Texas School shooting 19 children and 2 adults murdered

So, just to be clear, if I was a shop owner in the US and you saw a looter trying to set fire to my shop during a riot, you'd be p1ssed off with me for trying to stop them? Glad to know that you are on the looters side.

Even if not one more gun was sold in the US from today, there are still well over 400,000,000 guns in circulation over there. Most of these guns, if minded properly will still work in 100 years time. This problem isn't going away any time soon.

I own 8 guns here in Ireland, am I a gun nut? Just asking if you'd put me in that bracket. Don't worry, I won't be offended by your answer.

And do you think having legally armed civilians makes riots better or worse?

There are riots in other countries, how do they cope?

Do you think it would be easier for police if there were fewer guns at riots? I dont believe there are too many drug lords bringing their guns to riots, far more are just joe soaps who happen to be armed.

It depends on the situation. It can help in some situations and make it worse in others. A row of armed civilians like in the photo I posted above can help protect an area from destruction during a protest or a riot. The building that Rittenhouse and the other armed guys were protecting earlier in the night didn't get burned down while many of the unprotected businesses got burned down.

It's possible that if Rittenhouse hadn't been armed, he might have been assaulted or killed, most likely by Joseph Rosenbaum. Joseph Rosenbaum is on video threatening Rittenhouse earlier in the night. Later that night he attempted to assault Rittenhouse and ended up getting his wings for his stupid actions.

We can argue all day and night about 'but what if Rittenhouse wasn't there, he shouldn't have been there etc. etc.'. Fact is he was there, legally. Fact is he was there armed, legally. Fact is that he shot the three people in self defence. Fact is that he was probably stupid for being there armed but being stupid isn't a crime.

I live in Ireland so it does seem strange that the police would ask for help from armed civilians. I can't really imagine any scenario here in Ireland where that would happen. But this happened in America, and their culture is vastly different to our own therefore they have their own rules. Like it or not, they set their own rules and being armed in certain situations is fine by their rules.

Months after some kids were murdered the talk is all protecting property and law suits. That’s what the gun lobby like to see.

I guess "help" depends on if you think saving buildings at the cost of lives is better than the alternative.

I dont believe a civilian shot and killed anyone at the burned down buildings. Who decides which is the better outcome?

I'd argue is far more likely that Rittenhouse wouldnt have gone near the place if he was unarmed. I'd also argue that he was less likely to be attacked if he was unarmed.

Again and again you fall back on the legality of the situation, despite time and time again people agreeing that while it was/is legal, thats not the bloody point!

I would say looters are pretty stupid, risking a criminal record for a pair of runners in the case of the Dublin riots and you could see in London a lot of criminals were arrested even months after the riots with some being professionals like teachers that lost their jobs. Rittenhouse showed that those protecting the businesses could be stupid too. The police should not have promoted the idea of outside parties coming to the area with guns and very little professional training or experience. If things were so bad the should have got the national guard in.

So Rittenhouse would have been safe if there were even more people with guns? What if the people attacking his militia were greater in number, with even bigger guns?

Maybe my use of the word militia is not 100% correct or maybe it is. There are many definitions of what a militia is. Here's one definition from https://www.yourdictionary.com/militia

Don't forget that the cops sent out a request for citizens to help them during the riots (emergency).

Also, and I want to make this 100% clear, Rittenhouse didn't shoot anybody because he was part of a militia, he shot people because they were actively attacking him while he retreated.

He went to a riot without any formal training or experience in dealing with these sorts of situations. To label him not too bright is being charitable. If you have a gun on you you have to be willing to use it. In the la riots a few years ago you had mothers and children looting stores. He put himself in a situation where he might had to shoot a looter.

But, you don't know this is was a certainty Especially since he pretty much wandered around brandishing his weapon (illegal in many states.) The moron was looking for a challenge. And yes, he's not bright - if you don't want to get shot at, don't go to a riot waving your weapon. Without any body armor as far as the photos show. Stay home.

But, this thread is not about Kyle Rittenhouse (my fault for mentioning his name earlier on.) It's about Uvalde and the massacre there.

Typing on a mobile can result in that.