Texas School shooting 19 children and 2 adults murdered

It says a lot about some American's and the gun worshippers that the only possible options they can understand are stand by doing nothing or immediately start shooting.

Many US states have laws that allow citizens to protect themselves and their property with deadly force, it's far from just Texas. @Manic Moran is the expert in that field.

Yes, you are correct that you can still be charged for shooting somebody attacking you. It all depends on what a prosecutor thinks. For example, the prosecutor thought Kyle Rittenhouse murdered two people and seriously injured another illegally. Based on the law, the jury could see that Rittenhouse didn't break the law and that he was acting in self defence. He was actively being chased and assaulted during each of the three shootings. He was even retreating each time.

And where has anybody said that there will be no ramifications for shooting an innocent bystander? Of course there will be ramifications for shooting an innocent bystander. Even the police who shoot innocent bystanders can face ramifications in those circumstances.

Shooting an innocent bystander is a totally different scenario to shooting someone attacking you or trying to burn down your business.

Yep. Its really amazing his hasnt moved into politics. He has the celebrity and cult status the Republicans/NRA love.

Strange he isn't cashing in on his fans. Being an American hero can lead to a lot of money.

I would still think it wrong. I rely on the police if me or my business is being attacked.

This is how the rest of the "we dont have a guns problem" world works.

And the bullets used for those such as the .17HMR, its was created to what? Tickle?

While I agree, as the poster above said, that's victim blaming. Walk around a bad part of Dublin counting a wad of fifties and ya get attacked, well yer dumb. But we can't say that as it's victim blaming. Same rules apply. Now personally I think Rittenhouse is a silly cnut. Maybe will some sort of saviour complex, did you see the vids of him telling people to step back etc like he was a cop or some crap. Then the blubbering on the stand? "And then, and then Mr, Mr Rosenbaum (tears)". He was well schooled, I'd have told him to drop the act. IMHO he went looking for trouble but hey, I can't say that as it's victim blaming.

A court of law established that he broke no laws in doing so.

He did express regret for his actions so at least he realised what he did was stupid. I would blame also the group that he met up with their that left him on his own.if the police had been there at the site of the killing they could have shot him thinking he instigated it.

You should really stick to facts when posting here.

Rittenhouse didn't chase anybody across state lines to attack them nor did Rittenhouse's attackers chase him across state lines. Posting incorrect stuff like that makes the poster look stupid.

I will agree with you that it was probably stupid of Rittenhouse to go there but (and you may or may not agree with this) he went there with good intentions. He went there to help protect property and help others out. There was evidence given at his trial that he had earlier administered first aid to protesters. He was also filmed cleaning up graffiti. Anyway, that's totally irelevant as it was established that he broke no laws by being armed while he was there.

Ha i would be the guy standing behind the boxes. They look like they're ready to go fight in ukraine. I think using those types of weapons in hunting would be overkill so would seem like a waste of money to buy. America does seem to have way more riots than any other countries so i guess it makes sense store owners have more fear of these scenarios.

Those guns though are very suitable for self defense though.

America is a powderkeg. I wouldn't fancy living there.

"whoosh!"

Thats the whole bloody point, Rittenhouse deliberately went into that situation armed. Quelle surprise when someone tried to disarm him. Talk about entrapment.

Again, no one is saying its illegal at the moment. The whole point is that owning these guns should be illegal. Its worrying that you keep falling back to this point as some sort of argument.

Don't equate a child with a business that can be replaced. Quite frankly if someone destroys a shop while I am near it I will be incredibly pissed off if someone decides to go full Rambo. Stray bullets can kill and lives can't be replaced. First thing I learned in self defense is that it should always be last resort. As soon as it goes into that territory you don't know who will or who gets caught in the crossfire if there are guns involved.

As you say the US is a powderkeg. Seems like adding more guns to every situation hasn't worked but I am sure 1 millionth time will be the charm and the rest of the world will see the light. I am sure all the gun nuts can go up to the parents of the next big school shooting and blame windows or something equally pointless to get actual reform out of the headlines asap.

Yes, Rittenhouse deliberately went to the protest armed. As did many others. Most of them went there to protect property as an act of what they believed to be their civic duty. The police actually asked for groups to help them protect businesses. There are clips of the police giving out bottles of water to the people protecting some buildings. Some of the protesters were also armed. The protester who Rittenhouse shot in the arm was armed with a handgun and had it drawn when he attacked Rittenhouse. The protesters who were trying to disarm Rittenhouse were doing so illegally.

I think you have a mistype in your last paragraph. I doubt you are saying that owning these guns 'shouldn't be illegal' given that you are very anit-gun.

Lucky loophole. At least the NRA are thorough.