Let me know if you need more as this from just page one of about 25 pages.

And note this is JUST suicides.

Man. You’re one of the most delusional people I’ve ever encountered

Standing on your front law displaying a weapon to an angry mob and drawing attention to yourself is a. very much on the vigilante side of the spectrum, no matter how much you want to quibble about definitions and b. not rational or sensible.

A guy was bragging that in Texas you can open carry in a bar. I joked 'what could possible go wrong' and he got kind of mad.

I hate to be extreme as I've enjoyed hunting and shooting at the range in the past but....at this point, no one in the US should probably be allowed to own a hand gun unless it's police/military etc. It's too out of control.

We're debating if it's okay to stand on your lawn and egg on an angry mob if they come through your neighborhood. A fair percentage of the population seems to think that's rational and common sense to do such things.

At some point you stop feeding your kids candy and let them crash and fall asleep. They'll be less excitable when the buzz wears off.

Right, and as I said in the last sentence of my post, there is no debate that the success rate of suicide by gun is higher than other methods. It does what it's designed to do very well.

So you're saying in the countries with higher suicide rates than the USA per 100K people, that their rates would be higher if they had access to firearms?

Again, I don't think any mentally ill person should have access to guns. I also don't think criminals should have access to guns, but they seem to always do.

I like the implication that the homeowner is at fault by standing on his property with a weapon as his neighbor's house burns to the ground and the "angry mob" is doing nothing wrong here.

Yeah, mobs burning down people's homes for no personal reasons are just fine, but don't do something to antagonize them, such as protect your family from death, because you may anger them more and they may put themselves into a situation where they are killed in self-defense and that would not be right and make you a vigilante.

I love how I'm a pacifist, yet have to sound like a gun nut by suggesting that it's okay for a homeowner to protect his family from a violent mob when police can't or refuse to be there.

Curious to the Deuces, QP, and Flushes... was Ashli Babbitt murdered in cold blood or killed in order to defend others?

Why the need to compare countries, a comparison which will be complicated by many different factors, when several of Cuepee's links showed differences within the US?

Ashli Babbitt, like all people who wear that stupid red hat, is mentally ******ed and got what she deserved.

The mob is doing plenty wrong. You're acting like a vigilante when you openly threaten force before it's needed to protect yourself. If it worked like you seem to think it does it might be the safer option, but it doesn't. There are plenty of videos you can watch where people start to test the homeowners. That's exactly what I don't want during a riot. It's exactly what happened in the KR situation.

The only part of the last sentence I would dispute is the part before the comma. No one itt has ever suggested you can't protect yourself, the disagreement is with how that's best done. Some of you guys still think a gun is a magic safety blanket that will make all the bad guys run away. But it's not. And many of the bad guys either have one too or just don't care. They're facts to consider when deciding to try to scare the crowd.
IMO (and the old wisdom) it's best not to use a gun to scare people. Don't show it until you're ready to kill them. That's what it's for. Don't use it for anything else.

Wasn't saying to compare different countries, but you don't think those dynamics exist while comparing a state like Wyoming with a state like New York?

But yes, I agree that a firearm is the most effective method.


Those are your emotions speaking. Was she killed in self-defense or was she an unarmed rioter who was murdered?

If a mob burning down houses just burned your neighbor's house down, I think it's safe to say yours is next. What videos are you talking about?

That's your impression based on the fact that you will keep running until there is no place left to run to.


Well, there's a reason why an AR15 was used in the military. Seems to be very effective against crowds who are armed, based on its history.

A handgun against a crowd, not so much, but an AR15? Yes. The Rittenhouse example, whether you agree with his decisions or not, illustrate how effective an AR15 is at crowd control. Have you watched any of those videos?

Ashli Babbitt? Killed in self-defense or an unarmed rioter who was murdered?

I would generally not voluntarily agree with QP, but I'm a psychiatrist and he's completely right. There is rather overwhelming evidence that reducing access to guns reduces the suicide rate. In fact, reducing access to any lethal means reduces the suicide rate -- people don't, for the most part, just find some other method. I absolutely believe that the suicide rate would go up nearly everywhere if guns were more available there.

You are just being obtuse. This is not 'ME' saying.

Do we have to get on a call so I can read the research and articles to you I just posted above as all the data and studies are cited there?

It is in part what Original Poster says which is people are far more likely to finish the job if they have a gun. But it ALSO ends up increasing the rates of suicide as well due to how expedient and available an accessible makes the act.

No question on that one. She was killed to defend others.


The biggest weapon the Insurrectionist had was overwhelming police with numbers by getting proximity to them, surrounding them on all sides with overwhelming numbers and then making their use of weapons or any type of fighting back meaningless.


Time and again they used that tactic, surrounding the police.

Had Ashli penetrated that last barrier and the police not acted and a stream of her fellow insurrectionists followed those on the inside would be at the mercy of the Insurrectionists. The Police, and Secret Service would be saying 'their safety is now in your hands and we can do nothing'.

You cannot have that with Congress or at POTUS where you surrender the security of them as your charges to the MOB and then just hope the mob does nothing too bad.

This one is not even a question.

Cute. Did my use of the word "you" there really confuse you?

Yes, and most people will see that last barrier being their homes with their families in it, so bringing out a firearm is justifiable just as it was here.

And as you can see, blasting one of those fools led to everyone stopping their forward pursuit.

So how were Rittenhouse's shootings not in self-defense again?

Rittenhouse left his house to travel to Kenosha with an AR-15 into a riot-zone.

Not quite the same thing as defending yourself against a mob while you were sitting at home minding your own business watching TV.

(I agreed with the verdict; I'm just addressing your analogy.)

Sure, but that does not mean he loses his right to self-defense, which you likely agree with if you agree with the verdict.

I'm just flummoxed by those who see a charging Rosenbaum as murder but see a charging Babbitt as self-defense.

I suspect that the short answer is that in one case the victim wore a MAGA hat, while in the other case the victims did not.

WTF is going on here?

I have said from the very start I thought KR acted in self defense.

I also said America has some very seriously shitty laws that allow people to go in to areas of obvious provocation to then claim self defense.

Two things can be true at the same time.


If there are future BLM street protests where activists have flooded the streets and shut down roads and bubba's in pick up trucks then purposely drive in to the middle of it and then end up running over numerous people when threatened, two things can be true here.

The bubba's in the middle of a angsty protest provoking them can end up seriously threatened and thus end up using self defense to escape killing many people. True.

The bubba's had no place driving in to the midst of that protest knowing it would provoke them, and then to run them over and kill them in self defense.

It is stupidity to allow this to happen and it was wrong for the Police to allow KR and those others to flood the zone with AR's in obvious provocation.

No one loses their right of self defense and I see no one saying that so enough with the strawmen.


If we know this protest march is coming down certain streets...





I would be against a BLM activist walking directly in to the center of it, armed to the teeth and looking to go out with a blaze of glory the minute any of the WS tried to fight him.

Could the BLM activist be in legit danger in the center of that mass? Yes. Could he legit be using self defense when he pulled out his guns and started blasting away? Yes.

Does he have to give up his right of self defense? NO.

But is there ****ing something very wrong with any society who says his actions were justified as he has a right to self defense without acknowledging that he should never have put himself in that spot in the first place? Yes, very much so.

So many hypotheticals.
Reality is this was an isolated incident in an extreme situation.
Laws are never perfect and can’t account for every situation and protect everyone. the people who died were out looking for trouble and found it. If KR died instead I would say the same.
No need to change any laws bc of this, 99.9% of the population is just as safe under the current laws, and the ones who aren’t safe are the rosenbaums, grosewitz, and rittenhouses, but who really cares?

Seems like there are some pretty obvious differences in the Babbitt case. She was killed entering a building illegally by someone not only authorized to be there but who’s job requires a firearm. If someone read on the internet about how Trump supporters were going to terrorize and subvert democracy, showed up to DC armed to stop them and shot her on the Capitol steps after an altercation that would be closer. And that person would have been charged.

The big problem with Rittenhouse is somebody else standing next to one of his victims could have killed Rittenhouse and used the same self defense argument he used. So the laws are pretty bad if you could kill Rittenhouse but he wasn’t breaking any laws.

She was defies rioter. She broke into the capital. Are you saying Rosenbaum was a rioter? Please provide examples of damage her personnaly did that night. Fired he set, etc. I’ll wait.

Yup.

This lawyer is one my favoured talking head lawyers and he reasons the same. Either KR or Grosewitz would have had a claim of self defense in the event they killed the other.



His review covers all angles very well.