍
Like I said, I am not debating in bad faith. I do appreciate your civility too and commend you for it. I think this exchange was an endorsement of this platform over Twitter/X, say.
But you must surely agree that if an individual threatened to kill me and tried to grab any gun I held, without provocation from me, it would not be unreasonable for me to believe that he might be serious?
Rittenhouse was following the current laws in WI. If you're being honest that should be your only consideration. Not your personal beliefs on what the law should be & tailoring it to fit your argument.
Absolutely not. Slavery was legal once - by that logic, you wouldn't question it. The reason your country is in such a state is because some many of you guys only think in terms of rights and laws, not social and moral obligations. Not what is actually right and wrong. That's why you're fucked.
Let's see if I have this right. Follow The Law = Bad Break The Law = Good Is that what you're saying? 😂 It's never socially or morally wrong to defend yourself against unprovoked attacks. Never.
I would also argue that going somewhere with a loaded gun on full display is threatening in and of itself. Hence why I don't think any civilians should have guns, let alone loaded ones, open carry.
Rosenbaum had no moral or legal justification. He had already been thwarted in an arson attack by a person with a fire extinguisher. He attacked Rittenhouse as he was taking a fire extinguisher to deal with a burning car. Guns had nothing to do with it.
No, not at all - you're way off. Something being legal or illegal does not automatically decide whether it is morally correct. Hence why I mentioned the difference between rights and obligations. Take extramarital affairs. They are legal. Are they morally right?