Rather than advocating for the ethical bearing of arms, gun culture is enabling permissive, reckless, and ill-considered behavior that's placing people in serious lethal and legal jeopardy.
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.
If the community had bound together to stop the violence in the streets in the first place there would not be a reason to open carry or to have to protect yourself. There in, is the failure of our society. In Europe, specifically in Hungary, the violence is stopped before it comes to a point where people have to consider protecting themselves with firearms. It starts with a society's mental state. There is our sickness we need to change our way of thinking about each other. I remember a better society where we all helped each other and looked after our families and our old ones. We didn't open carry back then.
I haven’t thought much about open carry. It’s legal in VA where I’m from but I don’t own a gun (yet). Are you against open carry in general?
Also (if you are), what are your thoughts on openly displaying firearms while riding in a vehicle? I think that can be rude, but a vehicle is treated the same as a house under castle doctrine I believe so laws against open carry don’t apply.
It does bug me when Republican politicians and others fetishize firearms with photos on social media of ridiculous poses etc. but unlike the rest of my family I otherwise like guns and I plan to buy one when I can afford to.
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.
About as well as I’ve heard this articulated.
If the community had bound together to stop the violence in the streets in the first place there would not be a reason to open carry or to have to protect yourself. There in, is the failure of our society. In Europe, specifically in Hungary, the violence is stopped before it comes to a point where people have to consider protecting themselves with firearms. It starts with a society's mental state. There is our sickness we need to change our way of thinking about each other. I remember a better society where we all helped each other and looked after our families and our old ones. We didn't open carry back then.
Sounds like David French’s argument.
I haven’t thought much about open carry. It’s legal in VA where I’m from but I don’t own a gun (yet). Are you against open carry in general?
Also (if you are), what are your thoughts on openly displaying firearms while riding in a vehicle? I think that can be rude, but a vehicle is treated the same as a house under castle doctrine I believe so laws against open carry don’t apply.
It does bug me when Republican politicians and others fetishize firearms with photos on social media of ridiculous poses etc. but unlike the rest of my family I otherwise like guns and I plan to buy one when I can afford to.
I agree whole heartedly withbwhst you are say but do you think Rittenhouse should have stood down and not pretected himself or his families property?