# "He crossed state lines." **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 21, 2021, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-crossed-state-lines/954705 "2021-11-21T04:49:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 109
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2021, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-crossed-state-lines/954705/109 "2021-11-22T02:34:40Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Chronos, the judge and jury disagree. Walking down the street in an open carry state with a rifle isn’t sufficient cause for violent rioters to assault you. Which I think gets to the heart of the division over this whole affair. Many people believe that carrying a gun, especially openly and doubly so a rifle, is an inherently aggressive and threatening act. That since “unarmed” is the default state of humanity, therefore going armed is a willful departure from a neutral stance. Whereas many advocates of carry wish that going about armed were as unremarkable as wearing a hat, even though they acknowledge that in practice that’s not the case. By the former interpretation Rittenhouse was already the aggressor just by being there with a rifle; by the latter, that he was going about prepared to lawfully defend himself against violence in an unsure situation. So on this point I think the gulf in attitudes is going to be too wide to come to a consensus. Not that it would have mattered in this particular case, but I do wish that if people felt the need to carry long guns in public that they carried them scabbarded, the way most people holster carried handguns. This would be a bit of deescalation showing that they are not ready to fire on a second’s notice. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/he-crossed-state-lines/954705)._