Texas School shooting 19 children and 2 adults murdered

Rittenhouse might have been foolish to go to Kenosha that night but I'd argue that he handled himself very well when he was under attack. He only shot in self defence and only shot those actively attacking him. Rittenhouse was actively trying to avoid shooting people as he was retreating at the time of all three shootings. Someone with formal training would have done well to do similar while under attack.

I don't know what your point is about if you have a gun on you, you have to be willing to use it. I guess you approve of Rittenhouse's actions so because he did have a gun on him and he showed he was willing to use it.

I personally think he made a mistake going to Kenosha that night but making that kind of mistake is no indication if someone is not too bright. Maybe he felt it was his civic duty to go and help the people of Kenosha protect their businesses as the cops had called for.

Im saying that rioters are not always young men with criminal records that can be painted as being violent and deserving of death. If he had killed a woman or child he would be judged more harshly, even if they were looters. At least we are in agreement that it was a stupid move to go to Kenosha during a riot.

I dont think you understand the meaning of the word hypocritical. It is admirable if he was providing first aid to rioters but if he was willing to put himself between rioters and businesses and he was armed he was putting himself in a situation where he might have a shoot and kill a looter, and the looter may not be a convicted criminal but a woman or child.

Ah autocorrect is a b#tch. I agree he was attacked and shot in self defense. I was being hypothetical but only to point out stupid a decision it is to bring a gun to a riot as he could have been forced to shoot a looter in fear of his life if they rushed the store he was proetecting and he may kill someone who is more sympathetic in the eyes of the public. Like why put yourself in that situation to protect someone elses property, to have someone elses blood on your hands.

Only if you cant see how the availability weapons and commonality of owning and brandishing ones relates the two cases.

I am on the side of there not being a firefight in my general location. Not on the looters side since in that incidence they are also putting my life at risk. However I would prefer no one escalate the situation. I mean I get it defending someone's life, I can't rate my life above someone else's in their eyes. I will absolutely hold any risk to my life over any piece of property.

Yes the US has a massive massive massive problem with guns without any more being sold. Not sure selling more will fix the issue though.

Not sure on the gun nut thing. Less about the amount of guns and more about the attitude of them. Your focus is definitely more about the use of guns as opposed to hard actions to not only stop school shooters but also stop the attempts. Honestly I don't think it was just removing the guns that helped other countries as much as the steadfast attitude of never again that happened in the UK/Aus/NZ. I doubt every restriction was needed but they knew as a society they needed to stop shootings at source. The US is far more worried about "oh is this particular restriction needed or can we talk about something else" as opposed to worrying about the kids first.