Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ArabianCamels t1_iy1uw5x wrote

Sure, but Kyle Rittenhouse was an isolated case. Besides, he was acquitted on all counts. I would personally feel safer if more people carried. Arms in the right hands are better than arms in only the wrong ones.


yudkib t1_iy21n9u wrote

It is and it isn’t. If you carry, any altercation within arms reach is immediately a viable self-defense claim. With the SCOTUS gradually making it so people can carry a handgun anywhere, I sincerely fear that there will be a significant rise in SD claims over minor altercations. E.g…. Someone gets pushed into your back at a crowded bar. You can’t see what their intentions are so you pull your gun. If they reach for it, even reflexively, you are legally entitled to kill them in many states.

Rittenhouse was acquitted because Wisconsin law allowed him to successfully argue he was afraid of being shot by his own gun. This isn’t going to be an isolated occurrence.

I’m not sure what fixes it, but it’s what keeps me up at night. People should have a right to self-security, but when lethal altercations are only viable as self defense claims because the shooter brought the gun… I’m not sure how that’s reconciled.

Police already have a hard enough job of managing this and they’re specifically trained on it. Your average yahoo isn’t likely to keep their cool to the same extent and the lines are going to get very blurry as more and more liberty is given to 2A interpretations.


TheValentinePianoman t1_iy2kuni wrote

Sandy hook, parkland and columbine would disagree


ArabianCamels t1_iy4r131 wrote

Did you even take the time to read what I said? Those cases are all cases where BAD people were the ONLY ones with firearms...


TheValentinePianoman t1_iy4u3dd wrote

And what about those kids in Texas who had to wait hours for police to do something? Law enforcement arresting and detaining parents, unarmed parents, for doing what their cowardly officers couldn't